Is Christianity Better For Society Than Secular Atheism

One-on-one debates

Moderator: Moderators

WinePusher

Is Christianity Better For Society Than Secular Atheism

Post #1

Post by WinePusher »

Abraxas and I have agreed to do a head to head debate on the topic of whether Christianity is better and more prudent philosophy for a society than Secular Atheism.

I will be affirming the positive in this discussion, and that secularism and atheism are ultimatly detrimental and harmful. Let me also add that this debate will primarily revolve around the context of American society and public policy.

User avatar
Abraxas
Guru
Posts: 1041
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:20 pm

Post #11

Post by Abraxas »

WinePusher wrote:
Abraxas wrote:That is beside the point. The point is the penalty for killing a fetus is explicitly different than that for killing a person, the harm from the act being considered to be against the father, not the fetus. This is inconsistent with the idea the Bible treats a fetus as a full person.
According to OT biblical law? Or modern American Laws? But the Bible clearly states that the fetus has a God given soul "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you." Jer 1:4-5
Uh, that is not what the passage you quoted says. It says that God knew them before they were in the womb, not while they were in the womb. This rather oddly implies life starts before conception, or, conversely, that God knew them before they existed, which, being an all knowing being, makes more sense.
WinePusher wrote:It is inconsistent logic on the pro choice side to permitt mothers to file malpractice cases aganist physicians who damage or harm the fetus. If the fetus is not a viable life, then physicians who accidentially do harm to it have no accountability on that logic.

Abraxas wrote:On the contrary, it harms the mother. It would be inconsistent to allow abortion but then sue the doctor for wrongful death, I would agree, but that is not what you asserted.
It harms the mother? Are you asserting the the fetus is the "property" of the mother and she has supreme authority over it and can do whatever she wishes. Such as smoke during her preganacy.
I don't recall mentioning property, no. Are you going to deny harming the fetus harms the mother in some fashion?
Abraxas wrote:Not true, he explicitly stated the only sin requiring penance for abortion was for the sexual act involve, no penance need be made for the loss of the fetus itself.
That does not mean he supported the practice. One can have neutral feelings on a matter but not explicitly support it.
Yes, but neutral positions are inherently pro-choice. One must develop a position against it in order to want a legal prohibition.
Abraxas wrote:But that the church is (or is not) united today rather proves my point. You are attempting to portray Christianity as a sort of stable foundation for the moral fabric of society while simultaneously ignoring the fact that Christian views have both varied widely over time and thus we have every reason to expect they will continue to change, and that there isn't all that much agreement among Christians on many social issues already. If the churches cannot agree, and cannot be counted on to remain consistent, how can we expect them to act as a concrete bedrock for values?
As I said before, the majority of conservative, traditional churches stand for life, when you read through the bible you will find verse after verse speaking on this subject recognizing the value of a fetus
( http://www.priestsforlife.org/brochures/thebible.html ). There is a wide consensus amoung the mainstream, traditional churches and the only discontent found is amoung liberal christianity which interprets scripture differently than we do. To cite discontentment amoung a small minority of churches on abortion does not destroy the credibility of Christianity. Now, just because you cite two saints that have neutral positions and abortion does NOT mean that the Church has always been consistent on the issue, it has.
To claim it is a small minority of churches is dishonest. As the polls I linked to earlier showed, as of 2007 there was a clear majority of Christians with a pro-choice stance and in 2009 it was very close to even. As for the Church being consistent, again, the links I provided earlier show otherwise. Two popes and two saints held pro-choice views, two popes later held pro-life views. This cannot be spun to say the church has always held the same view, it simply does not match with reality. What this demonstrates is the church has changed and will probably continue to change to reflect the dominant political and social paradigms of the age.

Thusly, if you want to claim that a prolife position is inherently superior for society (an argument you still have yet to support), you need to show Christianity is going to provide a prolife culture in society, something it has not historically done.
Abraxas wrote:Sometimes. The most recent poll from AC news supports that they support and reject it almost evenly. However, as recently as 2007, there was a clear majority among American Christians in favor of abortion. Clearly the number is subject to a lot of change over a short period of time and that presently Christians seem to oppose it does again, not indicate that the Christian majority will oppose it tomorrow. You still have yet to demonstrate that Christianity will stand against abortion in the long run.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/60293 . Here's a more recent poll. Now, I cannot demonstrate something that may or may not take place in the future, the Church is governed by falliable people and if they remain true to their traditional history, they will continue to stand for life. But if they succume to the social liberalism then they won't.
More recent, yes, but I put less faith in a webpoll on a Christian website than one conducted by ABC news. Further, that poll lacks the demographic breakdown I considered important to the argument. The fact is, you have now shifted the argument from Christianity is good for society to "certain forms of tradition conservative Christianity" are good for society in the long run. Are you backing off the point that Christianity in general is good? If so, can I select a very specific subset of atheism (as you have with Christianity) in going forward to show an ideal model?
Abraxas wrote:Of course. That wasn't my question though. Should the government ever be allowed to force someone to let someone else use their body for any reason against their will?
No, the government should not force a woman to do somethingelse with their body. But what exactly is the government forcing a woman to do in this issue. Give birth? Even if she aborts the fetus she will still have to give birth, is the government forcing her to take care of the baby forever, no. And you dodge my point, the role of a government is to defend and uphold all of our three unalienable rights which includes a right to life. Do you agree with Jueno, that "All Babies Want To Be Borned?" Do you agree that the unborn child has absolutly no voice or say? Let me ask you, do you think abortion is all stages should be permitted. And do you think that there should be a time when abortion is not permitted?
Depends on how you define abortion.

However, before we go there, I want to get back to my question. You have now stated you do not support the government ever being allowed to force people to allow another person to use their body against their will. However, the "prolife" position inherently demands the opposite. It demands that the government be allowed to force a pregnant woman to allow a fetus to use her body against her will. This seems like a contradiction to me, that on the one hand you hold that the government should not force a person to give up control of their own body but simultaneously argue for laws that do just that.

As for your question, I do not believe that the mother ever has the right to terminate the life of the fetus directly. However, I do believe the mother has the right to remove the fetus from her body at any time, however, when doing so, all possible measures must be taken to protect the fetus. If protecting the fetus is not possible, then death is an acceptable side effect of removing the fetus.
Abraxas wrote:Which is something else entirely. Correlation, were that accurate, could simply mean people who need counseling are more likely to have abortions. Simply asserting the majority of people who ahve abortions seek therapy and so forth, when all you have is a weak correlation is simply false.
Have you proven the correlation to be weak? And are you really purporting that abortion absolutly has no mental effect on the mother? The pro abortion President and Speaker have said that they want to "limit the number of abortions" has it is does harm the motehr.
Yes, the link provided from the APA, among others, earlier in the thread indicated there was no strong correlation and what correlation there was seemed to be a causal factor in having the abortion to begin with rather than a result of said abortion.

I don't believe either the speaker or the president are psychologists. Regardless, I don't think you will find anyone who doesn't want to reduce the number of abortions, a lot of us just think there are better ways to do it than making it illegal. Specifically, I support expanding resources available to the people most inclined to have abortions to reduce demand for them.
WinePusher wrote:Unspurprisingly, California voted to reject a proposition known as Sarah's Law, which would require minors to inform their parents if they were to have an abortion. Named after a minor named Sarah who had an abortion but died from an infection whom no one knew about.

Abraxas wrote:I don't know what this has to do with the above. Could you enlighten me?
Well, it seems that her abortion ultimatly caused her death due to a cut which led to an infection that she would not tell anyone. Another unhealthy cause of abortion.
Complications from the medical procedure coupled with her fear of her parents caused her death, yes. It was her decision not to seek medical care that ultimately led to her death, however.
Abraxas wrote:The FDA seems to disagree with you, as they approved a treatment using embryonic stem cells to treat spinal cord injuries just last year.
Does that mean the treatment has been successful?????? Can you show that embryonic stem cells have been a successful medical tool. As I said, there has been much progress in the area of adult stem cells, not embryonic http://medical-biotechnology.suite101.c ... l-research
Now you are shifting the goalposts. Initially you said:

"If embryotic stem cells can be shown to regenerate lost tissue or cells, than I'd have a more favorable view. But they cannot, and they are simply the subject of pure experimentation."

I cited an FDA approved trial to treat spinal cord injuries that has come from embryonic stem cells that started last year. This is beyond merely the experimental stage and is now in the clinical trial stage, as are the adult stem cell treatments. I never argued a complete and perfected treatment emerged from it, just that the actual doctors involved hold that there in fact is very real potential for embryonic stem cells to heal very real injuries, contrary to your earlier assertions.
Abraxas wrote:Actually, under your definition of playing God all of the above is playing God, as is the whole idea of a culture of life. Culture of life, is, after all, our own standards. Every time a triage situation comes up and a doctor has to pick between treating and potentially saving two people comes up, it would be playing God. My point in all this is you have yet to establish a problem with playing God, least of all playing God with one's self.
Can you cite examples when doctors have done this? As far as I know, rationing has not taken place in Amerca.
An example of triage care in America?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage#Uni ... s_military
And lets see, by playing God, I mean that humans determine whether another human can live or die by their own prejudices and biases. I would consider Hitler an example of this, not doctors who try to minimize pain and death, and police officer who try to minimize pain and death; and last time I checked Hitler was a problem.
How does your definition not include doctors or cops? A cop chooses that the person will die because that person is threatening him or another the police officer finds this bad. The doctor performs life saving surgery because he finds this good. How is this not playing God under your definition.
Abraxas wrote:Well then, in that case may I ask what euthanasia you oppose? What you cited is the only variety of euthanasia of which I am aware. If you don't have a problem with it and I don't have a problem with it, what is the problem with it?
I oppose euthnasia over agnozination that will not lead to death, I oppose euthanasia over depression.
Do you have examples of someone supporting those?
Abraxas wrote:It was a poor point. You choose one quote snippet, which, even if in context would be a from a single extremist, and then attempt to apply that standard across all of atheism.
Not one quote snippet, but entire books full of these ideas that do not belong only to Singer. The secular left in America seems to agree with his ideas, do they not?
No, I don't believe I have ever encountered another part of the American Secular left that holds that killing newborns is anything other than murder.
Abraxas wrote:I am aware. However, you further endorse methods which result in mass civilian casualties as a means to kill those terrorists, which is devaluing human life.
Well, in the context of war unfortunatly some innocents will end up in the wrong place at the wrong time. But our cause is not one which "devalues human life" as it is not our intention to murder innocents. Our cause is just as our only intent is to prevent more suicide bombings on America, which in and of itself is a defense of life. Our soldiers have been taught and encouraged by the president to practice restraint and we ahev not inflicting lasting collateral damage to those areas. The fact is our army, and this nation, try in every possible way to help the civilians there and fight a "moral" war, but you seem to only be focusing on the negative of civilian casualites that are niether are accidents.
I do not make a distinction between intending to kill civilians and intending to kill terrorists with weapons that we know will kill civilians too. The civilian deaths are not accidents, not in the usual meaning of the word, they are "collateral damage", a phrase that devalues human life if ever I heard one. When blown up, civilians are beyond help. That we have inflicted orders or magnitude more loss of life, especially among civilians, than we have prevented, would that not be the very definition of devaluing human life?
Abraxas wrote:From what small data set am I drawing broad ranging conclusions? That is, after all, what a hasty generalization is.


I have no clue from what data your drawing on, but all data regarding hitlers true beliefs is inconclusive, and to assume from inconclusive data that hitler was catholic, let alone claim that his motives were influenced by catholicism, is a hasty generalization.
That is not what a hasty generalization is.

Regardless, Hitler's beliefs are hardly inconclusive. The only evidence to the contrary are remarks made by Albert Speer, who, even then, set the statements in the context of wishing Christianity were more like Islam or Shinto which had a greater emphasis on obedience to the state. Otherwise, the vast bulk of statements, recorded both in public and private indicate he was in fact a Christian.
Abraxas wrote:So, we both agree publicly he protrayed himself as a Catholic, and used the Christian faith to stir up antisemitic feelings that led to the holocaust. Two points here, first, the onus is on you to demonstrate the Catholic front he used is fake, done by citing his private statements that you reference. Second, more damagingly, Hitler's private religious views really are irrelevant. If you accept the above, you accept that Christianity was used as a mechanism to devalue life, even if done so by a non-Christian (which I still expect to be supported). That would still undercut your claim that Nazi Germany was a secular or atheistic society, but would instead demonstrate it was a Christian society that devalued life and participated in its destruction.
Here, you are going off the false premise that because Hitler used Christianity as a propoganda tool, that the churches in turn followed, obeyed and supported him. I'm sure that there were some Christian leaders and people that supported these intiatives, as there were some Christian leaders and people who vehemently opposed Hitler. Secondly, your reference to the "devaluization of life" is undoubtly the holocaust, which I trust you know that only after the defeat of the Axis did the world learn of its atrocities. The fact is, christianity did not support the holocaust as most were oblivious to its existence.
I am not referring to the world at large, I am referring to Nazi Germany itself which showed very little resistance to the Nazi party and the Holocaust during Hitler's reign. Beyond that, I am referring to the belief set of the guards and the dominant religion of the Nazi party, which was undeniably predominantly Catholic.
WinePusher wrote:What about the Crusades? Would you rather all of western culture be dominated by Islam? The crusades were an effort to combat the Muslims invasions of Europe, who at the time controlled Spain and were making their way in Italy.
Abraxas wrote:Westernised Islam looks little different from Christianity, though I would grieve for the loss of bacon. The Crusades were not about stopping expansion, were they doing that, the focal point would not have been Jerusalem, but rather fought as defensive holding actions on the Christian side of the border of the Ottoman Empire. Instead the Crusades were repeated aggressive pushes into areas not controlled by any Christian power.
Incorrect. One campaign of the crusades was to retake the Holy Land. Several others were fought in Spain to block Muslim invasions into northern europe and other parts.
Let us review the Crusades:

1st: Aggressive action on Jerusalem.
2nd: Muslims attacked Edessa, followed by Christian attacks on Jerusalem and Damascus.
3rd: Saladin seized control of Jerusalem and other important cities, Christians attempted to retake.
4th: Christians attempted to attack Jerusalem.
5th: Christians attempted to attack Jerusalem.
6th: Not even really a Crusade.
7th: Egypt attacked Jerusalem, Louis tried to take it back.
8th. Louis attempted to attack Muslim lands.
9th. Edward attacked Muslim lands.

Of the 8 actual crusades, only two of them were a response to Muslim aggression, they being the third and 7th. The rest were Christian aggression.

Abraxas wrote:We've had many threads on him before, I am as unconvinced of his findings now as I was then. His problem is he relies to heavily on the records kept by the inquisition while assuming that a full record both exists and has been discovered, and that all actions of the Inquisition were documented. Further, too much of his emphasis lies strictly on the executions that took place, his work lacking hard numbers for those who died during torture or in prison due to Inquisition activities.


Well, I'm not going to debate the validity of henry Kayman, but considering you cite atrocities committed by Christians that took places centuries ago, I assume you cannot find any modern atrocities?
I have cited the Holocaust, and could continue to cite things like Croatian extermination camps, the exorcism of Anneliese Michel, or the role of Catholic clergy in the Rwanda massacre. However, the major atrocities of Christianity, of which I have barely begun to touch upon, are more than sufficient to demonstrate Christianity is not inherently beneficial. The culture surrounding it in many western countries certainly is, as evidenced by our agreed stance there are very few modern Christian atrocities of scale.
In fact, the last centurary was ravaged by two prominent atheist/communist leader, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong. Both followed the steps of Karl Marx, both killed millions and deprived their citizens of their basic rights, both outlawed Christianity and burned the churches, and both greatly outweigh any christian atrocity that can be cited.
Without derailing this thread into a thread on communism, neither Stalin nor Mao followed in the steps or teachings of Marx. Further, more to the point, the majority of those deaths were caused by famines that were the result of poor agricultural practices rather than deliberate abuses. Further, none or at most almost none of the of the deaths were the result of atheism, but rather the result of a political power that demanded absolute loyalty to none but itself. Communism was certainly the language they cloaked this totalitarianism, and atheism is frequently a component part of communism, the bottom line was those atrocities were the result of state power rather than religious composition.
Abraxas wrote:Which is tangent to whether Christians can and do devalue life. Regardless of whether it is scripture, though "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" seems pretty explicit to me, the fact is once again scripture was used as an excuse to persecute and murder other humans.
Wrong. If we're going to look at Salem lets at least get an idea into what the communities were thinking. They obviously viewed the accused witches as spawns of the Devil, and un-human, thus they were burned because of the fact that they were not human, but witches.
Yes, it allowed them to view humans as something other than humans so that they may be murdered. Devaluing human life.
Abraxas wrote:By monetary entitlements you mean they take better care of their poor and whimsical lifestyles they have more leisure time.
Yes. They work meger hours cause they get nice unearned checks from the government. And do they take better care of their poor? By whose standards? Because America does not have such a lofty welfare system as Europe does, does not mean we don't take better care of the poor. We think it wrong to mandate charity and relie so heavily on the government to take care of you, which is why private sector charities in America thrive.
Please stop using "we". You do not speak for the majority of Americans, nor the majority of Christians on this matter. Further, the idea that "handouts" are a bad thing is perhaps the most unChristian of all sentiments. The idea that humans are inherently valuable, that they deserve certain treatment just for the fact they are human better expresses the value a society places on human life than mere platitudes about lazy bums and unearned checks. The fact is, Europe has a higher standard of living than the US on average and a much higher standard of living for the least well off classes. I can cite UN reports, among others, if you seriously want to dispute that.
Abraxas wrote:Both sound good to me. Though, I will say I think that has little to do with religion but more the emergence of a Labour party early in their democratic history. That is for another thread, however.
To the contrary, I think this is quite relevant to the topic (having to do with economic justice) and would like to explore it further. Do you think government welfare is an effective mean to alleviate poverty?
No. I do think it is an effective mechanism to control much of the damage done by poverty, however.
The fact is, in America, the system does not keep you down and with hard work and diligence you can have a good life. No one is entitled to money from the government at the exspence of hard working tax paying Americans, what your entitled to do is work and make a living for yourself, not sit around all day and mooch off of an unearned welfare check and make no contribution to society.
Yes, because Jesus said of the poor let them get a job and stop sponging off the charity of others, yes? As for a little hard work getting you ahead in America, you don't seriously believe that do you? Social mobility has been in decline for decades and real wages have been frozen almost as long. The vast majority of Americans die in the social class they were born into. Contrary to the beliefs of conservatives, the market is an exceedingly poor mechanism by which to fight poverty and continued deregulation has done more to demonstrate it than any level of theoretical argument could ever hope to achieve.
Abraxas wrote:Yes, the religious groups in California did vote to continue to discriminate against homosexuals. Liberal or Conservative really has very little to do with Christian and non-Christian. As for whether it is democratic, honestly, I don't care. Many great advances in civil rights came from the courts. Marriage used to always be between one man and one woman of the same color. The fact something has always been one way does not mean it always should be some way, this is the very definition of appeal to tradition and it is a logical fallacy.
Here is how democratic societies work. If the citizens want a new law created (to include gays in marriage) they either put it on a proposition or tell their congressman. The congress or the citizens vote, if they vote yes then gays can marry. But to violate this democratic principle and suggest that the courts have a right to make new law is absurd. And what good reason have the courts cited that marriage is a "civil right?" Your right is to live together and spend the rest of your lives together, which no one prohibits.
I thank Micatala for saving me some footwork on this one, and will cite his posts here:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 732#311732

and here:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 613#311613

Those two posts constitute extensive theoretical and legal argumentation for why marriage is a right and how it is being denied.
WinePusher wrote:There is an overt attack on Christianity and God by the left, wanting to strip God from the pledge

Abraxas wrote:Was never in the pledge to begin with. Why should it not be removed?


Cause it was added..........Why shouldn't it be in there. Are atheists this sensitive.
It was never there originally and it breaks the flow of the pledge, further, it implies atheists are not citizens which is a violation of the constitution. There is no good reason for it to be there, it was never there to begin with, so why should we not restore the original version?
Abraxas wrote:and the Christmas tree star. The only thing harmful about Christianity is when it is not promoted and/or incorporated into a society.

WinePusher wrote:Seems to me the long history of violence, oppression, and ignorance does a lot more damage once integrated than without. If the above are attacks on Christianity we could do with a few more.
I'm sorry, but this is a blanketed statement that is factually incorrect. If you look at history, you will see the universities were established by the churches in Europe, you'll see that the hospitals were established by Christians and missionaries, you'll see the church promoted learning through the establishment of catholic schools.
I never said violence, oppression, and ignorance were all that Christianity brought but it is undeniable Christianity has a long and distinguished history of each.
Abraxas wrote:I will note we moved from the factual accuracy of evolution now to whether religion should be taught in schools. Did you wish to continue pursuing whether religion has and continues to play a role in restraining and hiding knowledge that atheism does not or is the point conceded?
Yes. And it doesn't, having creationism taught alongside evolution is not hiding knowledge. Catholics creating the second largest school system other than the public is not hiding knowledge.
Yes, creationism being taught along side evolution does hide knowledge as it implies the two are equal when they are not. Evolution is a testable, observable phenomenon whose understanding is required for the for the advancement of fields of study vital to our species and to our nation. Creationism offers nothing in the way of testability, results, or advancement for our species and routinely gets in the way of imparting useful knowledge.

As for the schools hiding or not hiding knowledge, that depends on what they are teaching, does it not?

WinePusher

Post #12

Post by WinePusher »

WinePusher wrote:According to OT biblical law? Or modern American Laws? But the Bible clearly states that the fetus has a God given soul "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you." Jer 1:4-5
Abraxas wrote:Uh, that is not what the passage you quoted says. It says that God knew them before they were in the womb, not while they were in the womb. This rather oddly implies life starts before conception, or, conversely, that God knew them before they existed, which, being an all knowing being, makes more sense.
New Revised Standard Version Bible: Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I consecrated you." The passage I quoted does say that, and it shows that biblically, a fetus is a life.
WinePusher wrote: It harms the mother? Are you asserting the the fetus is the "property" of the mother and she has supreme authority over it and can do whatever she wishes. Such as smoke during her preganacy.
Abraxas wrote:I don't recall mentioning property, no. Are you going to deny harming the fetus harms the mother in some fashion?
It seems that you are suggesting that if a doctor harms or damages a fetus, the victim is not the fetus but the mother. The doctor is liable to the fetuses well being and if it was harmed or damaged, the mother has the right to sue over the well being of the fetus, not herself. And unless you can provide some exmaples of how harming a fetus harms the mother in the same fashion, I see to reason to accept it.
Winepusher wrote:That does not mean he supported the practice. One can have neutral feelings on a matter but not explicitly support it.

Abraxas wrote:Yes, but neutral positions are inherently pro-choice. One must develop a position against it in order to want a legal prohibition.
Fair enough. I'll agree with you here.
Abraxas wrote:To claim it is a small minority of churches is dishonest. As the polls I linked to earlier showed, as of 2007 there was a clear majority of Christians with a pro-choice stance and in 2009 it was very close to even. As for the Church being consistent, again, the links I provided earlier show otherwise. Two popes and two saints held pro-choice views, two popes later held pro-life views. This cannot be spun to say the church has always held the same view, it simply does not match with reality. What this demonstrates is the church has changed and will probably continue to change to reflect the dominant political and social paradigms of the age.
And I never claimed that the church has always held the same views since its beginning. But it is not dishonest to claim that in modern American society today, mainstream christian churches such as the Roman Catholic Church, Mainstream evangelical churches, Southern Baptists, and LDS oppose the practice, while a smaller minority of liberal, reformed churches support it. Rather, it is dishonest on your part to assume that because 2 saints and 2 popes held pro choice views, that the entire chruch at that time was pro choice.
Abraxas wrote:Thusly, if you want to claim that a prolife position is inherently superior for society (an argument you still have yet to support), you need to show Christianity is going to provide a prolife culture in society, something it has not historically done.
I believe that I have presented evidence the a pro life position is inherently superior for society, but your wrote them off.

1) The ethical views of current committed liberals and secular atheists. Peter Singer, John Holdreen, Barack Obama and his voting aganist the born alive infant protection act.
2) The regimes of Godless Communist leaders that led to the slaughter and killing of millions of people, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedung, and Enver Hoxa.

The fact is, communism is inherently anti christian and pro secularism and atheism. And in socities dominated by Godless communism, there comes about mass slaughters and killings. Joseph Stalin was motivated to burn the churches because of his atheistic communism as was Mao Zedung. Here are two quotes by Karl Marx

"Religion is the opium of the people"
"The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the destruction of religion"

WinePusher wrote:http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/60293 . Here's a more recent poll. Now, I cannot demonstrate something that may or may not take place in the future, the Church is governed by falliable people and if they remain true to their traditional history, they will continue to stand for life. But if they succume to the social liberalism then they won't.

Abraxas wrote:More recent, yes, but I put less faith in a webpoll on a Christian website than one conducted by ABC news. Further, that poll lacks the demographic breakdown I considered important to the argument. The fact is, you have now shifted the argument from Christianity is good for society to "certain forms of tradition conservative Christianity" are good for society in the long run. Are you backing off the point that Christianity in general is good? If so, can I select a very specific subset of atheism (as you have with Christianity) in going forward to show an ideal model?
I have not shifted anything. On the issue of abortion, you suggest that christians are in disarray on the matter; I pointed out that the majority of Christian churches in America oppose it, while a smaller group of liberal christians support it. And I certainly think that there are some parts of Christianity that are harmful to society, such as the Trinity United Church of Christ and the Westboro Baptist Church. However, we have seen time and time again what Godless atheism does to nations and the oppresiveness it brings about. So a few disagreements amoung Christians and a contreversial issue, IMO, is better than the loss of freedom, life and liberty under atheistic regimes.
Abraxas wrote:Depends on how you define abortion.

However, before we go there, I want to get back to my question. You have now stated you do not support the government ever being allowed to force people to allow another person to use their body against their will. However, the "prolife" position inherently demands the opposite. It demands that the government be allowed to force a pregnant woman to allow a fetus to use her body against her will.
Well, first of all, The Pro Life position demands the government to uphold and defend our natural right to life. Second of all, you are missing the point that either way, abortion or not, the woman will have to give birth. But to shed light on this point, you seem to be dodging the fact that was established by John Locke, which is every single person as a right to life and it is the governments role to defend this right. To permitt abortion is in direct violation of the government inherent role.
Abraxas wrote:
Abraxas wrote:I don't believe either the speaker or the president are psychologists. Regardless, I don't think you will find anyone who doesn't want to reduce the number of abortions, a lot of us just think there are better ways to do it than making it illegal. Specifically, I support expanding resources available to the people most inclined to have abortions to reduce demand for them.
Well, you contradict yourself here. What motive do you have to wanting to reduce the number of abortion if it has no mental effects on the mother and the fetus is not a life?
Abraxas wrote:Complications from the medical procedure coupled with her fear of her parents caused her death, yes. It was her decision not to seek medical care that ultimately led to her death, however.
Which would have been prevented if her parents had been properly notified. What is ironic and again inconsistent on the pro choice side is, when I was in high school, I could not take any type of medication without having a parent's consent. Any type of medicine a students must take needs to be approved by a parent, yet in this case, a doctor can perform surgery on a minor without parental notification. Do you think minors wishing to have an abortion should notify their parents?
Abraxas wrote:Now you are shifting the goalposts. Initially you said:

"If embryotic stem cells can be shown to regenerate lost tissue or cells, than I'd have a more favorable view. But they cannot, and they are simply the subject of pure experimentation."

I cited an FDA approved trial to treat spinal cord injuries that has come from embryonic stem cells that started last year. This is beyond merely the experimental stage and is now in the clinical trial stage, as are the adult stem cell treatments. I never argued a complete and perfected treatment emerged from it, just that the actual doctors involved hold that there in fact is very real potential for embryonic stem cells to heal very real injuries, contrary to your earlier assertions.
No, your misundetanding of my statements led to your belief that I shifted the goalposts. My original quote said "if they can be shown to regenerate lost tissue" which is to say, if the use of embryonic stem cells have successful outcomes, then I would be in favor of it. I asked you to show if the trial had a successful outcome, but you diverted from the question so I assume you cannot.

You think that triage care is "playing God!" Notice that the basis of determination is not a single person's prejudices or biases, but the fatality of their wounds. A soldier with a gunshot through the heart recieves priority before a soldier with a broken leg because of the emphasis on preserving life. And triage care is distinctly different from rationing as priority is determined based on severity of wounds, not age or preconcieved biases.
WinePusher wrote:I oppose euthnasia over agnozination that will not lead to death, I oppose euthanasia over depression.
Abraxas wrote:Do you have examples of someone supporting those?
No, nor did I claim to. You asked me "What euthanasia you oppose." I listed my reponse above, and never did I claim to have examples of people supporting these. Do you deny that such examples exist?
Abraxas wrote:No, I don't believe I have ever encountered another part of the American Secular left that holds that killing newborns is anything other than murder.
How about looking at the the 44th President of the United States.
Abraxas wrote:I do not make a distinction between intending to kill civilians and intending to kill terrorists with weapons that we know will kill civilians too. The civilian deaths are not accidents, not in the usual meaning of the word, they are "collateral damage", a phrase that devalues human life if ever I heard one. When blown up, civilians are beyond help. That we have inflicted orders or magnitude more loss of life, especially among civilians, than we have prevented, would that not be the very definition of devaluing human life?
First of all, our intent in the middle east is to first and foremost, defend the homeland from more terrorist attacks. Such as 9/11 and the more recent ones (Time Square Bomber and the Diaper Bomber). And a secondary objective has been to better the standard of living for the people over there, and give them an alternative to oppressive countries ruled by sharia law.

Second of all, civilian deaths are indeed collateral damage, from US drone strikes AND from terrorist care bombs and guerilla warfare tactics. And do you have any evidence to prove that the collateral deaths of civilians is more than we would have prevented?


WinePusher wrote:I have no clue from what data your drawing on, but all data regarding hitlers true beliefs is inconclusive, and to assume from inconclusive data that hitler was catholic, let alone claim that his motives were influenced by catholicism, is a hasty generalization.
Abraxas wrote:That is not what a hasty generalization is.

Regardless, Hitler's beliefs are hardly inconclusive. The only evidence to the contrary are remarks made by Albert Speer, who, even then, set the statements in the context of wishing Christianity were more like Islam or Shinto which had a greater emphasis on obedience to the state. Otherwise, the vast bulk of statements, recorded both in public and private indicate he was in fact a Christian.
A hasty generalization is reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficent evidence. Hitler's religious beliefs and views are insufficient, so it is a hasty generalization for you to conclude he was catholic. And the bolded part of that statement is wrong, a book "Hitler's Table Talk" nicely refutes it.
Abraxas wrote:I am not referring to the world at large, I am referring to Nazi Germany itself which showed very little resistance to the Nazi party and the Holocaust during Hitler's reign. Beyond that, I am referring to the belief set of the guards and the dominant religion of the Nazi party, which was undeniably predominantly Catholic.
Now your confusing two seperate subjects. The Nazi's were a political party which Supported Hitler and his motives. The religion of the Nazi's matters not, and to suggest it had any role would be the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. And some Catholics stood aganist hitler, Maximilian Kolbe.
WinePusher wrote:Incorrect. One campaign of the crusades was to retake the Holy Land. Several others were fought in Spain to block Muslim invasions into northern europe and other parts.
Abraxas wrote:Let us review the Crusades:

1st: Aggressive action on Jerusalem.
2nd: Muslims attacked Edessa, followed by Christian attacks on Jerusalem and Damascus.
3rd: Saladin seized control of Jerusalem and other important cities, Christians attempted to retake.
4th: Christians attempted to attack Jerusalem.
5th: Christians attempted to attack Jerusalem.
6th: Not even really a Crusade.
7th: Egypt attacked Jerusalem, Louis tried to take it back.
8th. Louis attempted to attack Muslim lands.
9th. Edward attacked Muslim lands.

Of the 8 actual crusades, only two of them were a response to Muslim aggression, they being the third and 7th. The rest were Christian aggression.
It was an error on my part to suggest that only one of the crusades aimed to retake Jerusalem. Their primary goal was to recapture the Holy Land, emphasis on the word RE-capture, as Muslim armies had instigated the conflict, Christian Aggression was in response to already launched muslims aggression.
Abraxas wrote:I have cited the Holocaust, and could continue to cite things like Croatian extermination camps, the exorcism of Anneliese Michel, or the role of Catholic clergy in the Rwanda massacre.
You have cited the holocaust, you have yet to prove that it is a "Christian Atrocity." As for Anneliese Michel, which I only know of from the movie, I odn't see how you can pin the psychiatric problems of a woman on christianity. Wiki says her psychiatric treatment was unsuccessful for several years. And I am unaware of the Catholic Clergy's involvement in Rwanda and the "Croatian Extermination Camps."
Abraxas wrote:However, the major atrocities of Christianity, of which I have barely begun to touch upon, are more than sufficient to demonstrate Christianity is not inherently beneficial. The culture surrounding it in many western countries certainly is, as evidenced by our agreed stance there are very few modern Christian atrocities of scale.


Can you present them for discussion? Hopefully they will not be reiterations of supposed ancient holy wars. And I would like to point out the things you cite above as "modern christian atrocities" nowhere compare to the millions of people who died ruthlessly under the regimes of Godless leaders.
Abraxas wrote:Without derailing this thread into a thread on communism, neither Stalin nor Mao followed in the steps or teachings of Marx. Further, more to the point, the majority of those deaths were caused by famines that were the result of poor agricultural practices rather than deliberate abuses. Further, none or at most almost none of the of the deaths were the result of atheism, but rather the result of a political power that demanded absolute loyalty to none but itself. Communism was certainly the language they cloaked this totalitarianism, and atheism is frequently a component part of communism, the bottom line was those atrocities were the result of state power rather than religious composition.
False. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Religion
The wiki article clearly states that an inherent part of communism is atheism the destruction of religion. It is because religion offers hope and individual worth that a communist leader should destroy it.
Abraxas wrote:Wrong. If we're going to look at Salem lets at least get an idea into what the communities were thinking. They obviously viewed the accused witches as spawns of the Devil, and un-human, thus they were burned because of the fact that they were not human, but witches.

Abraxas wrote:Yes, it allowed them to view humans as something other than humans so that they may be murdered. Devaluing human life.
No, as I said fear and distress lead to thought process that unusual behavior was witchcraft, and they burned the total of 19 victims because they're rashness lead them to believe they were not humans. Christianity hardly had anything to do with this...........
Abraxas wrote:Please stop using "we". You do not speak for the majority of Americans, nor the majority of Christians on this matter.
By "we" I am referring to America as I am an American, and I was comparing America to Europe.
Abraxas wrote:Further, the idea that "handouts" are a bad thing is perhaps the most unChristian of all sentiments. The idea that humans are inherently valuable, that they deserve certain treatment just for the fact they are human better expresses the value a society places on human life than mere platitudes about lazy bums and unearned checks.
There is a difference between mandated charity and volunterary charity, and a differnce between treating a person how to fish or simply giving them a fish. Do you think it is more productive to give an unemployed person money, or help them get a job so that they can make money for themselves? Do you think that a government forcing a hard working person to give up some of his income aganist his will is better than a man volunterary giving up some of his income?
Abraxas wrote:The fact is, Europe has a higher standard of living than the US on average and a much higher standard of living for the least well off classes. I can cite UN reports, among others, if you seriously want to dispute that.
Cite all the sources you want, it will not prove your subjective opinion as your opinion, nor mine, cannot be proven. Europe may provide a nice government safety net to prevent their citizens from ever realizing failure, but America seems to offer much more oppurtunity, some of the great american success stories are about people who came from absolutly nothing, but rose to the top from due to hard work and self reliance, such as Oprah Winfery and Condoleezza Rice.
WinePusher wrote:To the contrary, I think this is quite relevant to the topic (having to do with economic justice) and would like to explore it further. Do you think government welfare is an effective mean to alleviate poverty?

Abraxas wrote:No. I do think it is an effective mechanism to control much of the damage done by poverty, however.


In some cases it is, in some cases it isn't. A person who relies on welfare as the sole source of income for 5 years, and then is suddenly cut off from benefits will be hard pressed to develop a work ethic or find a reasonable paying job.
WinePusher wrote:The fact is, in America, the system does not keep you down and with hard work and diligence you can have a good life. No one is entitled to money from the government at the exspence of hard working tax paying Americans, what your entitled to do is work and make a living for yourself, not sit around all day and mooch off of an unearned welfare check and make no contribution to society.

Abraxas wrote:Yes, because Jesus said of the poor let them get a job and stop sponging off the charity of others, yes?
Nope. But Jesus certainly did not say force the rich and middle class to pay for the charity of poor people. Jesus' message was certainly about charity, but not a government mandated charity system. Give out of the goodness of your heart, not because a government is forcing you to.
Abraxas wrote:As for a little hard work getting you ahead in America, you don't seriously believe that do you?
I absolutly 100% do.
Abraxas wrote:Social mobility has been in decline for decades and real wages have been frozen almost as long. The vast majority of Americans die in the social class they were born into. Contrary to the beliefs of conservatives, the market is an exceedingly poor mechanism by which to fight poverty and continued deregulation has done more to demonstrate it than any level of theoretical argument could ever hope to achieve.
This is absolutly false, social mobility has headed in an upward direction through the past centuries. Case and point, the class system amoung society has greatly shrank. How was rich and poor defined in the late middle ages? The rich guy was the guy with the gold, castle and livestock, the poor guy was the guy peasant with no livestock or house. Even look at the past centuary, the poor guy was the guy who lived in the Shanty House or the Hooverville. Now, in 21st centuary America, the poor guy is characterized as a person who drives a used honda civic, only has a 1 bedroom house and makes 10,000-20,000 dollars a year. As I said, look at the American success stories, generally they are about people with nothing rising up to the top.

As for the deregulation of the market, would you rather have the government give everything to you on a silver platter? That is not what the government does, you are not entitled to anything except for your 3 natural rights, you are NOT entitled to happiness, rather, you are entitled to the ability to pursue happiness.
Abraxas wrote: It was never there originally and it breaks the flow of the pledge, further, it implies atheists are not citizens which is a violation of the constitution. There is no good reason for it to be there, it was never there to begin with, so why should we not restore the original version?
It does not imply that atheists are not citizens. It implies that this country was founded with divine intent and providence, arguably many American enjoy and appreciate this verse, and it is unfair to have a country ruled by popular soverngnity run by a minority of atheists and non believers.
WinePusher wrote:Yes. And it doesn't, having creationism taught alongside evolution is not hiding knowledge. Catholics creating the second largest school system other than the public is not hiding knowledge.
Abraxas wrote:Yes, creationism being taught along side evolution does hide knowledge as it implies the two are equal when they are not. Evolution is a testable, observable phenomenon whose understanding is required for the for the advancement of fields of study vital to our species and to our nation. Creationism offers nothing in the way of testability, results, or advancement for our species and routinely gets in the way of imparting useful knowledge.

As for the schools hiding or not hiding knowledge, that depends on what they are teaching, does it not?
Evolution is an observable phenomona, but there are holes that are not presented in the textbooks. Namely the existence of consciousness which the cognitive scientists Stephen Pinker says cannot be accounted for in evolutionary terms. While evolution should be taught, it should be taught as a flawed theory that does not explain everything about biodiversity.

User avatar
Abraxas
Guru
Posts: 1041
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:20 pm

Post #13

Post by Abraxas »

WinePusher wrote:
WinePusher wrote:According to OT biblical law? Or modern American Laws? But the Bible clearly states that the fetus has a God given soul "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you." Jer 1:4-5
Abraxas wrote:Uh, that is not what the passage you quoted says. It says that God knew them before they were in the womb, not while they were in the womb. This rather oddly implies life starts before conception, or, conversely, that God knew them before they existed, which, being an all knowing being, makes more sense.
New Revised Standard Version Bible: Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I consecrated you." The passage I quoted does say that, and it shows that biblically, a fetus is a life.
The operative phrase there is "before I formed you in the womb". Before... in the womb. That tends to imply the verse references a time before it is a fetus, not during.

WinePusher wrote: It harms the mother? Are you asserting the the fetus is the "property" of the mother and she has supreme authority over it and can do whatever she wishes. Such as smoke during her preganacy.
Abraxas wrote:I don't recall mentioning property, no. Are you going to deny harming the fetus harms the mother in some fashion?
It seems that you are suggesting that if a doctor harms or damages a fetus, the victim is not the fetus but the mother. The doctor is liable to the fetuses well being and if it was harmed or damaged, the mother has the right to sue over the well being of the fetus, not herself. And unless you can provide some exmaples of how harming a fetus harms the mother in the same fashion, I see to reason to accept it.
The same way other improperly carried out procedures harm a patient. If they leave in a tool during operation, or prescribe medication that causes discomfort or illness, or performs unnecessary surgery, it both causes physical or psychological harm to the patient and casts doubt on the ability of the doctor to perform their job safely. This is true of cases of malpractice involving pregnant women or others, the result is the same. In the cases involving medical malpractice in which a pregnant woman is involved, is the suite filed under and on behalf of the mother or the child?
Abraxas wrote:To claim it is a small minority of churches is dishonest. As the polls I linked to earlier showed, as of 2007 there was a clear majority of Christians with a pro-choice stance and in 2009 it was very close to even. As for the Church being consistent, again, the links I provided earlier show otherwise. Two popes and two saints held pro-choice views, two popes later held pro-life views. This cannot be spun to say the church has always held the same view, it simply does not match with reality. What this demonstrates is the church has changed and will probably continue to change to reflect the dominant political and social paradigms of the age.
And I never claimed that the church has always held the same views since its beginning. But it is not dishonest to claim that in modern American society today, mainstream christian churches such as the Roman Catholic Church, Mainstream evangelical churches, Southern Baptists, and LDS oppose the practice, while a smaller minority of liberal, reformed churches support it.
This is an equivocation fallacy. Churches are not Christians. The fact is even if you were to establish a majority of church leaders oppose it, you would not have established the majority of Christians do, and further, polls show the majority of Christians, Catholics especially, do not. You still have to demonstrate Christianity is inherently prolife.
Rather, it is dishonest on your part to assume that because 2 saints and 2 popes held pro choice views, that the entire chruch at that time was pro choice.
I never said the whole church, just church policy. The Pope does set church policy, yes?
Abraxas wrote:Thusly, if you want to claim that a prolife position is inherently superior for society (an argument you still have yet to support), you need to show Christianity is going to provide a prolife culture in society, something it has not historically done.
I believe that I have presented evidence the a pro life position is inherently superior for society, but your wrote them off.
Perhaps you could repost them as I seem to have missed them.
1) The ethical views of current committed liberals and secular atheists. Peter Singer, John Holdreen, Barack Obama and his voting aganist the born alive infant protection act.
Obama is undeniably Christian, thus once again undermining your argument.
2) The regimes of Godless Communist leaders that led to the slaughter and killing of millions of people, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedung, and Enver Hoxa.
As opposed to Christian leaders who have killed millions, such as Hitler and the Feudal Monarchs.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with abortion.
The fact is, communism is inherently anti christian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism
and pro secularism and atheism. And in socities dominated by Godless communism, there comes about mass slaughters and killings. Joseph Stalin was motivated to burn the churches because of his atheistic communism as was Mao Zedung. Here are two quotes by Karl Marx

"Religion is the opium of the people"
"The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the destruction of religion"
I am aware of them. Do you understand what they mean? Marx was saying religion is a painkiller, opium being the painkiller of his age, something that dulls the senses, refocuses people from the suffering they are currently undergoing and replacing it with a false sensation of comfort. He believed removing religion was necessary to creating an awareness amongst the working class that they were being abused. You will note nowhere did he advocate using violence against churches or using force to remove religion.

Lenin, and to a much greater extent, Stalin, were not even remotely faithful to what Marx put on paper. Marx advocated democracy, free association, community control of property, and so forth. Stalin most certainly did not reflect these values, he was interested in advancing his own personal power. Through his behavior towards not only churches, but also political opponents like Trotsky, neighboring nations, other organizations within the USSR, Stalin was solely concerned with destroying any and all competing power bases be they religious or secular.
WinePusher wrote:http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/60293 . Here's a more recent poll. Now, I cannot demonstrate something that may or may not take place in the future, the Church is governed by falliable people and if they remain true to their traditional history, they will continue to stand for life. But if they succume to the social liberalism then they won't.

Abraxas wrote:More recent, yes, but I put less faith in a webpoll on a Christian website than one conducted by ABC news. Further, that poll lacks the demographic breakdown I considered important to the argument. The fact is, you have now shifted the argument from Christianity is good for society to "certain forms of tradition conservative Christianity" are good for society in the long run. Are you backing off the point that Christianity in general is good? If so, can I select a very specific subset of atheism (as you have with Christianity) in going forward to show an ideal model?
I have not shifted anything. On the issue of abortion, you suggest that christians are in disarray on the matter; I pointed out that the majority of Christian churches in America oppose it, while a smaller group of liberal christians support it.
This is false. The majority of churches may oppose it, however the majority of CHRISTIANS do not.
And I certainly think that there are some parts of Christianity that are harmful to society, such as the Trinity United Church of Christ and the Westboro Baptist Church. However, we have seen time and time again what Godless atheism does to nations and the oppresiveness it brings about. So a few disagreements amoung Christians and a contreversial issue, IMO, is better than the loss of freedom, life and liberty under atheistic regimes.
You have thusfar not shown atheistic societies do inherently violate rights more or respect life less.
Abraxas wrote:Depends on how you define abortion.

However, before we go there, I want to get back to my question. You have now stated you do not support the government ever being allowed to force people to allow another person to use their body against their will. However, the "prolife" position inherently demands the opposite. It demands that the government be allowed to force a pregnant woman to allow a fetus to use her body against her will.
Well, first of all, The Pro Life position demands the government to uphold and defend our natural right to life.
But you have already implied you hold that your right to life does not entitle you to use the body of another person against there will. Now you are arguing against yourself.
Second of all, you are missing the point that either way, abortion or not, the woman will have to give birth. But to shed light on this point, you seem to be dodging the fact that was established by John Locke, which is every single person as a right to life and it is the governments role to defend this right. To permitt abortion is in direct violation of the government inherent role.
Firstly, Locke didn't prove anything, he made an argument for it. Second, there are well defined limits to how far the right to life goes. If murdering other people protects my life, that does not give me the right to murder other people. I cannot force another person to give me money to fund my operation, or give me a donated organ against their will. The right to life does not include the right to forcibly seize the means of life which is what your argument requires.
Abraxas wrote:
Abraxas wrote:I don't believe either the speaker or the president are psychologists. Regardless, I don't think you will find anyone who doesn't want to reduce the number of abortions, a lot of us just think there are better ways to do it than making it illegal. Specifically, I support expanding resources available to the people most inclined to have abortions to reduce demand for them.
Well, you contradict yourself here. What motive do you have to wanting to reduce the number of abortion if it has no mental effects on the mother and the fetus is not a life?
When did I say either of those things?
Abraxas wrote:Complications from the medical procedure coupled with her fear of her parents caused her death, yes. It was her decision not to seek medical care that ultimately led to her death, however.
Which would have been prevented if her parents had been properly notified. What is ironic and again inconsistent on the pro choice side is, when I was in high school, I could not take any type of medication without having a parent's consent. Any type of medicine a students must take needs to be approved by a parent, yet in this case, a doctor can perform surgery on a minor without parental notification. Do you think minors wishing to have an abortion should notify their parents?
There is a difference between should and should legally be required to. I don't believe parent should have the right to force their child to carry a baby to term or to not seek medical care they wish to receive. While her death is tragic, it is a reflection of her not trusting her parents to be loving and supportive in her time of need and beyond that, I don't think it really says anything about the broader debate.
Abraxas wrote:Now you are shifting the goalposts. Initially you said:

"If embryotic stem cells can be shown to regenerate lost tissue or cells, than I'd have a more favorable view. But they cannot, and they are simply the subject of pure experimentation."

I cited an FDA approved trial to treat spinal cord injuries that has come from embryonic stem cells that started last year. This is beyond merely the experimental stage and is now in the clinical trial stage, as are the adult stem cell treatments. I never argued a complete and perfected treatment emerged from it, just that the actual doctors involved hold that there in fact is very real potential for embryonic stem cells to heal very real injuries, contrary to your earlier assertions.
No, your misundetanding of my statements led to your belief that I shifted the goalposts. My original quote said "if they can be shown to regenerate lost tissue" which is to say, if the use of embryonic stem cells have successful outcomes, then I would be in favor of it. I asked you to show if the trial had a successful outcome, but you diverted from the question so I assume you cannot.
Certainly I cannot show a trial had a successful outcome before the trial is even completed. I could point to the lab testing which showed embryonic stem cells regrew tissue in mice and the like, however, until they have finished testing it is entirely impossible to prove it works. Of course, you have yet to even demonstrate a problem in testing them to begin with.
Actually, under your definition of playing God all of the above is playing God, as is the whole idea of a culture of life. Culture of life, is, after all, our own standards. Every time a triage situation comes up and a doctor has to pick between treating and potentially saving two people comes up, it would be playing God. My point in all this is you have yet to establish a problem with playing God, least of all playing God with one's self.
Can you cite examples when doctors have done this? As far as I know, rationing has not taken place in Amerca.
You think that triage care is "playing God!" Notice that the basis of determination is not a single person's prejudices or biases, but the fatality of their wounds.
Did you miss the entire above paragraph (emphasis added) you quoted where I explicitly cited triage as playing God under your definition, which you then requested me to provide an example of in the US? Further, it is not the fatality of their injuries but the doctor's perception of the fatality of their injuries that determines treatment. Every time a doctor chooses to treat one patient and not another, not to mention the half dozen other examples I listed, they are playing God per your definition.

I note you are still avoiding the overall point of this exchange, you have yet to explain why playing God with one's self is a problem.
A soldier with a gunshot through the heart recieves priority before a soldier with a broken leg because of the emphasis on preserving life. And triage care is distinctly different from rationing as priority is determined based on severity of wounds, not age or preconcieved biases.
I never mentioned rationing, that was all you.
WinePusher wrote:I oppose euthnasia over agnozination that will not lead to death, I oppose euthanasia over depression.
Abraxas wrote:Do you have examples of someone supporting those?
No, nor did I claim to. You asked me "What euthanasia you oppose." I listed my reponse above, and never did I claim to have examples of people supporting these. Do you deny that such examples exist?
I am sure someone somewhere has sought help to end their own life due to depression, however, unless otherwise shown, I consider such examples to be exceedingly rare and existing outside of the mainstream discourse.
Abraxas wrote:No, I don't believe I have ever encountered another part of the American Secular left that holds that killing newborns is anything other than murder.
How about looking at the the 44th President of the United States.
Obama is neither secular nor does he support killing newborns.
Abraxas wrote:I do not make a distinction between intending to kill civilians and intending to kill terrorists with weapons that we know will kill civilians too. The civilian deaths are not accidents, not in the usual meaning of the word, they are "collateral damage", a phrase that devalues human life if ever I heard one. When blown up, civilians are beyond help. That we have inflicted orders or magnitude more loss of life, especially among civilians, than we have prevented, would that not be the very definition of devaluing human life?
First of all, our intent in the middle east is to first and foremost, defend the homeland from more terrorist attacks.
Nonsense. If anything has been demonstrated by terrorism campaigns of the past, such as the Irish Republican Army, any terrorist organization worth fighting doesn't need such bases of operation, nor does does bombing another country help to stop attacks from being carried out here.
Such as 9/11 and the more recent ones (Time Square Bomber and the Diaper Bomber). And a secondary objective has been to better the standard of living for the people over there, and give them an alternative to oppressive countries ruled by sharia law.
Yes, now they are largely ruled by anarchy and terror because we left the job only a fraction of the way done and are unwilling to commit the level of resources required to actually accomplish nationbuilding.
Second of all, civilian deaths are indeed collateral damage, from US drone strikes AND from terrorist care bombs and guerilla warfare tactics. And do you have any evidence to prove that the collateral deaths of civilians is more than we would have prevented?
In a sense. There is no evidence we have prevented any attacks or deaths by or interventions, certainly not of American civilians, but our intervention has caused tens to hundreds of thousands of deaths.

WinePusher wrote:I have no clue from what data your drawing on, but all data regarding hitlers true beliefs is inconclusive, and to assume from inconclusive data that hitler was catholic, let alone claim that his motives were influenced by catholicism, is a hasty generalization.
Abraxas wrote:That is not what a hasty generalization is.

Regardless, Hitler's beliefs are hardly inconclusive. The only evidence to the contrary are remarks made by Albert Speer, who, even then, set the statements in the context of wishing Christianity were more like Islam or Shinto which had a greater emphasis on obedience to the state. Otherwise, the vast bulk of statements, recorded both in public and private indicate he was in fact a Christian.
A hasty generalization is reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficent evidence. Hitler's religious beliefs and views are insufficient, so it is a hasty generalization for you to conclude he was catholic. And the bolded part of that statement is wrong, a book "Hitler's Table Talk" nicely refutes it.
Hitler's Table Talk has been widely debunked. All but the statements of Albert Speer point to him being at the very least a theist and more specifically, a Catholic. I do not consider the evidence insufficient in light of his written works and public statements.
Abraxas wrote:I am not referring to the world at large, I am referring to Nazi Germany itself which showed very little resistance to the Nazi party and the Holocaust during Hitler's reign. Beyond that, I am referring to the belief set of the guards and the dominant religion of the Nazi party, which was undeniably predominantly Catholic.
Now your confusing two seperate subjects. The Nazi's were a political party which Supported Hitler and his motives. The religion of the Nazi's matters not, and to suggest it had any role would be the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. And some Catholics stood aganist hitler, Maximilian Kolbe.
I confuse nothing, you are wrong about what matters, and I never said Christianity was responsible (though it was used).

You have asserted time and time again that Christianity creates a culture of life, however, Nazi Germany, and the Nazi party members who carried out the vast majority of the atrocities, who guarded the camps, were Catholic being the dominant religion of the time. That they were Christians is critically important, especially in light of the fact you are asserting Christianity creates or supports the valuing of life, where here we have a very concrete example of it being used to create a culture of murder.

To claim the religion of a culture complicit in mass murder is not relevant to the question of whether that religion promotes a culture of life, it is completely beyond me.
WinePusher wrote:Incorrect. One campaign of the crusades was to retake the Holy Land. Several others were fought in Spain to block Muslim invasions into northern europe and other parts.
Abraxas wrote:Let us review the Crusades:

1st: Aggressive action on Jerusalem.
2nd: Muslims attacked Edessa, followed by Christian attacks on Jerusalem and Damascus.
3rd: Saladin seized control of Jerusalem and other important cities, Christians attempted to retake.
4th: Christians attempted to attack Jerusalem.
5th: Christians attempted to attack Jerusalem.
6th: Not even really a Crusade.
7th: Egypt attacked Jerusalem, Louis tried to take it back.
8th. Louis attempted to attack Muslim lands.
9th. Edward attacked Muslim lands.

Of the 8 actual crusades, only two of them were a response to Muslim aggression, they being the third and 7th. The rest were Christian aggression.
It was an error on my part to suggest that only one of the crusades aimed to retake Jerusalem. Their primary goal was to recapture the Holy Land, emphasis on the word RE-capture, as Muslim armies had instigated the conflict, Christian Aggression was in response to already launched muslims aggression.
Territory changing hands is a fact of history, attempting invasion after invasion for centuries in an effort to recapture the land is still aggression.
Abraxas wrote:I have cited the Holocaust, and could continue to cite things like Croatian extermination camps, the exorcism of Anneliese Michel, or the role of Catholic clergy in the Rwanda massacre.
You have cited the holocaust, you have yet to prove that it is a "Christian Atrocity."
Hardly, it was carried out by Christians under Christian leadership and as a result of Christian themed propaganda. Very clear cut.
As for Anneliese Michel, which I only know of from the movie, I odn't see how you can pin the psychiatric problems of a woman on christianity. Wiki says her psychiatric treatment was unsuccessful for several years.
Her being [strike]tortured to death[/strike] exorcised can be.
And I am unaware of the Catholic Clergy's involvement in Rwanda and the "Croatian Extermination Camps."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide#Religion

"Some in its religious hierarchy have been brought to trial by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and convicted.[18] Bishop Misago was accused of corruption and complicity in the genocide but was cleared of all charges in 2000.[20] The majority of Rwandans, and of Tutsis in particular, are Catholic."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasenovac_ ... ation_camp

"A third must become Catholic, a third must leave the country, and a third must die!"
Abraxas wrote:However, the major atrocities of Christianity, of which I have barely begun to touch upon, are more than sufficient to demonstrate Christianity is not inherently beneficial. The culture surrounding it in many western countries certainly is, as evidenced by our agreed stance there are very few modern Christian atrocities of scale.


Can you present them for discussion? Hopefully they will not be reiterations of supposed ancient holy wars. And I would like to point out the things you cite above as "modern christian atrocities" nowhere compare to the millions of people who died ruthlessly under the regimes of Godless leaders.
Certainly untrue, but the fact of the matter is even if it were true, exterminating the population of two continents during the Christian powers colonial phase and the centuries of European bloodshed can not be scrubbed from the record of Christianity simply by ignoring them long enough, certainly not when you are attempting to claim there is something inherent to Christianity that promotes a culture of supporting life.
Abraxas wrote:Without derailing this thread into a thread on communism, neither Stalin nor Mao followed in the steps or teachings of Marx. Further, more to the point, the majority of those deaths were caused by famines that were the result of poor agricultural practices rather than deliberate abuses. Further, none or at most almost none of the of the deaths were the result of atheism, but rather the result of a political power that demanded absolute loyalty to none but itself. Communism was certainly the language they cloaked this totalitarianism, and atheism is frequently a component part of communism, the bottom line was those atrocities were the result of state power rather than religious composition.
False. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Religion
The wiki article clearly states that an inherent part of communism is atheism the destruction of religion. It is because religion offers hope and individual worth that a communist leader should destroy it.
This was covered above.
Abraxas wrote:Wrong. If we're going to look at Salem lets at least get an idea into what the communities were thinking. They obviously viewed the accused witches as spawns of the Devil, and un-human, thus they were burned because of the fact that they were not human, but witches.

Abraxas wrote:Yes, it allowed them to view humans as something other than humans so that they may be murdered. Devaluing human life.
No, as I said fear and distress lead to thought process that unusual behavior was witchcraft, and they burned the total of 19 victims because they're rashness lead them to believe they were not humans. Christianity hardly had anything to do with this...........
You can't be serious. It was their religion, as you yourself said, that these people were the children of the Devil, demons, part of their religion these people were able to view the victims as anything other than Human. If you want to be the first person in history and attempt to make the first ever attempt to claim religion had nothing to do with the Salem witch trials.
Abraxas wrote:Please stop using "we". You do not speak for the majority of Americans, nor the majority of Christians on this matter.
By "we" I am referring to America as I am an American, and I was comparing America to Europe.
Yes, I know, but you are misrepresenting American views.
Abraxas wrote:Further, the idea that "handouts" are a bad thing is perhaps the most unChristian of all sentiments. The idea that humans are inherently valuable, that they deserve certain treatment just for the fact they are human better expresses the value a society places on human life than mere platitudes about lazy bums and unearned checks.
There is a difference between mandated charity and volunterary charity, and a differnce between treating a person how to fish or simply giving them a fish. Do you think it is more productive to give an unemployed person money, or help them get a job so that they can make money for themselves? Do you think that a government forcing a hard working person to give up some of his income aganist his will is better than a man volunterary giving up some of his income?
I think when there is a lack of sufficient private charity to provide a minimum standard of living, welfare is a suitable mechanism by which to provide it. Further, there are more people than jobs, thus some people must always be without jobs at any given times by economic necessity.
Abraxas wrote:The fact is, Europe has a higher standard of living than the US on average and a much higher standard of living for the least well off classes. I can cite UN reports, among others, if you seriously want to dispute that.
Cite all the sources you want, it will not prove your subjective opinion as your opinion, nor mine, cannot be proven. Europe may provide a nice government safety net to prevent their citizens from ever realizing failure, but America seems to offer much more oppurtunity, some of the great american success stories are about people who came from absolutly nothing, but rose to the top from due to hard work and self reliance, such as Oprah Winfery and Condoleezza Rice.
Come now, are you seriously asserting that people in Europe don't rise up from poverty? Further, it isn't a matter of subjective opinion, things like health, life expectancy, minimum standard of living among their lowest classes, all of which point to Europe doing better when it comes to their general population.
WinePusher wrote:To the contrary, I think this is quite relevant to the topic (having to do with economic justice) and would like to explore it further. Do you think government welfare is an effective mean to alleviate poverty?

Abraxas wrote:No. I do think it is an effective mechanism to control much of the damage done by poverty, however.


In some cases it is, in some cases it isn't. A person who relies on welfare as the sole source of income for 5 years, and then is suddenly cut off from benefits will be hard pressed to develop a work ethic or find a reasonable paying job.
Indeed. Part of the problem, however, is that most jobs either require specialized skill sets which require education or training which may not be available to most people. The vast majority of unskilled jobs do not pay a living wage, something that is a rather recent development with the loss of manufacturing jobs in the US. This seems to be sidetracking from the question of religion vs. secularism so I will leave it lie unless you wish to take it further.
WinePusher wrote:The fact is, in America, the system does not keep you down and with hard work and diligence you can have a good life. No one is entitled to money from the government at the exspence of hard working tax paying Americans, what your entitled to do is work and make a living for yourself, not sit around all day and mooch off of an unearned welfare check and make no contribution to society.

Abraxas wrote:Yes, because Jesus said of the poor let them get a job and stop sponging off the charity of others, yes?
Nope. But Jesus certainly did not say force the rich and middle class to pay for the charity of poor people. Jesus' message was certainly about charity, but not a government mandated charity system. Give out of the goodness of your heart, not because a government is forcing you to.
How does a democratic system choosing to give certain amounts of the national production to help the poor not constitute a degree of volunteerism at a societal level? Further, where did Jesus ever make comment on welfare to begin with? He didn't.
Abraxas wrote:As for a little hard work getting you ahead in America, you don't seriously believe that do you?
I absolutly 100% do.
Abraxas wrote:Social mobility has been in decline for decades and real wages have been frozen almost as long. The vast majority of Americans die in the social class they were born into. Contrary to the beliefs of conservatives, the market is an exceedingly poor mechanism by which to fight poverty and continued deregulation has done more to demonstrate it than any level of theoretical argument could ever hope to achieve.
This is absolutly false, social mobility has headed in an upward direction through the past centuries. Case and point, the class system amoung society has greatly shrank. How was rich and poor defined in the late middle ages? The rich guy was the guy with the gold, castle and livestock, the poor guy was the guy peasant with no livestock or house. Even look at the past centuary, the poor guy was the guy who lived in the Shanty House or the Hooverville. Now, in 21st centuary America, the poor guy is characterized as a person who drives a used honda civic, only has a 1 bedroom house and makes 10,000-20,000 dollars a year. As I said, look at the American success stories, generally they are about people with nothing rising up to the top.
The people on the top are usually the ones born into the top. Further, the comments about several hundred years ago, or even one hundred years ago, are nothing more than red herrings. Completely irrelevant to the comparison between modern America and modern Europe. The fact of the matter is when it comes to lifestyle Americans are falling behind, the reasons for that being, as I said, social mobility is declining and real wages are frozen.

http://www.urban.org/publications/406796.html
http://monthlyreview.org/0607wkt.htm

As for the deregulation of the market, would you rather have the government give everything to you on a silver platter? That is not what the government does, you are not entitled to anything except for your 3 natural rights, you are NOT entitled to happiness, rather, you are entitled to the ability to pursue happiness.
I don't accept your premise that those are the limits of good government.
Abraxas wrote: It was never there originally and it breaks the flow of the pledge, further, it implies atheists are not citizens which is a violation of the constitution. There is no good reason for it to be there, it was never there to begin with, so why should we not restore the original version?
It does not imply that atheists are not citizens. It implies that this country was founded with divine intent and providence, arguably many American enjoy and appreciate this verse, and it is unfair to have a country ruled by popular soverngnity run by a minority of atheists and non believers.
How the pledge is said in no way changes whether or not the country is "run by a minority of atheists and non believers." This whole thing is irrelevant to the debate question at hand and was originally a diversion from the topic of evolution to begin with. I won't be indulging it further.
WinePusher wrote:Yes. And it doesn't, having creationism taught alongside evolution is not hiding knowledge. Catholics creating the second largest school system other than the public is not hiding knowledge.
Abraxas wrote:Yes, creationism being taught along side evolution does hide knowledge as it implies the two are equal when they are not. Evolution is a testable, observable phenomenon whose understanding is required for the for the advancement of fields of study vital to our species and to our nation. Creationism offers nothing in the way of testability, results, or advancement for our species and routinely gets in the way of imparting useful knowledge.

As for the schools hiding or not hiding knowledge, that depends on what they are teaching, does it not?
Evolution is an observable phenomona, but there are holes that are not presented in the textbooks. Namely the existence of consciousness which the cognitive scientists Stephen Pinker says cannot be accounted for in evolutionary terms. While evolution should be taught, it should be taught as a flawed theory that does not explain everything about biodiversity.
Firstly, that is not what Stephen Pinker holds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Pinker

Secondly, as has been demonstrated countless times both on these boards and elsewhere, evolution has no problem accounting for the biodiversity of this planet, unless you can show otherwise. We can trace the history of evolution through genetic branching, visible in retroviral DNA markers, the fossil record, and a dozen other types of evidence. Evolution as a fact is not in dispute among scientists, not as a mechanism for explaining the diversity of life. Some specific points are disputed, yes, and that is taught, however, presenting the fake controversy of creationism in school that evolution has problems it does not have, it is dishonest and destructive.


-

I want to make another point on a purely theoretical level. Because atheism requires nothing inherently, any cultural value demonstrated to be good for society can be adopted on logical grounds. Christianity, or any other religion with inherent values, must be by definition more tightly defined which can preclude adopting other values, norms, or facts. Thusly, in order for you to win this debate you are going to have to demonstrate an inherent value in Christianity itself, not in any specific value that could be adopted logically from an analysis of Christianity.

WinePusher

Post #14

Post by WinePusher »

WinePusher wrote:New Revised Standard Version Bible: Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I consecrated you." The passage I quoted does say that, and it shows that biblically, a fetus is a life.

Abraxas wrote:The operative phrase there is "before I formed you in the womb". Before... in the womb. That tends to imply the verse references a time before it is a fetus, not during.


Well, it is bad logic to assume that during the occupation of the womb, God cut off any relationship to the child. Rather, it would be a logical inference to assume that because God knew "you" before you were in the womb, he continued to "know" you during your time in the womb.
WinePusher wrote:And I never claimed that the church has always held the same views since its beginning. But it is not dishonest to claim that in modern American society today, mainstream christian churches such as the Roman Catholic Church, Mainstream evangelical churches, Southern Baptists, and LDS oppose the practice, while a smaller minority of liberal, reformed churches support it.

Abraxas wrote:This is an equivocation fallacy. Churches are not Christians. The fact is even if you were to establish a majority of church leaders oppose it, you would not have established the majority of Christians do, and further, polls show the majority of Christians, Catholics especially, do not. You still have to demonstrate Christianity is inherently prolife.
Um, yes they are. We are speaking in the context of christianity, and the churches represent christians. Secondly, I searched for some polls specifically speeaking to christian views on abortion and found none, perhaps you could support your assertion that the majority of Christians support abortion? And as a side note, Christian Bible teaches that Abortion is the taking of a human life, the bible never speaks out aganist abortion, but it makes it very clear that abortion is the tkaing of a life. Conservative, Fundamentalist, traditional churches read the passages that speak to this literally, while modern secularized churches add spin to it making it ambiguious and subjective. Conservative christianity is inherently pro life, regardless of a a few members disagreeing with it, and christianity based on the bible is pro life. Liberal christianity, that sometimes do not base their teachings on the literal bible, but ambiguious interpretation is not what I am defending.
WinePusher wrote:Rather, it is dishonest on your part to assume that because 2 saints and 2 popes held pro choice views, that the entire chruch at that time was pro choice.
Abraxas wrote:I never said the whole church, just church policy. The Pope does set church policy, yes?
Not quite, heres an interesting video with quotes from Catholic Archbishops and church hierarchy officials providing decisive refutation to your point. As for how church policy/dogma is created, I do not know.

[youtube][/youtube]
WinePusher wrote: 1) The ethical views of current committed liberals and secular atheists. Peter Singer, John Holdreen, Barack Obama and his voting aganist the born alive infant protection act.

Abraxas wrote:Obama is undeniably Christian, thus once again undermining your argument.
Note, he claims to be a christian. His actions run contrary to that claim. One who does not attend church, one who listens to liberal hate speech at a church for over 20 years, and one who supports the ideas of Black Liberation Theology and Collective Atonement is a liberal christian who waters down teaching that they do not agree with. Barack Obama is not a practicing christian.
WinePusher wrote:2) The regimes of Godless Communist leaders that led to the slaughter and killing of millions of people, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedung, and Enver Hoxa.

Abraxas wrote:As opposed to Christian leaders who have killed millions, such as Hitler and the Feudal Monarchs.
First of all, for you to claim that Christianity was the motivator for Hitler's ambitions of murdering millions of Jews you would have to show a direct causal link between the two; otherwise you are simply engaging in a fallacy of coincidental correlation.

Second of all, this argument that there are been so much killing in the name of religion/God is thrown out to the point of ad nauseum on the atheistic side, and sadly the argument stems from ignorance. Certainly, centuries ago, there existed corruption in the church that led to things such as the inquisition, which killed possibly around tens of thousands of people. You reject the validity of Kamen's analysis, so lets round of his number, he claims that the Spanish Inquisition killed about 2000-3000 people over a span of 500 years. Unless you can point out a major inacurracy in his multi volume study, the number is accurate. So, the atheist will say, this proves that religion is no good. Well, what about your guys crimes, what about the people I mention above, Stalin, Zedung, Hoxa, Chescu, Pot. Crimes done in the name of atheism, crimes that targeted churches to rid society of religion.
Abraxas wrote:I am aware of them. Do you understand what they mean? Marx was saying religion is a painkiller, opium being the painkiller of his age, something that dulls the senses, refocuses people from the suffering they are currently undergoing and replacing it with a false sensation of comfort. He believed removing religion was necessary to creating an awareness amongst the working class that they were being abused. You will note nowhere did he advocate using violence against churches or using force to remove religion.
This is absolutly false. Opium is a drug, used in the sense of Marx's quote, he is saying that the drug of religion deludes society and essentially blinds them, and in order to create the ideal communist utopia with absolute power granted unto bureaucrats the "drug" of society must be eliminated and outlawed, and atheism should take its place. As for your last sentence "You will note nowhere did he advocate using violence against churches or using force to remove religion." How do you reconcile this with the other quote "The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the destruction of religion." Do you interpret this as meaning not destroying and persecuting religion? And why is it that in the communist nations, religion is outlawed?
Abraxas wrote:Lenin, and to a much greater extent, Stalin, were not even remotely faithful to what Marx put on paper. Marx advocated democracy, free association, community control of property, and so forth. Stalin most certainly did not reflect these values, he was interested in advancing his own personal power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Religion
It was not his own personal opinions that religion should be destoryed, it is inherent to communist. "Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society."
Abraxas wrote:You have thusfar not shown atheistic societies do inherently violate rights more or respect life less.
Um, yes I have. The regimes of Stalin, Hoxa, Pot, Mao Zedung and so on. All atheists, all outlawed religion, all violate basic civil and human rights.
Abraxas wrote:I don't believe either the speaker or the president are psychologists. Regardless, I don't think you will find anyone who doesn't want to reduce the number of abortions, a lot of us just think there are better ways to do it than making it illegal. Specifically, I support expanding resources available to the people most inclined to have abortions to reduce demand for them.
WinePusher wrote:Well, you contradict yourself here. What motive do you have to wanting to reduce the number of abortion if it has no mental effects on the mother and the fetus is not a life?
Abraxas wrote:When did I say either of those things?
You said "Regardless, I don't think you will find anyone who doesn't want to reduce the number of abortions." I assume that means you want to reduce the number of abortion? If so, can you answer my objections quoted above?

Abraxas wrote:There is a difference between should and should legally be required to. I don't believe parent should have the right to force their child to carry a baby to term or to not seek medical care they wish to receive. While her death is tragic, it is a reflection of her not trusting her parents to be loving and supportive in her time of need and beyond that, I don't think it really says anything about the broader debate.
Ok. Let me add as a closing point to this subject that the parent has no say in the choice of the minor under the law, but must be informed.
Abraxas wrote:Further, it is not the fatality of their injuries but the doctor's perception of the fatality of their injuries that determines treatment.


This is a blatant tautology. What other ways can the perception of fatalities be determined?
Abraxas wrote:Every time a doctor chooses to treat one patient and not another, not to mention the half dozen other examples I listed, they are playing God per your definition.
No, because the doctor chooses to treat the patient closest to death. The factor of determination is fatality, not a doctor's preconieved opinions and biases.
Abraxas wrote:I note you are still avoiding the overall point of this exchange, you have yet to explain why playing God with one's self is a problem.
Because on my christian faith, the choice of whether to live or to die is not up to us, but God. Do you see anything wrong with safeguarding life from conception to natural death, which is what the Catholic Church teaches?
Abraxas wrote:Obama is neither secular nor does he support killing newborns.
As an illinois legislator, he was the only one who voted aganist a bill that would have allowed medical treatment to go to infants born alive after an abortion. A form of passive newborn killing.
WinePusher wrote:First of all, our intent in the middle east is to first and foremost, defend the homeland from more terrorist attacks.

Abraxas wrote:Nonsense. If anything has been demonstrated by terrorism campaigns of the past, such as the Irish Republican Army, any terrorist organization worth fighting doesn't need such bases of operation, nor does does bombing another country help to stop attacks from being carried out here.
Nonsense!? What do you think our objective over there is then?
Abraxas wrote:Yes, now they are largely ruled by anarchy and terror because we left the job only a fraction of the way done and are unwilling to commit the level of resources required to actually accomplish nationbuilding.
Nope. The country of Iraq is not ruled by anarchy, but a functioning democracy.
Abraxas wrote:In a sense. There is no evidence we have prevented any attacks or deaths by or interventions, certainly not of American civilians, but our intervention has caused tens to hundreds of thousands of deaths.
Lets see, we invaded Iraq and other parts of the middle east during the beginning years of Bush. Since the invasions, we've had no attacks. What do you call that? I call it a prevention of attacks on the homeland due to the war on terrorism.
WinePusher wrote:A hasty generalization is reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficent evidence. Hitler's religious beliefs and views are insufficient, so it is a hasty generalization for you to conclude he was catholic. And the bolded part of that statement is wrong, a book "Hitler's Table Talk" nicely refutes it.

Abraxas wrote:Hitler's Table Talk has been widely debunked. All but the statements of Albert Speer point to him being at the very least a theist and more specifically, a Catholic. I do not consider the evidence insufficient in light of his written works and public statements.
First of all, we know that the motivations of public statements of faith was a tool of propoganda. Secondly, as documented by Alan Bullock "the conflicting private and publci statements prove anti christian beliefs. So, overall heres what we have

A highly skilled propoganda minister who made public statements of christian faith. These public statements of faith are discredited because of

1) Private conflicting statements that show his public statements to be false
2) An underlying motive to rally the churches in Nazi Germany
3) No documented private statements confirming his outward public statements to be genuine.
Abraxas wrote:You have asserted time and time again that Christianity creates a culture of life, however, Nazi Germany, and the Nazi party members who carried out the vast majority of the atrocities, who guarded the camps, were Catholic being the dominant religion of the time. That they were Christians is critically important, especially in light of the fact you are asserting Christianity creates or supports the valuing of life, where here we have a very concrete example of it being used to create a culture of murder.
And what I am saying is that their supposed christianity is a complete non sequitor. That they were christian is not critically important unless you can show a direct causal relationship between the demonstrated actions of aggression and murder to the catholic religion.
Abraxas wrote:As for Anneliese Michel, which I only know of from the movie, I odn't see how you can pin the psychiatric problems of a woman on christianity. Wiki says her psychiatric treatment was unsuccessful for several years.

Abraxas wrote:Her being [strike]tortured to death[/strike] exorcised can be.
Actually, although the outcome was indeed bad, the intent was good. The intent was to cure here and make her well, not to torture her and ultimatly kill her.
Abraxas wrote:Certainly untrue, but the fact of the matter is even if it were true, exterminating the population of two continents during the Christian powers colonial phase and the centuries of European bloodshed can not be scrubbed from the record of Christianity simply by ignoring them long enough, certainly not when you are attempting to claim there is something inherent to Christianity that promotes a culture of supporting life.
I am contending two things here, that christianity promotes a culture of life and that atheistic secularism promotes a culture of death. Here is the syllogism that will prove this:

Secularism=Lack Of Religion

1) Citizens of Secular nations are stripped of basic rights, and millions are killed
2) Soviet Russia, China under Mao ZeDung, and Indochina are/have been Secular countries that strip their citizens of rights and have killed millions of people
Therefore:
3) Secularism promotes a culture of death
WinePusher wrote:No, as I said fear and distress lead to thought process that unusual behavior was witchcraft, and they burned the total of 19 victims because they're rashness lead them to believe they were not humans. Christianity hardly had anything to do with this...........

Abraxas wrote:You can't be serious. It was their religion, as you yourself said, that these people were the children of the Devil, demons, part of their religion these people were able to view the victims as anything other than Human. If you want to be the first person in history and attempt to make the first ever attempt to claim religion had nothing to do with the Salem witch trials.
I seriously don't see anything about christianity that instructs people on how to determine if one is a witch and if they are, to kill them. Fear and distress caused the burning of witches, not christianity.
WinePusher wrote:By "we" I am referring to America as I am an American, and I was comparing America to Europe.

Abraxas wrote:Yes, I know, but you are misrepresenting American views.
No I'm not. America is a center right country, most agree with me and my views on the welfare state.
Abraxas wrote:I think when there is a lack of sufficient private charity to provide a minimum standard of living, welfare is a suitable mechanism by which to provide it. Further, there are more people than jobs, thus some people must always be without jobs at any given times by economic necessity.
First of all, let me point out that The Great Society was successful with combating poverty because of its promotion of volunterism, not because of mandated governemnt wealth redistribution. As for jobs, there may be more people than jobs, but not everybody works. A household of 5 or 6 people is generally supported by the one head of house who has the job.
Abraxas wrote:Come now, are you seriously asserting that people in Europe don't rise up from poverty?
I don't believe I ever asserted that.
Abraxas wrote:Further, it isn't a matter of subjective opinion, things like health, life expectancy, minimum standard of living among their lowest classes, all of which point to Europe doing better when it comes to their general population.
Europe exceeds the united states in healthcare! How are you judging this, on the quality of care of the quantity of those who recieve care. America has always exceeded every country in the world when it comes to the quality of care. And on the standard of living, America was one of the first nations to create an independent thriving and sustainable middle class, and extend to the poor the basic comforts of afluence. Notice whats happening in Greece, the economy is collapsing due to their enourmous social welfare systems.
Abraxas wrote:How does a democratic system choosing to give certain amounts of the national production to help the poor not constitute a degree of volunteerism at a societal level? Further, where did Jesus ever make comment on welfare to begin with? He didn't.
You were the first to attribute a false quote to Jesus. Anyways, argubly the redistribution of wealth does not help the poor, if you claim that it does I claim that it just as well keeps poor people in poverty. And welfare is directly opposite of volunteerism as the government taxes your income in order to fund it whether you like it or not.
WinePusher wrote:The people on the top are usually the ones born into the top.
Not in America. Another example would be Sonia Sotomayor. Why do you think this country is such a strong magnet for immigrants from across the world? Because even they realize that America is the land of oppurtunity, where the poor can rise to the wealthy. Also, to tie this into Christianity. Christinaity teaches every person has inherent worth, whether disabled or poor or whatever. In India, if your born into a cast system, you stay there. Theres no way out of it, your an untouchable, you stay there. Christianity offers an alternative, to say that just because you are human, you have worth and should be treated with dignity.
Abraxas wrote:Further, the comments about several hundred years ago, or even one hundred years ago, are nothing more than red herrings. Completely irrelevant to the comparison between modern America and modern Europe. The fact of the matter is when it comes to lifestyle Americans are falling behind, the reasons for that being, as I said, social mobility is declining and real wages are frozen.
In the context of the current time, wages are frozen and social mobility is declining because of a temporary reccession. If you look at the grand scheme of things, if you look at America since its founding to today, social mobility has increased.
Abraxas wrote:Firstly, that is not what Stephen Pinker holds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Pinker
It absolutly is what Stephen Pinker holds, and I daresay any reasonable Evolutionist. Evolution cannot account for consciousness.
Abraxas wrote:Secondly, as has been demonstrated countless times both on these boards and elsewhere, evolution has no problem accounting for the biodiversity of this planet, unless you can show otherwise. We can trace the history of evolution through genetic branching, visible in retroviral DNA markers, the fossil record, and a dozen other types of evidence. Evolution as a fact is not in dispute among scientists, not as a mechanism for explaining the diversity of life. Some specific points are disputed, yes, and that is taught, however, presenting the fake controversy of creationism in school that evolution has problems it does not have, it is dishonest and destructive.
Let me make my case clear, I support evolution, I support teaching it in schools. I odn't have any objection to anything you said above, but the fact is, the new atheists run with a perfectly sound scientific theory, pervert it to mean something it doesn't. Use it to Debunk God and so on. Also, I don't think any creationist group advocates stripping evolution from the curriculum, rather, they advocate teaching ID along with it. Hardly stifiling knowledge, it is promoting free thinking.
Abraxas wrote:I want to make another point on a purely theoretical level. Because atheism requires nothing inherently, any cultural value demonstrated to be good for society can be adopted on logical grounds.
This is again a misconception that most people on this ofrum believe. Atheism makes an assertion, atheists assert that God does not exist. Bart Ehrman agrees with that, Dinesh D' Souza agrees with that, as well as Richard Dawkins.
Abraxas wrote:Thusly, in order for you to win this debate
We're debating to win!? Better get my game face on :dance:
Abraxas wrote:you are going to have to demonstrate an inherent value in Christianity itself, not in any specific value that could be adopted logically from an analysis of Christianity.
Perhaps you could rephrase this as I'm not quite understanding it. As for any inherant values of christianity, Christian doctrines can be summed up in two things; the 10 commandments, and Jesus' discourses. There is nothing unique about the 10 commandments. However, Jesus' teachings are unique in the sense that it is difficult for one to turn the other cheek or love your enemy. You have to try and work at it, in the sens that Jesus' teachings run contrary to instinctive human behavior is how they are unique.

User avatar
Abraxas
Guru
Posts: 1041
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:20 pm

Post #15

Post by Abraxas »

WinePusher wrote:
WinePusher wrote:New Revised Standard Version Bible: Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I consecrated you." The passage I quoted does say that, and it shows that biblically, a fetus is a life.

Abraxas wrote:The operative phrase there is "before I formed you in the womb". Before... in the womb. That tends to imply the verse references a time before it is a fetus, not during.


Well, it is bad logic to assume that during the occupation of the womb, God cut off any relationship to the child. Rather, it would be a logical inference to assume that because God knew "you" before you were in the womb, he continued to "know" you during your time in the womb.
Or that "you" refers to something not strictly material, as in a soul rather than a fetus. If it identified being with just the body, there could be no "before in the womb".
WinePusher wrote:And I never claimed that the church has always held the same views since its beginning. But it is not dishonest to claim that in modern American society today, mainstream christian churches such as the Roman Catholic Church, Mainstream evangelical churches, Southern Baptists, and LDS oppose the practice, while a smaller minority of liberal, reformed churches support it.

Abraxas wrote:This is an equivocation fallacy. Churches are not Christians. The fact is even if you were to establish a majority of church leaders oppose it, you would not have established the majority of Christians do, and further, polls show the majority of Christians, Catholics especially, do not. You still have to demonstrate Christianity is inherently prolife.
Um, yes they are. We are speaking in the context of christianity, and the churches represent christians.[/QUOT] This is simply incorrect. It is entirely possible a majority or even all of church leaders say one thing and the majority of Christians hold something else to be true.
Secondly, I searched for some polls specifically speeaking to christian views on abortion and found none, perhaps you could support your assertion that the majority of Christians support abortion?
I did with the poll I linked to earlier from 2007 and 2009.
And as a side note, Christian Bible teaches that Abortion is the taking of a human life, the bible never speaks out aganist abortion, but it makes it very clear that abortion is the tkaing of a life.
No, actually, as I already demonstrated the opposite is true. The crime for causing a woman to miscarry a fetus is to be punished with a fine, the punishment for taking a life is death. That the punishment for killing a fetus is not the same as for taking a life indicates the Bible, in fact, does not hold that abortion is taking a life.
Conservative, Fundamentalist, traditional churches read the passages that speak to this literally, while modern secularized churches add spin to it making it ambiguious and subjective. Conservative christianity is inherently pro life, regardless of a a few members disagreeing with it, and christianity based on the bible is pro life. Liberal christianity, that sometimes do not base their teachings on the literal bible, but ambiguious interpretation is not what I am defending.
You said Christianity as a whole, are you now backing off that Christianity is good but now instead claiming Christianity is only good when seen a certain way?
WinePusher wrote:Rather, it is dishonest on your part to assume that because 2 saints and 2 popes held pro choice views, that the entire chruch at that time was pro choice.
Abraxas wrote:I never said the whole church, just church policy. The Pope does set church policy, yes?
Not quite, heres an interesting video with quotes from Catholic Archbishops and church hierarchy officials providing decisive refutation to your point. As for how church policy/dogma is created, I do not know.

[youtube][/youtube]
Which is nice, but it still doesn't change the fact church doctrine on abortion has changed over time, contrary to your assertions.
WinePusher wrote: 1) The ethical views of current committed liberals and secular atheists. Peter Singer, John Holdreen, Barack Obama and his voting aganist the born alive infant protection act.

Abraxas wrote:Obama is undeniably Christian, thus once again undermining your argument.
Note, he claims to be a christian. His actions run contrary to that claim. One who does not attend church, one who listens to liberal hate speech at a church for over 20 years, and one who supports the ideas of Black Liberation Theologyand Collective Atonement is a liberal christian who waters down teaching that they do not agree with. Barack Obama is not a practicing christian.
Do you realize how hard you just owned yourself? Does not attend church except fro the 20 years he attends a specific church and is an atheist except for believing in black liberation theology? Is a liberal christian but is not a practicing Christian? I don't need your charity to make my arguments, thanks.
WinePusher wrote:2) The regimes of Godless Communist leaders that led to the slaughter and killing of millions of people, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedung, and Enver Hoxa.

Abraxas wrote:As opposed to Christian leaders who have killed millions, such as Hitler and the Feudal Monarchs.
First of all, for you to claim that Christianity was the motivator for Hitler's ambitions of murdering millions of Jews you would have to show a direct causal link between the two; otherwise you are simply engaging in a fallacy of coincidental correlation.
On the contrary, the point I am making is your assertion here has been that Christianity provides a "culture of life" that serves to impart said society with inherent values, including the worth of the lives of people. It is entirely undeniable that Christianity was the dominant belief system and value set in Nazi Germany and was used as a mechanism to devalue life and inflict death. Whether it was cause or not is immaterial to whether the Christian culture was and did what you say it was and did.
Second of all, this argument that there are been so much killing in the name of religion/God is thrown out to the point of ad nauseum on the atheistic side, and sadly the argument stems from ignorance. Certainly, centuries ago, there existed corruption in the church that led to things such as the inquisition, which killed possibly around tens of thousands of people. You reject the validity of Kamen's analysis, so lets round of his number, he claims that the Spanish Inquisition killed about 2000-3000 people over a span of 500 years. Unless you can point out a major inacurracy in his multi volume study, the number is accurate.
I already did point out a major flaw. He focuses almost exclusively on executions, not people who died during torture or otherwise in Inquisition custody, further, he relies on incomplete records, and finally, those numbers are specific to the Spanish Inquisition, not all of the Inquisitions cumulatively launched by the church in different times and different places.
So, the atheist will say, this proves that religion is no good. Well, what about your guys crimes, what about the people I mention above, Stalin, Zedung, Hoxa, Chescu, Pot. Crimes done in the name of atheism, crimes that targeted churches to rid society of religion.
Actually, the above wasn't to prove religion is no good, it was simply pointing out that religion lacks the inherent stabilizing positive force you claim it has. My argument is not that atheism has done better when forced upon society by a dictator, as you seem to imply, nor that all forms of atheism are good. So far my argument has been you have yet to establish any advantage Christianity imparts over atheism while simultaneously pointing out the advancements in freethinking and science to be gained by distancing ones self and ones form of government from religion and religious dogma.
Abraxas wrote:I am aware of them. Do you understand what they mean? Marx was saying religion is a painkiller, opium being the painkiller of his age, something that dulls the senses, refocuses people from the suffering they are currently undergoing and replacing it with a false sensation of comfort. He believed removing religion was necessary to creating an awareness amongst the working class that they were being abused. You will note nowhere did he advocate using violence against churches or using force to remove religion.
This is absolutly false. Opium is a drug, used in the sense of Marx's quote, he is saying that the drug of religion deludes society and essentially blinds them, and in order to create the ideal communist utopia with absolute power granted unto bureaucrats the "drug" of society must be eliminated and outlawed, and atheism should take its place.
This shows a lack of understanding what Marx was writing about. Yes, opium is a drug. Tylenol and Aspirin are drugs as well. The fact of the matter is, when Marx wrote that, Opium was NOT considered a drug in the same sense it is now. Marx wrote that in 1843, during which time it was still considered a form of medicine. The president of the US had been treated with Opium not two years earlier. During the US civil war it was used by the Union Army as a painkiller. In the US it was colloquially called "God's own Medicine". To assert that Marx was trying to say Opium was this horrible addiction that needed to be outlawed shows a severe lack of understanding of both Marx and the era in which he wrote.
As for your last sentence "You will note nowhere did he advocate using violence against churches or using force to remove religion." How do you reconcile this with the other quote "The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the destruction of religion." Do you interpret this as meaning not destroying and persecuting religion? And why is it that in the communist nations, religion is outlawed?
I never said he wasn't for destroying religion, just that nowhere did he advocate using force to do it. One can destroy religion through education, through removing the need for it, without ever directly lifting a finger against the church itself. As for why communist nations outlawed religion, there are two primary reasons.

Firstly, the communist powers were led by strongmen who could not tolerate competition from any power base, most certainly not the Vatican. This led to people like Stalin and Mao persecuting religion and making aggressive actions against the churches, other political parties, unfriendly unions, and any other kind of organized power base against them. Those few that did not operate in that manner needed support from those who did, as the US spent the better part of this century taking out communist and socialist governments, even democratically supported ones, to plant pro-west leaders in their place. That meant communist leaders were either faced with the choice of standing alone and almost certainly falling, or form an alliance with the USSR or China, which meant adopting a large number of their policies whether they wanted to or not.
Abraxas wrote:Lenin, and to a much greater extent, Stalin, were not even remotely faithful to what Marx put on paper. Marx advocated democracy, free association, community control of property, and so forth. Stalin most certainly did not reflect these values, he was interested in advancing his own personal power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Religion
It was not his own personal opinions that religion should be destoryed, it is inherent to communist. "Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society."
This contradicts what I said how, other than the already demonstrably false statement atheism is inherent to communism, something I already proved untrue with a link earlier in this thread?
Abraxas wrote:You have thusfar not shown atheistic societies do inherently violate rights more or respect life less.
Um, yes I have. The regimes of Stalin, Hoxa, Pot, Mao Zedung and so on. All atheists, all outlawed religion, all violate basic civil and human rights.
Yes, but you ignore Hitler, Franco, Taylor, etc. who also all violated human rights. All you have established is dictators, whether atheist or Christian, have a tendency to misuse power. You have not established atheism leads towards dictatorship nor that Christianity opposes it. Fact is, through most of the past 1500 years Christianity has been used as an excuse to support dictatorship and absolute, abusive power left in the hands of a single ruler or line of rulers.
Abraxas wrote:I don't believe either the speaker or the president are psychologists. Regardless, I don't think you will find anyone who doesn't want to reduce the number of abortions, a lot of us just think there are better ways to do it than making it illegal. Specifically, I support expanding resources available to the people most inclined to have abortions to reduce demand for them.
WinePusher wrote:Well, you contradict yourself here. What motive do you have to wanting to reduce the number of abortion if it has no mental effects on the mother and the fetus is not a life?
Abraxas wrote:When did I say either of those things?
You said "Regardless, I don't think you will find anyone who doesn't want to reduce the number of abortions." I assume that means you want to reduce the number of abortion? If so, can you answer my objections quoted above?
Your objections are strawmen. I never said abortions never have negative mental effects or even that they aren't life, just that the right to life does not trump the right of another to control their body and that the mental effects you described were greatly exaggerated from reality.
Abraxas wrote:There is a difference between should and should legally be required to. I don't believe parent should have the right to force their child to carry a baby to term or to not seek medical care they wish to receive. While her death is tragic, it is a reflection of her not trusting her parents to be loving and supportive in her time of need and beyond that, I don't think it really says anything about the broader debate.
Ok. Let me add as a closing point to this subject that the parent has no say in the choice of the minor under the law, but must be informed.
Still leaves the child open to retaliation if the parents have moral objections.
Abraxas wrote:Further, it is not the fatality of their injuries but the doctor's perception of the fatality of their injuries that determines treatment.


This is a blatant tautology. What other ways can the perception of fatalities be determined?
They can't, which is much my point. It all comes down to human judgment, which, in your view, is evidently playing God.
Abraxas wrote:Every time a doctor chooses to treat one patient and not another, not to mention the half dozen other examples I listed, they are playing God per your definition.
No, because the doctor chooses to treat the patient closest to death. The factor of determination is fatality, not a doctor's preconieved opinions and biases.
Not always, sometimes the doctor chooses to treat the one in better health because he believes that one will have a better shot of living. The preconceived opinions and biases are the medical information they have on the condition of the patients. In the end, it all comes down to human judgment which is inseparable from bias and opinion.
Abraxas wrote:I note you are still avoiding the overall point of this exchange, you have yet to explain why playing God with one's self is a problem.
Because on my christian faith, the choice of whether to live or to die is not up to us, but God. Do you see anything wrong with safeguarding life from conception to natural death, which is what the Catholic Church teaches?
Depends on how they go about safeguarding it. Regardless though, safeguarding life is still interfering with who lives and who dies which is still playing God per your definition, which you are still holding to be bad.
Abraxas wrote:Obama is neither secular nor does he support killing newborns.
As an illinois legislator, he was the only one who voted aganist a bill that would have allowed medical treatment to go to infants born alive after an abortion. A form of passive newborn killing.
Why did he vote against it?
WinePusher wrote:First of all, our intent in the middle east is to first and foremost, defend the homeland from more terrorist attacks.

Abraxas wrote:Nonsense. If anything has been demonstrated by terrorism campaigns of the past, such as the Irish Republican Army, any terrorist organization worth fighting doesn't need such bases of operation, nor does does bombing another country help to stop attacks from being carried out here.
Nonsense!? What do you think our objective over there is then?
Realistically, assuming we even have a well defined objective? Establish a long term military presence in the region near Iran and Pakistan in an effort to control nuclear proliferation in the area that doesn't require the approval and cooperation of Saudi Arabia or Turkey.
Abraxas wrote:Yes, now they are largely ruled by anarchy and terror because we left the job only a fraction of the way done and are unwilling to commit the level of resources required to actually accomplish nationbuilding.
Nope. The country of Iraq is not ruled by anarchy, but a functioning democracy.
A mighty strange definition of "functioning" you have there.
Abraxas wrote:In a sense. There is no evidence we have prevented any attacks or deaths by or interventions, certainly not of American civilians, but our intervention has caused tens to hundreds of thousands of deaths.
Lets see, we invaded Iraq and other parts of the middle east during the beginning years of Bush. Since the invasions, we've had no attacks. What do you call that? I call it a prevention of attacks on the homeland due to the war on terrorism.
I have a tiger repelling rock to sell you then. Firstly, we have had multiple attempts to attack the US since then. Secondly, your entire argument is a post hoc fallacy. We haven't had any terrorist attacks since LOST started showing, doesn't mean the two have anything to do with each other.
WinePusher wrote:A hasty generalization is reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficent evidence. Hitler's religious beliefs and views are insufficient, so it is a hasty generalization for you to conclude he was catholic. And the bolded part of that statement is wrong, a book "Hitler's Table Talk" nicely refutes it.

Abraxas wrote:Hitler's Table Talk has been widely debunked. All but the statements of Albert Speer point to him being at the very least a theist and more specifically, a Catholic. I do not consider the evidence insufficient in light of his written works and public statements.
First of all, we know that the motivations of public statements of faith was a tool of propoganda. Secondly, as documented by Alan Bullock "the conflicting private and publci statements prove anti christian beliefs. So, overall heres what we have
That was his highly debated opinion, yes. To claim he proved it is disingenuous. Secondly, we do not know that was his only motivation.
A highly skilled propoganda minister who made public statements of christian faith. These public statements of faith are discredited because of

1) Private conflicting statements that show his public statements to be false
This is completely untrue. There were very few private statements indicating anything other than support for Christianity, the vast majority that claim otherwise have been debunked.
2) An underlying motive to rally the churches in Nazi Germany
Raises questions but does not discredit wholly.
3) No documented private statements confirming his outward public statements to be genuine.
Certainly false, for instance, his remarks to General Engel were both private and an affirmation of his Catholic faith.
Abraxas wrote:You have asserted time and time again that Christianity creates a culture of life, however, Nazi Germany, and the Nazi party members who carried out the vast majority of the atrocities, who guarded the camps, were Catholic being the dominant religion of the time. That they were Christians is critically important, especially in light of the fact you are asserting Christianity creates or supports the valuing of life, where here we have a very concrete example of it being used to create a culture of murder.
And what I am saying is that their supposed christianity is a complete non sequitor. That they were christian is not critically important unless you can show a direct causal relationship between the demonstrated actions of aggression and murder to the catholic religion.
You asserted Christianity creates and supports a culture of life, I am pointing out that a multitude of staunchly Christian populations readily and easily devalued life, in contrast to your assertions. Further, I pointed out how Christianity was in fact, used to devalue that life further by exciting antisemitism cloaked in Christian rhetoric.
Abraxas wrote:As for Anneliese Michel, which I only know of from the movie, I odn't see how you can pin the psychiatric problems of a woman on christianity. Wiki says her psychiatric treatment was unsuccessful for several years.

Abraxas wrote:Her being [strike]tortured to death[/strike] exorcised can be.
Actually, although the outcome was indeed bad, the intent was good. The intent was to cure here and make her well, not to torture her and ultimatly kill her.
Intent isn't really relevant. That they thought torturing her to such extremes as to be potentially fatal would lead to a greater good in no way changes the fact religious dogma caused them to torture her to death.
Abraxas wrote:Certainly untrue, but the fact of the matter is even if it were true, exterminating the population of two continents during the Christian powers colonial phase and the centuries of European bloodshed can not be scrubbed from the record of Christianity simply by ignoring them long enough, certainly not when you are attempting to claim there is something inherent to Christianity that promotes a culture of supporting life.
I am contending two things here, that christianity promotes a culture of life and that atheistic secularism promotes a culture of death. Here is the syllogism that will prove this:

Secularism=Lack Of Religion

1) Citizens of Secular nations are stripped of basic rights, and millions are killed
2) Soviet Russia, China under Mao ZeDung, and Indochina are/have been Secular countries that strip their citizens of rights and have killed millions of people
Therefore:
3) Secularism promotes a culture of death


1) Citizens of Christian nations are stripped of basic rights, and millions are killed
2) Hitler's Germany, Spain under Franco, and Liberia are/have been Christian countries that strip their citizens of rights and have killed millions of people
Therefore:
3) Christianity promotes a culture of death

Do you see what I did there? You have proved coincidence, not promotion, as have I. Would you like to attempt to prove either philosophy actually promotes life or death now?
WinePusher wrote:No, as I said fear and distress lead to thought process that unusual behavior was witchcraft, and they burned the total of 19 victims because they're rashness lead them to believe they were not humans. Christianity hardly had anything to do with this...........

Abraxas wrote:You can't be serious. It was their religion, as you yourself said, that these people were the children of the Devil, demons, part of their religion these people were able to view the victims as anything other than Human. If you want to be the first person in history and attempt to make the first ever attempt to claim religion had nothing to do with the Salem witch trials.
I seriously don't see anything about christianity that instructs people on how to determine if one is a witch and if they are, to kill them. Fear and distress caused the burning of witches, not christianity.
Fear and distress caused by Christianity. Are you seriously attempting to claim that the fear of witchcraft and demons/devils was not a component part of their faith?
WinePusher wrote:By "we" I am referring to America as I am an American, and I was comparing America to Europe.

Abraxas wrote:Yes, I know, but you are misrepresenting American views.
No I'm not. America is a center right country, most agree with me and my views on the welfare state.
Polls show otherwise.
Abraxas wrote:I think when there is a lack of sufficient private charity to provide a minimum standard of living, welfare is a suitable mechanism by which to provide it. Further, there are more people than jobs, thus some people must always be without jobs at any given times by economic necessity.
First of all, let me point out that The Great Society was successful with combating poverty because of its promotion of volunterism, not because of mandated governemnt wealth redistribution. As for jobs, there may be more people than jobs, but not everybody works. A household of 5 or 6 people is generally supported by the one head of house who has the job.
That might be true of 1950 but the idea there is a single breadwinner in the family is practically antique at this point. Generally both parents work, as do some of the children once of age. Beyond that, some of the parents work multiple jobs. There are fewer jobs than people seeking jobs and what jobs there are many job seekers are not qualified to hold. This is a basic inescapable fact and I would challenge anyone who thinks we should just abandon those people on any claims they support a culture of life.
Abraxas wrote:Come now, are you seriously asserting that people in Europe don't rise up from poverty?
I don't believe I ever asserted that.
So then why do you keep pointing to examples of people doing it in the US like it is something that only happens here?
Abraxas wrote:Further, it isn't a matter of subjective opinion, things like health, life expectancy, minimum standard of living among their lowest classes, all of which point to Europe doing better when it comes to their general population.
Europe exceeds the united states in healthcare! How are you judging this, on the quality of care of the quantity of those who recieve care. America has always exceeded every country in the world when it comes to the quality of care.
Not even close. The US ranks 37th. http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centr ... elease/en/.
And on the standard of living, America was one of the first nations to create an independent thriving and sustainable middle class, and extend to the poor the basic comforts of afluence.
Past laurels is no indicator of present conditions. That we were first or among the first in no way indicates our relative standing now.
Notice whats happening in Greece, the economy is collapsing due to their enourmous social welfare systems.
Actually welfare has pretty much nothing to do with Greece's current economic problems which are the result of monetarism, speculation, and changes to the value of the Euro.
Abraxas wrote:How does a democratic system choosing to give certain amounts of the national production to help the poor not constitute a degree of volunteerism at a societal level? Further, where did Jesus ever make comment on welfare to begin with? He didn't.
You were the first to attribute a false quote to Jesus.
I have yet to quote Jesus as far as I know, except in mockery of the right wing Christian idea that Jesus was somehow against taking care of the poor.
Anyways, argubly the redistribution of wealth does not help the poor, if you claim that it does I claim that it just as well keeps poor people in poverty.
You can claim that but you would be wrong, certainly so depending on the scope of the redistribution you are talking about.
And welfare is directly opposite of volunteerism as the government taxes your income in order to fund it whether you like it or not.
But you (in the collective sense) choose the government and if you don't like it you can vote in a different government that won't tax you, or will use the tax money differently.
WinePusher wrote:The people on the top are usually the ones born into the top.
Not in America. Another example would be Sonia Sotomayor.
Again, an exception that proves the rule.
Why do you think this country is such a strong magnet for immigrants from across the world?
Reputation and location.
Because even they realize that America is the land of oppurtunity, where the poor can rise to the wealthy.
Which immigrant came to the US from Cuba or Mexico or another impoverished country and became wealthy in the past 30-40 years?
Also, to tie this into Christianity. Christinaity teaches every person has inherent worth, whether disabled or poor or whatever. In India, if your born into a cast system, you stay there. Theres no way out of it, your an untouchable, you stay there. Christianity offers an alternative, to say that just because you are human, you have worth and should be treated with dignity.
That has nothing to do with Christianity unless you want to pretend Feudal Europe never happened. That has everything to do with modern western culture which exists for more than just Christians.
Abraxas wrote:Further, the comments about several hundred years ago, or even one hundred years ago, are nothing more than red herrings. Completely irrelevant to the comparison between modern America and modern Europe. The fact of the matter is when it comes to lifestyle Americans are falling behind, the reasons for that being, as I said, social mobility is declining and real wages are frozen.
In the context of the current time, wages are frozen and social mobility is declining because of a temporary reccession. If you look at the grand scheme of things, if you look at America since its founding to today, social mobility has increased.
Since it's founding is not a relevant measure. It would be like saying social mobility in Egypt is wonderful now because Pharaoh no longer holds slaves. What is relevant is the period post WWII where modern Europe and modern America formed and the direction each has taken since then. After a brief surge, principally caused by Europe being reduced to slag at the time, the US has been falling behind in a number of relevant measures including education, healthcare, poverty, standard of living, etc.
Abraxas wrote:Firstly, that is not what Stephen Pinker holds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Pinker
It absolutly is what Stephen Pinker holds, and I daresay any reasonable Evolutionist. Evolution cannot account for consciousness.
It can and does as consciousness is merely a sophisticated situational awareness system that lends to survivability. Also, read the link; no he doesn't.
Abraxas wrote:Secondly, as has been demonstrated countless times both on these boards and elsewhere, evolution has no problem accounting for the biodiversity of this planet, unless you can show otherwise. We can trace the history of evolution through genetic branching, visible in retroviral DNA markers, the fossil record, and a dozen other types of evidence. Evolution as a fact is not in dispute among scientists, not as a mechanism for explaining the diversity of life. Some specific points are disputed, yes, and that is taught, however, presenting the fake controversy of creationism in school that evolution has problems it does not have, it is dishonest and destructive.
Let me make my case clear, I support evolution, I support teaching it in schools. I odn't have any objection to anything you said above, but the fact is, the new atheists run with a perfectly sound scientific theory, pervert it to mean something it doesn't. Use it to Debunk God and so on.
God has no place in a science classroom as either a topic to be proven or debunked. If that were going on, I would be opposed to it, however, it does not appear to be. This strikes me as the usual twisting the right does to reimagine themselves under attack every time they turn around so they can play the victim.
Also, I don't think any creationist group advocates stripping evolution from the curriculum, rather, they advocate teaching ID along with it. Hardly stifiling knowledge, it is promoting free thinking.
Except ID has zero supporting evidence and has failed peer review every time it has been attempted. Even on it's face ID is entirely unfalsifiable and self contradictory. Teaching it as an alternative or competitor or an equal to evolution is simply dishonest in the same way teaching the luminiferous aether as an alternative theory to photons is dishonest. It obscures scientific knowledge by pretending more doubt exists than actually does and passing unsupported speculation hiding nothing more than religious dogma off as fact when it is anything but muddies the waters and disrupts the flow of actual knowledge.
Abraxas wrote:I want to make another point on a purely theoretical level. Because atheism requires nothing inherently, any cultural value demonstrated to be good for society can be adopted on logical grounds.
This is again a misconception that most people on this ofrum believe. Atheism makes an assertion, atheists assert that God does not exist. Bart Ehrman agrees with that, Dinesh D' Souza agrees with that, as well as Richard Dawkins.
Not relevant to what I said. Whether God exists or is held to exist or not is irrelevant to whether cultural values can be pulled from theism if demonstrated to be good for society.
Abraxas wrote:Thusly, in order for you to win this debate
We're debating to win!? Better get my game face on :dance:
Abraxas wrote:you are going to have to demonstrate an inherent value in Christianity itself, not in any specific value that could be adopted logically from an analysis of Christianity.
Perhaps you could rephrase this as I'm not quite understanding it. As for any inherant values of christianity, Christian doctrines can be summed up in two things; the 10 commandments, and Jesus' discourses. There is nothing unique about the 10 commandments. However, Jesus' teachings are unique in the sense that it is difficult for one to turn the other cheek or love your enemy. You have to try and work at it, in the sens that Jesus' teachings run contrary to instinctive human behavior is how they are unique.
What I am attempting to state is that id we agree those things are good, we can adopt them independent of Christianity. If we are to objectively evaluate society and accept the best parts of it in modeling how to best move forward, we can pick and choose those parts of current theistic models without actually adopting the theistic model. Thus in order for you to demonstrate the inherent superiority of Christianity, you must demonstrate there exists some unique characteristic of Christianity that cannot simply be transferred to the culture of a secular society on the basis we all agree it is good.

WinePusher

Post #16

Post by WinePusher »

Abraxas wrote:Or that "you" refers to something not strictly material, as in a soul rather than a fetus. If it identified being with just the body, there could be no "before in the womb".
Well, obviously in the Christian tradition, people are taught to have soul. But on your worldview, what constitutes an actual life?
Abraxas wrote:This is simply incorrect. It is entirely possible a majority or even all of church leaders say one thing and the majority of Christians hold something else to be true.
This may be possible, but it is unlikely. The fact is, people call themselves "christians" because they agree with the doctrines and teachings of their church and their bible
Abraxas wrote:No, actually, as I already demonstrated the opposite is true. The crime for causing a woman to miscarry a fetus is to be punished with a fine, the punishment for taking a life is death.
Do you consider one supposed inconsistency in their justice system to be proof that the Bible does not teach that a fetus is a life?
Abraxas wrote:You said Christianity as a whole, are you now backing off that Christianity is good but now instead claiming Christianity is only good when seen a certain way?
Well, I don't recall saying Christianity as a whole but if I did I overstated my opinion. Obviously christianity is a big tent, and has many followers and people who interpret the Bible and dogma differently. My statement should have been, the majority of traditional churches that interpret the bible unambiguiously uphold life frmo conception to natural death.
Abraxas wrote:Which is nice, but it still doesn't change the fact church doctrine on abortion has changed over time, contrary to your assertions.
Acutally, I think several archbishops claimed that the church has always held a pro life position when it comes to abortion :blink:
Abraxas wrote:Do you realize how hard you just owned yourself?
Nope.
Abraxas wrote:Does not attend church except fro the 20 years he attends a specific church and is an atheist except for believing in black liberation theology? Is a liberal christian but is not a practicing Christian? I don't need your charity to make my arguments, thanks.
He does not CURRENTLY attend church, when he did attend church he attended a fringe/hateful church.
WinePusher wrote:First of all, for you to claim that Christianity was the motivator for Hitler's ambitions of murdering millions of Jews you would have to show a direct causal link between the two; otherwise you are simply engaging in a fallacy of coincidental correlation.

Abraxas wrote:On the contrary, the point I am making is your assertion here has been that Christianity provides a "culture of life" that serves to impart said society with inherent values, including the worth of the lives of people.
Your trying to push a narrative that is simply fallacious and wrong. See Below
Abraxas wrote:It is entirely undeniable that Christianity was the dominant belief system and value set in Nazi Germany and was used as a mechanism to devalue life and inflict death.
It was not a mechanism that was used to devalue life and inflict death. The people who did the holocaust were called Nazi's and Hitler, who purpose for doing so were militarily/racially/and politically motivated. Christianity has NOTHING to do with this topic, the fact that most Nazi's claimed to be christians for propoganda purposes means nothing.
Abraxas wrote:I already did point out a major flaw. He focuses almost exclusively on executions, not people who died during torture or otherwise in Inquisition custody, further, he relies on incomplete records, and finally, those numbers are specific to the Spanish Inquisition, not all of the Inquisitions cumulatively launched by the church in different times and different places.


Is Kayman's number drastically inaccurate? If not, theres no issue.
Abraxas wrote:Actually, the above wasn't to prove religion is no good, it was simply pointing out that religion lacks the inherent stabilizing positive force you claim it has.
Well, the lack of religion leads to a devaluization of life. And inherently christian nations, such as America, promote a culture of life.
Abraxas wrote:So far my argument has been you have yet to establish any advantage Christianity imparts over atheism while simultaneously pointing out the advancements in freethinking and science to be gained by distancing ones self and ones form of government from religion and religious dogma.
1) Societies that are secular and lack any type of religion devalue life. Which I already demonstrated.

2) Societies that are inherently christian respect life and uphold individual rights. Such as America

3) Christianity does not hinder OR impede freethinking and learning, as you claim. The first universities that were created were in Christendom by the Church, advancements in mathematics, science and literature were made by practicing Christians as well.

And, Christianity in the modern world makes an excellent contribution to the world. It is faith based organizations that are the largest charity groups, it is the Catholic Church who is still in Haiti, it was the inherently christian nation America who sent the most amount of aid to Haiti while secular irreligious nations such as China sent minimal aid.

The fact is, Dostoyesvki is right when he said "without God, all things are permitted." This claim has been proven true every time a Godless communist leader rises to power.
Abraxas wrote:This shows a lack of understanding what Marx was writing about. Yes, opium is a drug. Tylenol and Aspirin are drugs as well. The fact of the matter is, when Marx wrote that, Opium was NOT considered a drug in the same sense it is now. Marx wrote that in 1843, during which time it was still considered a form of medicine.
Are you really suggesting that the word "opium" is interchangable with "medicine" in the context of that quote? The entire meaning would be misconstruted.
Abraxas wrote:To assert that Marx was trying to say Opium was this horrible addiction that needed to be outlawed shows a severe lack of understanding of both Marx and the era in which he wrote.


First of all, Tylenol and Aspirin are medicines, but they also are drugs that cause delusional and sleepiness. Second of all, the quote "religion is the opium of the people" is part of a much larger quote:
Karl Marx wrote:Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
Does your interpretation of that isolated quote make sense when it is placed in context? It absolutly does not. In fact, Marx goes on to say that the abolition of religion is the demand for real happiness. The quote is inherently anti religious, and make the claim that religion deludes people, your spin on it is incorrect.
Abraxas wrote:I never said he wasn't for destroying religion, just that nowhere did he advocate using force to do it. One can destroy religion through education, through removing the need for it, without ever directly lifting a finger against the church itself. As for why communist nations outlawed religion, there are two primary reasons.
Lets just be clear, you wrote "You will note nowhere did he advocate using violence against churches or using force to remove religion." In fact, Karl Marx did advocate destroying religion, and followers targeted the churches and outlawed religion through force. That is the legacy of fundamentalist atheism. But what you said above, that religion can be destroyed through education, is largely representational of what is happening now.

I, as a current college student, can tell you that conservative and religious viewpoints are marganalized on my campus as well as probably every other university. Conservative professors are hard to come by, let alone devout christian professors, but marxist professors seem to be a thriving species. The fact is, atheism in America is launching an attack on young people and are indoctrinating them the same way you suggest. Indoctrinating young, naiive students is a way to abolish religion and conservative America, and it is currently going on.
Abraxas wrote:Yes, but you ignore Hitler, Franco, Taylor, etc. who also all violated human rights.
I ignore Hitler because your narrative that he was a so called "christian" leader is false, which I have already proven. Now, Franco did claim to be of God, but his crimes are nowhere near equivalent to those communist dictators I mention.
Abraxas wrote:All you have established is dictators, whether atheist or Christian, have a tendency to misuse power. You have not established atheism leads towards dictatorship nor that Christianity opposes it.
I have established that secularism leads to oppression and a devaluization of life, that is an undeniable facy. The philosophy of Nietzche is that, if you kill God, you will eventually end up with nihilism. Now, I realize your an atheist, but I doubt any atheist will go as far to call themselves nihilists.
WinePusher wrote:You said "Regardless, I don't think you will find anyone who doesn't want to reduce the number of abortions." I assume that means you want to reduce the number of abortion? If so, can you answer my objections quoted above?
Abraxas wrote:Your objections are strawmen. I never said abortions never have negative mental effects or even that they aren't life, just that the right to life does not trump the right of another to control their body and that the mental effects you described were greatly exaggerated from reality.
Ok, your dodging. Please answer this question "For what reason do you think that the number of abortions should be reduced?"
Abraxas wrote:Still leaves the child open to retaliation if the parents have moral objections.
So because family strife is possible, minors should be able to have abortions and decieve their parents?
Abraxas wrote: They can't, which is much my point. It all comes down to human judgment, which, in your view, is evidently playing God.
No, I will say it once more and drop this subject. The determinant in Triage care is the fatality of a person's wounds. A person with a bullet in their heart gets priority over a person with a broken leg because the intent is to preserve life. Human judgement is not in play here.
Abraxas wrote:Not always, sometimes the doctor chooses to treat the one in better health because he believes that one will have a better shot of living. The preconceived opinions and biases are the medical information they have on the condition of the patients. In the end, it all comes down to human judgment which is inseparable from bias and opinion.
Well, that is true, but it is rare and would only happen if rationing were to occur.
="Abraxas"]Depends on how they go about safeguarding it. Regardless though, safeguarding life is still interfering with who lives and who dies which is still playing God per your definition, which you are still holding to be bad.
Nope. Safeguarding life is setting a standard that life will be preserved by natural means. It is not "playing God" in the sense which I used.
WinePusher wrote:As an illinois legislator, he was the only one who voted aganist a bill that would have allowed medical treatment to go to infants born alive after an abortion. A form of passive newborn killing.

Abraxas wrote:Why did he vote against it?
Indeed, this is very troubling and befuzzeling as he was the only one who voted aganist it. I've no clue of the man's rationale or decision making process, but according to this, he supports passive newborn killing.
Abraxas wrote:Realistically, assuming we even have a well defined objective? Establish a long term military presence in the region near Iran and Pakistan in an effort to control nuclear proliferation in the area that doesn't require the approval and cooperation of Saudi Arabia or Turkey.
Well, the obivious reason why we're there is to defeat the people who attacked us on 9/11. And if it were our goal to establish a long term military presense in the middle east, I would reject that. But that is not our goal, that is a conspiracy coupled with the theory that our goal is to contorl the oil wells in the middle east.
Abraxas wrote:A mighty strange definition of "functioning" you have there.
Not so, the Iraqi people held a recent election with minor interupptions and protests.
WinePusher wrote:Lets see, we invaded Iraq and other parts of the middle east during the beginning years of Bush. Since the invasions, we've had no attacks. What do you call that? I call it a prevention of attacks on the homeland due to the war on terrorism.

Abraxas wrote:Firstly, we have had multiple attempts to attack the US since then. Secondly, your entire argument is a post hoc fallacy. We haven't had any terrorist attacks since LOST started showing, doesn't mean the two have anything to do with each other.
Are you really going to label this a post hoc fallacy? Firstly, the multiple attempts on the US came under the Obama administration, which is an entirely different issue. Secondly, if you think that the lack of attacks on this country is simply a coincedental event despite our drone attacks in the middle east you are mistaken. Obama's drone strikes have killed several high profile terrorists, the CIA has captured several 9/11 masterminds, and what would you attribute the lack of attacks on this country to, if not our milityar presense in the middle east?
WinePusher wrote:1) Private conflicting statements that show his public statements to be false

Abraxas wrote:This is completely untrue. There were very few private statements indicating anything other than support for Christianity, the vast majority that claim otherwise have been debunked.
Hitler's Table Talk, coupled with his own confessions in Mine Kampf and the History of the Third Reichshow that he would do anything to gian support and power. And Hitler's table Talk has not been debunked, it is accurate and was written by parts of Hitler's administration, not modern historians.....
Abraxas wrote:You asserted Christianity creates and supports a culture of life, I am pointing out that a multitude of staunchly Christian populations readily and easily devalued life, in contrast to your assertions.
And I am pointing out that Nazi Germany was not a staunchly catholic theocracy. You must have a case if you referenced the Holy Roman Empire, but pointing out that the Nazi's were mostly catholic does not prove your point.
Abraxas wrote:Further, I pointed out how Christianity was in fact, used to devalue that life further by exciting antisemitism cloaked in Christian rhetoric.
Antisemitism is rooted in secularism in the modern world. Martin Luther and other reformed theologians may have sparked antisemitism with replacement theology, but the history of antisemitism was evolutionary. The point of destroying the Jews was to purify the race and create one supreme, ultimate race. Hitler's inspiration came more from Darwain rather than Jesus, as documented in Richard Wiekart's book "From Darwain To Hitler."
Abraxas wrote:1) Citizens of Christian nations are stripped of basic rights, and millions are killed
2) Hitler's Germany, Spain under Franco, and Liberia are/have been Christian countries that strip their citizens of rights and have killed millions of people
Therefore:
3) Christianity promotes a culture of death

Do you see what I did there? You have proved coincidence, not promotion, as have I. Would you like to attempt to prove either philosophy actually promotes life or death now?
I will concede Spain to you. Please prove me wrong, but I don't think oppresion, genocide and murder are doctrines of christianity. However, they are inherent vallues to communis,
Abraxas wrote:Polls show otherwise.
Absolutly False. The most respectably poll in the country shows that America is a center right country.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conse ... group.aspx

40% of Americans identify themselves as conservative
35%-moderates
21% identify themselves as liberals

It is a fact that this country is center right.
WinePusher wrote:First of all, let me point out that The Great Society was successful with combating poverty because of its promotion of volunterism, not because of mandated governemnt wealth redistribution. As for jobs, there may be more people than jobs, but not everybody works. A household of 5 or 6 people is generally supported by the one head of house who has the job.

Abraxas wrote:That might be true of 1950 but the idea there is a single breadwinner in the family is practically antique at this point. Generally both parents work, as do some of the children once of age. Beyond that, some of the parents work multiple jobs. There are fewer jobs than people seeking jobs and what jobs there are many job seekers are not qualified to hold. This is a basic inescapable fact and I would challenge anyone who thinks we should just abandon those people on any claims they support a culture of life.
I don't think we should abandon these people. However, I do think that it is not the state's job to take care of the citizens. Underprivelaged and poor people exist in America, to alleviate this problem we should be promoting hard work skills into themselve, not giving them government handouts that make them dependent on the government.
WinePusher wrote:And on the standard of living, America was one of the first nations to create an independent thriving and sustainable middle class, and extend to the poor the basic comforts of afluence.

Abraxaas wrote:Past laurels is no indicator of present conditions. That we were first or among the first in no way indicates our relative standing now.


The fact that even poor households making $10,000-$20,000 per year can afford things such as cable, internet, and so on shows that social mobility has increased. And it is despicable to claim that this nation allows people to die in the streets (not asserting you made that claim). Universal healthcare existed before Obamacare.
WinePusher wrote:Notice whats happening in Greece, the economy is collapsing due to their enourmous social welfare systems.
Actually welfare has pretty much nothing to do with Greece's current economic problems which are the result of monetarism, speculation, and changes to the value of the Euro.[/quote]

There heavy entitlement system has everything to do with why there dying. Paying citizens a wage that is overly proportional to their hours, allowing early retirement ages, and more vacation time with pay has everything to do with it.
Abraxas wrote:You can claim that but you would be wrong, certainly so depending on the scope of the redistribution you are talking about.
Redistributing wealth never works. Punishing success doesn't encourage people to want strive for high paying positions in life if they know that their check will be cut in half
WinePusher wrote:Why do you think this country is such a strong magnet for immigrants from across the world?

Abraxas wrote:Reputation and location.


A reputation that America has lived up to. Do you believe in American Exceptionalism?
WinePusher wrote:Because even they realize that America is the land of oppurtunity, where the poor can rise to the wealthy.

Abraxas wrote:Which immigrant came to the US from Cuba or Mexico or another impoverished country and became wealthy in the past 30-40 years?


I know of none, but that does not mean they exist, does it? Do you really think that a mexican immigrant that came here would be in worse shape?
WinePusher wrote:Also, to tie this into Christianity. Christinaity teaches every person has inherent worth, whether disabled or poor or whatever. In India, if your born into a cast system, you stay there. Theres no way out of it, your an untouchable, you stay there. Christianity offers an alternative, to say that just because you are human, you have worth and should be treated with dignity.

Abraxas wrote:That has nothing to do with Christianity unless you want to pretend Feudal Europe never happened. That has everything to do with modern western culture which exists for more than just Christians.
Christianity does teach inherent dignity. But the fact that monarchs made pacts with knights for protection has nothing to do with christiainty. The European Experience of Christianity is very different from the American experience, Europe for a long period of time never had a wall between the church and the state, America did. That is why Christianity in America is much healthier htan Christianity in Europe.
WinePusher wrote:In the context of the current time, wages are frozen and social mobility is declining because of a temporary reccession. If you look at the grand scheme of things, if you look at America since its founding to today, social mobility has increased.

Abraxas wrote:After a brief surge, principally caused by Europe being reduced to slag at the time, the US has been falling behind in a number of relevant measures including education, healthcare, poverty, standard of living, etc.
I will admit that the American Education system is suffering, because of the inability of choice and competition amoung schools, and the regime of teacher's unions.
Abraxas wrote:Except ID has zero supporting evidence and has failed peer review every time it has been attempted. Even on it's face ID is entirely unfalsifiable and self contradictory. Teaching it as an alternative or competitor or an equal to evolution is simply dishonest in the same way teaching the luminiferous aether as an alternative theory to photons is dishonest.
ID is a theory supported by the complexity we see in the universe, and is not entirely falsifible.
Abraxas wrote:Not relevant to what I said. Whether God exists or is held to exist or not is irrelevant to whether cultural values can be pulled from theism if demonstrated to be good for society.
Nietzche certainly believes they do. But the fact is Christianity had contributed much to society, will you concede that? To strip Christianity from the world would also mean to strip the values that Christianity brought into the world, from the word as well. Nietzche's philosophy entirely supports this, if God is killed than all meaning and purpose is also killed, thus you get nihilism.

WinePusher wrote:Perhaps you could rephrase this as I'm not quite understanding it. As for any inherant values of christianity, Christian doctrines can be summed up in two things; the 10 commandments, and Jesus' discourses. There is nothing unique about the 10 commandments. However, Jesus' teachings are unique in the sense that it is difficult for one to turn the other cheek or love your enemy. You have to try and work at it, in the sens that Jesus' teachings run contrary to instinctive human behavior is how they are unique.
Abraxas wrote:Thus in order for you to demonstrate the inherent superiority of Christianity, you must demonstrate there exists some unique characteristic of Christianity that cannot simply be transferred to the culture of a secular society on the basis we all agree it is good.
I will make this point again, even thought you will object, but christianity does inherently support life. Infanticide was gleefully practiced by the Greeks before the Christianity came into the world, and the ancient thinkers of Greece paid barely no attention to this topic. What made infanticide contreversial was the fact that christianity teaches the value of life.

You can say what you want about the bible and slavery, but in the abolition movement in the United States was a Christian movement. What gave MLK the authority to say all men are created equal, the fact that he believed in a loving Creator. Why did Jefferson, a deist, claim that are natural rights are endowed by a creator, because he too realized the absurdity of life without a God.

WinePusher

Post #17

Post by WinePusher »

Abraxas wrote:Or that "you" refers to something not strictly material, as in a soul rather than a fetus. If it identified being with just the body, there could be no "before in the womb".
Well, obviously in the Christian tradition, people are taught to have soul. But on your worldview, what constitutes an actual life?
Abraxas wrote:This is simply incorrect. It is entirely possible a majority or even all of church leaders say one thing and the majority of Christians hold something else to be true.
This may be possible, but it is unlikely. The fact is, people call themselves "christians" because they agree with the doctrines and teachings of their church and their bible
Abraxas wrote:No, actually, as I already demonstrated the opposite is true. The crime for causing a woman to miscarry a fetus is to be punished with a fine, the punishment for taking a life is death.
Do you consider one supposed inconsistency in their justice system to be proof that the Bible does not teach that a fetus is a life?
Abraxas wrote:You said Christianity as a whole, are you now backing off that Christianity is good but now instead claiming Christianity is only good when seen a certain way?
Well, I don't recall saying Christianity as a whole but if I did I overstated my opinion. Obviously christianity is a big tent, and has many followers and people who interpret the Bible and dogma differently. My statement should have been, the majority of traditional churches that interpret the bible unambiguiously uphold life frmo conception to natural death.
Abraxas wrote:Which is nice, but it still doesn't change the fact church doctrine on abortion has changed over time, contrary to your assertions.
Acutally, I think several archbishops claimed that the church has always held a pro life position when it comes to abortion :blink:
Abraxas wrote:Do you realize how hard you just owned yourself?
Nope.
Abraxas wrote:Does not attend church except fro the 20 years he attends a specific church and is an atheist except for believing in black liberation theology? Is a liberal christian but is not a practicing Christian? I don't need your charity to make my arguments, thanks.
He does not CURRENTLY attend church, when he did attend church he attended a fringe/hateful church.
WinePusher wrote:First of all, for you to claim that Christianity was the motivator for Hitler's ambitions of murdering millions of Jews you would have to show a direct causal link between the two; otherwise you are simply engaging in a fallacy of coincidental correlation.

Abraxas wrote:On the contrary, the point I am making is your assertion here has been that Christianity provides a "culture of life" that serves to impart said society with inherent values, including the worth of the lives of people.
Your trying to push a narrative that is simply fallacious and wrong. See Below
Abraxas wrote:It is entirely undeniable that Christianity was the dominant belief system and value set in Nazi Germany and was used as a mechanism to devalue life and inflict death.
It was not a mechanism that was used to devalue life and inflict death. The people who did the holocaust were called Nazi's and Hitler, who purpose for doing so were militarily/racially/and politically motivated. Christianity has NOTHING to do with this topic, the fact that most Nazi's claimed to be christians for propoganda purposes means nothing.
Abraxas wrote:I already did point out a major flaw. He focuses almost exclusively on executions, not people who died during torture or otherwise in Inquisition custody, further, he relies on incomplete records, and finally, those numbers are specific to the Spanish Inquisition, not all of the Inquisitions cumulatively launched by the church in different times and different places.


Is Kayman's number drastically inaccurate? If not, theres no issue.
Abraxas wrote:Actually, the above wasn't to prove religion is no good, it was simply pointing out that religion lacks the inherent stabilizing positive force you claim it has.
Well, the lack of religion leads to a devaluization of life. And inherently christian nations, such as America, promote a culture of life.
Abraxas wrote:So far my argument has been you have yet to establish any advantage Christianity imparts over atheism while simultaneously pointing out the advancements in freethinking and science to be gained by distancing ones self and ones form of government from religion and religious dogma.
1) Societies that are secular and lack any type of religion devalue life. Which I already demonstrated.

2) Societies that are inherently christian respect life and uphold individual rights. Such as America

3) Christianity does not hinder OR impede freethinking and learning, as you claim. The first universities that were created were in Christendom by the Church, advancements in mathematics, science and literature were made by practicing Christians as well.

And, Christianity in the modern world makes an excellent contribution to the world. It is faith based organizations that are the largest charity groups, it is the Catholic Church who is still in Haiti, it was the inherently christian nation America who sent the most amount of aid to Haiti while secular irreligious nations such as China sent minimal aid.

The fact is, Dostoyesvki is right when he said "without God, all things are permitted." This claim has been proven true every time a Godless communist leader rises to power.
Abraxas wrote:This shows a lack of understanding what Marx was writing about. Yes, opium is a drug. Tylenol and Aspirin are drugs as well. The fact of the matter is, when Marx wrote that, Opium was NOT considered a drug in the same sense it is now. Marx wrote that in 1843, during which time it was still considered a form of medicine.
Are you really suggesting that the word "opium" is interchangable with "medicine" in the context of that quote? The entire meaning would be misconstruted.
Abraxas wrote:To assert that Marx was trying to say Opium was this horrible addiction that needed to be outlawed shows a severe lack of understanding of both Marx and the era in which he wrote.


First of all, Tylenol and Aspirin are medicines, but they also are drugs that cause delusional and sleepiness. Second of all, the quote "religion is the opium of the people" is part of a much larger quote:
Karl Marx wrote:Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
Does your interpretation of that isolated quote make sense when it is placed in context? It absolutly does not. In fact, Marx goes on to say that the abolition of religion is the demand for real happiness. The quote is inherently anti religious, and make the claim that religion deludes people, your spin on it is incorrect.
Abraxas wrote:I never said he wasn't for destroying religion, just that nowhere did he advocate using force to do it. One can destroy religion through education, through removing the need for it, without ever directly lifting a finger against the church itself. As for why communist nations outlawed religion, there are two primary reasons.
Lets just be clear, you wrote "You will note nowhere did he advocate using violence against churches or using force to remove religion." In fact, Karl Marx did advocate destroying religion, and followers targeted the churches and outlawed religion through force. That is the legacy of fundamentalist atheism. But what you said above, that religion can be destroyed through education, is largely representational of what is happening now.

I, as a current college student, can tell you that conservative and religious viewpoints are marganalized on my campus as well as probably every other university. Conservative professors are hard to come by, let alone devout christian professors, but marxist professors seem to be a thriving species. The fact is, atheism in America is launching an attack on young people and are indoctrinating them the same way you suggest. Indoctrinating young, naiive students is a way to abolish religion and conservative America, and it is currently going on.
Abraxas wrote:Yes, but you ignore Hitler, Franco, Taylor, etc. who also all violated human rights.
I ignore Hitler because your narrative that he was a so called "christian" leader is false, which I have already proven. Now, Franco did claim to be of God, but his crimes are nowhere near equivalent to those communist dictators I mention.
Abraxas wrote:All you have established is dictators, whether atheist or Christian, have a tendency to misuse power. You have not established atheism leads towards dictatorship nor that Christianity opposes it.
I have established that secularism leads to oppression and a devaluization of life, that is an undeniable facy. The philosophy of Nietzche is that, if you kill God, you will eventually end up with nihilism. Now, I realize your an atheist, but I doubt any atheist will go as far to call themselves nihilists.
WinePusher wrote:You said "Regardless, I don't think you will find anyone who doesn't want to reduce the number of abortions." I assume that means you want to reduce the number of abortion? If so, can you answer my objections quoted above?
Abraxas wrote:Your objections are strawmen. I never said abortions never have negative mental effects or even that they aren't life, just that the right to life does not trump the right of another to control their body and that the mental effects you described were greatly exaggerated from reality.
Ok, your dodging. Please answer this question "For what reason do you think that the number of abortions should be reduced?"
Abraxas wrote:Still leaves the child open to retaliation if the parents have moral objections.
So because family strife is possible, minors should be able to have abortions and decieve their parents?
Abraxas wrote: They can't, which is much my point. It all comes down to human judgment, which, in your view, is evidently playing God.
No, I will say it once more and drop this subject. The determinant in Triage care is the fatality of a person's wounds. A person with a bullet in their heart gets priority over a person with a broken leg because the intent is to preserve life. Human judgement is not in play here.
Abraxas wrote:Not always, sometimes the doctor chooses to treat the one in better health because he believes that one will have a better shot of living. The preconceived opinions and biases are the medical information they have on the condition of the patients. In the end, it all comes down to human judgment which is inseparable from bias and opinion.
Well, that is true, but it is rare and would only happen if rationing were to occur.
="Abraxas"]Depends on how they go about safeguarding it. Regardless though, safeguarding life is still interfering with who lives and who dies which is still playing God per your definition, which you are still holding to be bad.
Nope. Safeguarding life is setting a standard that life will be preserved by natural means. It is not "playing God" in the sense which I used.
WinePusher wrote:As an illinois legislator, he was the only one who voted aganist a bill that would have allowed medical treatment to go to infants born alive after an abortion. A form of passive newborn killing.

Abraxas wrote:Why did he vote against it?
Indeed, this is very troubling and befuzzeling as he was the only one who voted aganist it. I've no clue of the man's rationale or decision making process, but according to this, he supports passive newborn killing.
Abraxas wrote:Realistically, assuming we even have a well defined objective? Establish a long term military presence in the region near Iran and Pakistan in an effort to control nuclear proliferation in the area that doesn't require the approval and cooperation of Saudi Arabia or Turkey.
Well, the obivious reason why we're there is to defeat the people who attacked us on 9/11. And if it were our goal to establish a long term military presense in the middle east, I would reject that. But that is not our goal, that is a conspiracy coupled with the theory that our goal is to contorl the oil wells in the middle east.
Abraxas wrote:A mighty strange definition of "functioning" you have there.
Not so, the Iraqi people held a recent election with minor interupptions and protests.
WinePusher wrote:Lets see, we invaded Iraq and other parts of the middle east during the beginning years of Bush. Since the invasions, we've had no attacks. What do you call that? I call it a prevention of attacks on the homeland due to the war on terrorism.

Abraxas wrote:Firstly, we have had multiple attempts to attack the US since then. Secondly, your entire argument is a post hoc fallacy. We haven't had any terrorist attacks since LOST started showing, doesn't mean the two have anything to do with each other.
Are you really going to label this a post hoc fallacy? Firstly, the multiple attempts on the US came under the Obama administration, which is an entirely different issue. Secondly, if you think that the lack of attacks on this country is simply a coincedental event despite our drone attacks in the middle east you are mistaken. Obama's drone strikes have killed several high profile terrorists, the CIA has captured several 9/11 masterminds, and what would you attribute the lack of attacks on this country to, if not our milityar presense in the middle east?
WinePusher wrote:1) Private conflicting statements that show his public statements to be false

Abraxas wrote:This is completely untrue. There were very few private statements indicating anything other than support for Christianity, the vast majority that claim otherwise have been debunked.
Hitler's Table Talk, coupled with his own confessions in Mine Kampf and the History of the Third Reichshow that he would do anything to gian support and power. And Hitler's table Talk has not been debunked, it is accurate and was written by parts of Hitler's administration, not modern historians.....
Abraxas wrote:You asserted Christianity creates and supports a culture of life, I am pointing out that a multitude of staunchly Christian populations readily and easily devalued life, in contrast to your assertions.
And I am pointing out that Nazi Germany was not a staunchly catholic theocracy. You must have a case if you referenced the Holy Roman Empire, but pointing out that the Nazi's were mostly catholic does not prove your point.
Abraxas wrote:Further, I pointed out how Christianity was in fact, used to devalue that life further by exciting antisemitism cloaked in Christian rhetoric.
Antisemitism is rooted in secularism in the modern world. Martin Luther and other reformed theologians may have sparked antisemitism with replacement theology, but the history of antisemitism was evolutionary. The point of destroying the Jews was to purify the race and create one supreme, ultimate race. Hitler's inspiration came more from Darwain rather than Jesus, as documented in Richard Wiekart's book "From Darwain To Hitler."
Abraxas wrote:1) Citizens of Christian nations are stripped of basic rights, and millions are killed
2) Hitler's Germany, Spain under Franco, and Liberia are/have been Christian countries that strip their citizens of rights and have killed millions of people
Therefore:
3) Christianity promotes a culture of death

Do you see what I did there? You have proved coincidence, not promotion, as have I. Would you like to attempt to prove either philosophy actually promotes life or death now?
I will concede Spain to you. Please prove me wrong, but I don't think oppresion, genocide and murder are doctrines of christianity. However, they are inherent vallues to communis,
Abraxas wrote:Polls show otherwise.
Absolutly False. The most respectably poll in the country shows that America is a center right country.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conse ... group.aspx

40% of Americans identify themselves as conservative
35%-moderates
21% identify themselves as liberals

It is a fact that this country is center right.
WinePusher wrote:First of all, let me point out that The Great Society was successful with combating poverty because of its promotion of volunterism, not because of mandated governemnt wealth redistribution. As for jobs, there may be more people than jobs, but not everybody works. A household of 5 or 6 people is generally supported by the one head of house who has the job.

Abraxas wrote:That might be true of 1950 but the idea there is a single breadwinner in the family is practically antique at this point. Generally both parents work, as do some of the children once of age. Beyond that, some of the parents work multiple jobs. There are fewer jobs than people seeking jobs and what jobs there are many job seekers are not qualified to hold. This is a basic inescapable fact and I would challenge anyone who thinks we should just abandon those people on any claims they support a culture of life.
I don't think we should abandon these people. However, I do think that it is not the state's job to take care of the citizens. Underprivelaged and poor people exist in America, to alleviate this problem we should be promoting hard work skills into themselve, not giving them government handouts that make them dependent on the government.
WinePusher wrote:And on the standard of living, America was one of the first nations to create an independent thriving and sustainable middle class, and extend to the poor the basic comforts of afluence.

Abraxaas wrote:Past laurels is no indicator of present conditions. That we were first or among the first in no way indicates our relative standing now.


The fact that even poor households making $10,000-$20,000 per year can afford things such as cable, internet, and so on shows that social mobility has increased. And it is despicable to claim that this nation allows people to die in the streets (not asserting you made that claim). Universal healthcare existed before Obamacare.
WinePusher wrote:Notice whats happening in Greece, the economy is collapsing due to their enourmous social welfare systems.
Actually welfare has pretty much nothing to do with Greece's current economic problems which are the result of monetarism, speculation, and changes to the value of the Euro.[/quote]

There heavy entitlement system has everything to do with why there dying. Paying citizens a wage that is overly proportional to their hours, allowing early retirement ages, and more vacation time with pay has everything to do with it.
Abraxas wrote:You can claim that but you would be wrong, certainly so depending on the scope of the redistribution you are talking about.
Redistributing wealth never works. Punishing success doesn't encourage people to want strive for high paying positions in life if they know that their check will be cut in half
WinePusher wrote:Why do you think this country is such a strong magnet for immigrants from across the world?

Abraxas wrote:Reputation and location.


A reputation that America has lived up to. Do you believe in American Exceptionalism?
WinePusher wrote:Because even they realize that America is the land of oppurtunity, where the poor can rise to the wealthy.

Abraxas wrote:Which immigrant came to the US from Cuba or Mexico or another impoverished country and became wealthy in the past 30-40 years?


I know of none, but that does not mean they exist, does it? Do you really think that a mexican immigrant that came here would be in worse shape?
WinePusher wrote:Also, to tie this into Christianity. Christinaity teaches every person has inherent worth, whether disabled or poor or whatever. In India, if your born into a cast system, you stay there. Theres no way out of it, your an untouchable, you stay there. Christianity offers an alternative, to say that just because you are human, you have worth and should be treated with dignity.

Abraxas wrote:That has nothing to do with Christianity unless you want to pretend Feudal Europe never happened. That has everything to do with modern western culture which exists for more than just Christians.
Christianity does teach inherent dignity. But the fact that monarchs made pacts with knights for protection has nothing to do with christiainty. The European Experience of Christianity is very different from the American experience, Europe for a long period of time never had a wall between the church and the state, America did. That is why Christianity in America is much healthier htan Christianity in Europe.
WinePusher wrote:In the context of the current time, wages are frozen and social mobility is declining because of a temporary reccession. If you look at the grand scheme of things, if you look at America since its founding to today, social mobility has increased.

Abraxas wrote:After a brief surge, principally caused by Europe being reduced to slag at the time, the US has been falling behind in a number of relevant measures including education, healthcare, poverty, standard of living, etc.
I will admit that the American Education system is suffering, because of the inability of choice and competition amoung schools, and the regime of teacher's unions.
Abraxas wrote:Except ID has zero supporting evidence and has failed peer review every time it has been attempted. Even on it's face ID is entirely unfalsifiable and self contradictory. Teaching it as an alternative or competitor or an equal to evolution is simply dishonest in the same way teaching the luminiferous aether as an alternative theory to photons is dishonest.
ID is a theory supported by the complexity we see in the universe, and is not entirely falsifible.
Abraxas wrote:Not relevant to what I said. Whether God exists or is held to exist or not is irrelevant to whether cultural values can be pulled from theism if demonstrated to be good for society.
Nietzche certainly believes they do. But the fact is Christianity had contributed much to society, will you concede that? To strip Christianity from the world would also mean to strip the values that Christianity brought into the world, from the word as well. Nietzche's philosophy entirely supports this, if God is killed than all meaning and purpose is also killed, thus you get nihilism.

WinePusher wrote:Perhaps you could rephrase this as I'm not quite understanding it. As for any inherant values of christianity, Christian doctrines can be summed up in two things; the 10 commandments, and Jesus' discourses. There is nothing unique about the 10 commandments. However, Jesus' teachings are unique in the sense that it is difficult for one to turn the other cheek or love your enemy. You have to try and work at it, in the sens that Jesus' teachings run contrary to instinctive human behavior is how they are unique.
Abraxas wrote:Thus in order for you to demonstrate the inherent superiority of Christianity, you must demonstrate there exists some unique characteristic of Christianity that cannot simply be transferred to the culture of a secular society on the basis we all agree it is good.
I will make this point again, even thought you will object, but christianity does inherently support life. Infanticide was gleefully practiced by the Greeks before the Christianity came into the world, and the ancient thinkers of Greece paid barely no attention to this topic. What made infanticide contreversial was the fact that christianity teaches the value of life.

You can say what you want about the bible and slavery, but in the abolition movement in the United States was a Christian movement. What gave MLK the authority to say all men are created equal, the fact that he believed in a loving Creator. Why did Jefferson, a deist, claim that are natural rights are endowed by a creator, because he too realized the absurdity of life without a God.

User avatar
Abraxas
Guru
Posts: 1041
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:20 pm

Post #18

Post by Abraxas »

WinePusher wrote:
Abraxas wrote:Or that "you" refers to something not strictly material, as in a soul rather than a fetus. If it identified being with just the body, there could be no "before in the womb".
Well, obviously in the Christian tradition, people are taught to have soul. But on your worldview, what constitutes an actual life?
As I mentioned earlier, technically speaking a sperm is life.
Abraxas wrote:This is simply incorrect. It is entirely possible a majority or even all of church leaders say one thing and the majority of Christians hold something else to be true.
This may be possible, but it is unlikely. The fact is, people call themselves "christians" because they agree with the doctrines and teachings of their church and their bible
More common than you think. How many minor sins can you name that most people think are okay because nobody really gets hurt but if you were to ask a priest they would tell you it is a sin? How many things in the Bible to people ignore because they have dropped from our culture, like eating shellfish or wearing mixed fabrics? People identify themselves as Christians because they believe Jesus Christ is their lord and savior and will take them to meet God when they die. Per the poll I linked to earlier, the majority of Christians in the US, especially Catholics, feel or felt abortion is acceptable, regardless of what the church says. That is simply a statistical fact.
Abraxas wrote:No, actually, as I already demonstrated the opposite is true. The crime for causing a woman to miscarry a fetus is to be punished with a fine, the punishment for taking a life is death.
Do you consider one supposed inconsistency in their justice system to be proof that the Bible does not teach that a fetus is a life?
Inconsistency is wrong. The divine laws of Solomon very clearly and directly state killing a fetus is a grossly different offense from killing a person. One incurs a fine, the other costs you your life. Further, if causing a miscarriage was killing a person, the law against causing one would be redundant as it would already fall under the kill person law. That it was mentioned at all, and not only that but mentioned under a vastly lesser penalty, indicates that a fetus, per the Bible, is not a person.
Abraxas wrote:You said Christianity as a whole, are you now backing off that Christianity is good but now instead claiming Christianity is only good when seen a certain way?
Well, I don't recall saying Christianity as a whole but if I did I overstated my opinion. Obviously christianity is a big tent, and has many followers and people who interpret the Bible and dogma differently. My statement should have been, the majority of traditional churches that interpret the bible unambiguiously uphold life frmo conception to natural death.
Ah, but the topic of debate was just Christianity. If Christianity is so scattered, so open to interpretation, and so prone to having it's constituents reading into Christianity the things the churches you favor do not, how is it supposed to provide any kind of inherent stabilizing effect?
Abraxas wrote:Which is nice, but it still doesn't change the fact church doctrine on abortion has changed over time, contrary to your assertions.
Acutally, I think several archbishops claimed that the church has always held a pro life position when it comes to abortion :blink:
Yes, they did. However, the fact is with Aquinas and Augustine and their dogma of quickening, which was official church doctrine for a time, the fact is abortion was only considered sinful for the sexuality of it. The fact of the matter is that the stance of quickening being required was canon law from about 400 AD onward to Pope Sixtus after 1471 that this was reversed.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm
Abraxas wrote:Do you realize how hard you just owned yourself?
Nope.
Abraxas wrote:Does not attend church except fro the 20 years he attends a specific church and is an atheist except for believing in black liberation theology? Is a liberal christian but is not a practicing Christian? I don't need your charity to make my arguments, thanks.
He does not CURRENTLY attend church, when he did attend church he attended a fringe/hateful church.
And yet for 20 years he attended Christian church, including all of his time as a state senator. You can deny he is and was a Christian all you like, but the fact of the matter is he is one.
WinePusher wrote:First of all, for you to claim that Christianity was the motivator for Hitler's ambitions of murdering millions of Jews you would have to show a direct causal link between the two; otherwise you are simply engaging in a fallacy of coincidental correlation.

Abraxas wrote:On the contrary, the point I am making is your assertion here has been that Christianity provides a "culture of life" that serves to impart said society with inherent values, including the worth of the lives of people.
Your trying to push a narrative that is simply fallacious and wrong. See Below
Abraxas wrote:It is entirely undeniable that Christianity was the dominant belief system and value set in Nazi Germany and was used as a mechanism to devalue life and inflict death.
It was not a mechanism that was used to devalue life and inflict death. The people who did the holocaust were called Nazi's and Hitler, who purpose for doing so were militarily/racially/and politically motivated. Christianity has NOTHING to do with this topic, the fact that most Nazi's claimed to be christians for propoganda purposes means nothing.
The people who did the killing were more than Nazis. To pretend they were just Nazis is the short, simple and wrong version of history. The fact of the matter is the people doing the killing were people, with all the complexity thereof. The majority of them were Catholics. Nazi propaganda used their religious views to increase the levels of antisemitism and increase levels of unity. One of the project the Nazi party was most concerned with was the unification of German Protestants and Catholics. Yes, the Nazi leadership used and abused Christianity to promote it's own goals, but the fact remains, Christianity was the vessel which they used to spread hatred and death. They could not have done as much as they did were it not for the religion of the people being a convenient channel through which to do it.
Abraxas wrote:I already did point out a major flaw. He focuses almost exclusively on executions, not people who died during torture or otherwise in Inquisition custody, further, he relies on incomplete records, and finally, those numbers are specific to the Spanish Inquisition, not all of the Inquisitions cumulatively launched by the church in different times and different places.


Is Kayman's number drastically inaccurate? If not, theres no issue.
Yes, they are dramatically different.
Abraxas wrote:Actually, the above wasn't to prove religion is no good, it was simply pointing out that religion lacks the inherent stabilizing positive force you claim it has.
Well, the lack of religion leads to a devaluization of life. And inherently christian nations, such as America, promote a culture of life.
The US hardly promotes a culture of life, certainly not when compared to post-WWII Europe. We don't provide medical care to those who need it most as well. We have been engaged in military conflicts every year in the past 120 years excepting 1934-1940, 1977 and 1979. Still allow the death penalty. If you want countries that promote a culture of life, the best examples are the Scandinavian states and Switzerland, followed by much of the rest of Europe.
Abraxas wrote:So far my argument has been you have yet to establish any advantage Christianity imparts over atheism while simultaneously pointing out the advancements in freethinking and science to be gained by distancing ones self and ones form of government from religion and religious dogma.
1) Societies that are secular and lack any type of religion devalue life. Which I already demonstrated.
No, actually, you showed societies completely unlike western democracies have a poor track record. Conversely, I have demonstrated historically Christianity has had a very poor track record of supporting life, and that the actual winner in that debate is western democracy, which has outdone everything on the field religious or otherwise.
2) Societies that are inherently christian respect life and uphold individual rights. Such as America
Except America doesn't and neither have countless other Christian nations and empires throughout history. See all of Feudal and Colonial Europe for reference.
3) Christianity does not hinder OR impede freethinking and learning, as you claim. The first universities that were created were in Christendom by the Church, advancements in mathematics, science and literature were made by practicing Christians as well.
Galileo might have something to say about that. That Christianity is still trying to pretend evolution and the history of the universe older than 6-10 thousand years never happened, some still even try to claim we are at the center of the universe in clear disregard for scientific evidence in some circles. Can you think of a single noteworthy source opposed to the proliferation of scientific knowledge outside of Christianity in the western world?
And, Christianity in the modern world makes an excellent contribution to the world. It is faith based organizations that are the largest charity groups, it is the Catholic Church who is still in Haiti, it was the inherently christian nation America who sent the most amount of aid to Haiti while secular irreligious nations such as China sent minimal aid.
I challenge the idea that faith based organizations make the largest charity groups. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is not religious, certainly, to name one example already covered in this thread. Further, many a secular charity is still in Haiti too. Doctors Without Borders, heard of them? They've been in Haiti for 19 years. It is all well and good the Church pitched in after disaster struck, as did countless religious charities and countless secular charities, but throwing around money after a disaster doesn't mean all that much. The US has tremendous material wealth and Haiti is very close to us.

I also find it interesting how when you attempt to make a point in favor of religion, you are willing to accept the general population as representative of the nation while claiming the leader is of a different faith, the US and Obama, but when it gets reversed you try to pretend the two have nothing to do with each other, like Germany and Hitler.
The fact is, Dostoyesvki is right when he said "without God, all things are permitted." This claim has been proven true every time a Godless communist leader rises to power.
If we have degenerated into "argumentum ad quoting celebrities and historical figures", I have quite a number of quotes on Christianity I can bring into this, starting with Gandhi. Is this really a productive route for you to take?
Abraxas wrote:This shows a lack of understanding what Marx was writing about. Yes, opium is a drug. Tylenol and Aspirin are drugs as well. The fact of the matter is, when Marx wrote that, Opium was NOT considered a drug in the same sense it is now. Marx wrote that in 1843, during which time it was still considered a form of medicine.
Are you really suggesting that the word "opium" is interchangable with "medicine" in the context of that quote? The entire meaning would be misconstruted.
More interchangeable with "painkiller" or "numbing agent" than medicine. He felt it caused the masses to ignore the hardship and injustice around them because they were promised paradise and justice when they died.
Abraxas wrote:To assert that Marx was trying to say Opium was this horrible addiction that needed to be outlawed shows a severe lack of understanding of both Marx and the era in which he wrote.


First of all, Tylenol and Aspirin are medicines, but they also are drugs that cause delusional and sleepiness. Second of all, the quote "religion is the opium of the people" is part of a much larger quote:
Karl Marx wrote:Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
Does your interpretation of that isolated quote make sense when it is placed in context? It absolutly does not. In fact, Marx goes on to say that the abolition of religion is the demand for real happiness. The quote is inherently anti religious, and make the claim that religion deludes people, your spin on it is incorrect.
Yes, except you don't seem to understand your new take on it is the same as mine and different from the one you initially put forward. It wasn't a horrible addictive drug to be outlawed and assaulted, as you initially claimed, it was something that dulled the senses and gave a false perception of reality so people could endure hardship instead of doing something about it.
Abraxas wrote:I never said he wasn't for destroying religion, just that nowhere did he advocate using force to do it. One can destroy religion through education, through removing the need for it, without ever directly lifting a finger against the church itself. As for why communist nations outlawed religion, there are two primary reasons.
Lets just be clear, you wrote "You will note nowhere did he advocate using violence against churches or using force to remove religion." In fact, Karl Marx did advocate destroying religion, and followers targeted the churches and outlawed religion through force.
I would hardly call Stalin and Mao followers of Marx, though they certainly borrowed the rhetoric.
That is the legacy of fundamentalist atheism. But what you said above, that religion can be destroyed through education, is largely representational of what is happening now.
Yes, it is. As education increases, religion decreases. Hopefully within my lifetime the religious will be a dying breed as reason takes over.
I, as a current college student, can tell you that conservative and religious viewpoints are marganalized on my campus as well as probably every other university. Conservative professors are hard to come by, let alone devout christian professors, but marxist professors seem to be a thriving species. The fact is, atheism in America is launching an attack on young people and are indoctrinating them the same way you suggest. Indoctrinating young, naiive students is a way to abolish religion and conservative America, and it is currently going on.
Young and naive? These are adults we are talking about here. You want to talk indoctrination, why don't we discuss the practice of taking young children to church or sending them to Catholic schools? Christianity wouldn't exist today but for that practice.
Abraxas wrote:Yes, but you ignore Hitler, Franco, Taylor, etc. who also all violated human rights.
I ignore Hitler because your narrative that he was a so called "christian" leader is false, which I have already proven. Now, Franco did claim to be of God, but his crimes are nowhere near equivalent to those communist dictators I mention.
Hitler was Catholic, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Further, the only reason Franco and Taylor weren't as bad as Stalin or Mao is because they had much smaller populations to work with. Per capita, Franco was every bit the monster any of the Communist dictators you mentioned was.
Abraxas wrote:All you have established is dictators, whether atheist or Christian, have a tendency to misuse power. You have not established atheism leads towards dictatorship nor that Christianity opposes it.
I have established that secularism leads to oppression and a devaluization of life, that is an undeniable facy. The philosophy of Nietzche is that, if you kill God, you will eventually end up with nihilism. Now, I realize your an atheist, but I doubt any atheist will go as far to call themselves nihilists.
You claim you have but I trust the readers can see otherwise. So far you have launched a three pronged attack but attempted to pass them off as a single argument. Firstly, you have attributed all the evils of Communist dictatorships to atheism as opposed to Communist dictatorships. You have then claimed to have proven this demonstrates atheism devalues human life, while simultaneously arguing social democratic Europe is too secular, trying to act like Communism has anything to do with the European model when it clearly does not.

So far all you have demonstrated, really, is that Communist dictatorships devalue human life. Nobody has argued otherwise. You then attempt to claim anything not like your version of Christianity is like that even though we both know this isn't the case. A hasty generalization fallacy.

Then, finally, you have simply been dismissive, either through quote dropping or whitewashing all the times Christianity was explicitly used as mechanism for, or even the dominant cultural feature of populations that devalued and destroyed human life.

You haven't shown anything except that you have been unable or unwilling to confront secularism or Christianity head on, instead relying on avoidance.
WinePusher wrote:You said "Regardless, I don't think you will find anyone who doesn't want to reduce the number of abortions." I assume that means you want to reduce the number of abortion? If so, can you answer my objections quoted above?
Abraxas wrote:Your objections are strawmen. I never said abortions never have negative mental effects or even that they aren't life, just that the right to life does not trump the right of another to control their body and that the mental effects you described were greatly exaggerated from reality.
Ok, your dodging. Please answer this question "For what reason do you think that the number of abortions should be reduced?"
Firstly, because abortions tend to be symptoms of socioeconomic problems I want to see handled, like poverty and a lack of support mechanisms. Secondly, they are a process that takes a mental toll on all involved, causing a lot of worry and heartache. Thirdly, they are incredibly complicated, when you factor in all the possible situations such as the father wanting it or not. Thirdly, I do believe it is a human life, and that even though it does not have the right to use the body of another against their will to sustain life, it is certainly less than ideal when anyone dies.
Abraxas wrote:Still leaves the child open to retaliation if the parents have moral objections.
So because family strife is possible, minors should be able to have abortions and decieve their parents?
Yes. Minors should have the option to seek any medical procedure they need and if in order to do so they must deceive their parents it should be permitted they do so. The alternative is to allow the parents to threaten and punish children into not receiving medical procedures which is the greater evil.
Abraxas wrote: They can't, which is much my point. It all comes down to human judgment, which, in your view, is evidently playing God.
No, I will say it once more and drop this subject. The determinant in Triage care is the fatality of a person's wounds. A person with a bullet in their heart gets priority over a person with a broken leg because the intent is to preserve life. Human judgement is not in play here.
Clearly you do not understand triage care. Quite often the worse off patient is allowed to die because they think a slightly better off patient shows more chance of pulling through in the long run.
Abraxas wrote:Not always, sometimes the doctor chooses to treat the one in better health because he believes that one will have a better shot of living. The preconceived opinions and biases are the medical information they have on the condition of the patients. In the end, it all comes down to human judgment which is inseparable from bias and opinion.
Well, that is true, but it is rare and would only happen if rationing were to occur.
In emergency situations doctors must work with what they have on the scene and sometimes there are more dying than doctors. Certainly so in wartime triage scenarios.
="Abraxas"]Depends on how they go about safeguarding it. Regardless though, safeguarding life is still interfering with who lives and who dies which is still playing God per your definition, which you are still holding to be bad.
Nope. Safeguarding life is setting a standard that life will be preserved by natural means. It is not "playing God" in the sense which I used.
The sense you seems to be something along the lines of it being playing God when it is bad or something you think is bad but not when you think it isn't. All human decision is the result of human judgment and the result of human bias, including all decisions related to the preservation and safeguarding of human life. To not play God would involve a kind of fatalism wherein whatever happens happens and no efforts is ever made to hasten or delay death, which is clearly not what is good for society.
WinePusher wrote:As an illinois legislator, he was the only one who voted aganist a bill that would have allowed medical treatment to go to infants born alive after an abortion. A form of passive newborn killing.

Abraxas wrote:Why did he vote against it?
Indeed, this is very troubling and befuzzeling as he was the only one who voted aganist it. I've no clue of the man's rationale or decision making process, but according to this, he supports passive newborn killing.
Perhaps it had something to do with the added obligations and burdens the bill placed on the mother in addition to the medical treatment for the infant. Of course, finding out why would take research where repeating he is in favor of murdering infants just requires repeating talking points.
Abraxas wrote:Realistically, assuming we even have a well defined objective? Establish a long term military presence in the region near Iran and Pakistan in an effort to control nuclear proliferation in the area that doesn't require the approval and cooperation of Saudi Arabia or Turkey.
Well, the obivious reason why we're there is to defeat the people who attacked us on 9/11. And if it were our goal to establish a long term military presense in the middle east, I would reject that. But that is not our goal, that is a conspiracy coupled with the theory that our goal is to contorl the oil wells in the middle east.
The people who attacked us on 9/11 were never in Iraq. If we are there to get the people who attacked us, I strongly urge that war making power be taken away from the republicans until they are sufficiently technologically savvy to operate a map.

The only reason to have been there as long as we have is if we have an interest in controlling the area for some strategic purpose. The most strategically valuable goal in the region is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons out of Pakistan and Iran. Considering we now have staging areas on both sides of Iran and on the border of Pakistan, we are in an excellent position to enforce that should the need arise. You can call it a conspiracy theory but it is a good deal more sane than the majority of the alternatives.

Of course, all of this assumes we even have an objective at this stage, which is debatable.
Abraxas wrote:A mighty strange definition of "functioning" you have there.
Not so, the Iraqi people held a recent election with minor interupptions and protests.
If they are so functional, why do they require an occupying army?
WinePusher wrote:Lets see, we invaded Iraq and other parts of the middle east during the beginning years of Bush. Since the invasions, we've had no attacks. What do you call that? I call it a prevention of attacks on the homeland due to the war on terrorism.

Abraxas wrote:Firstly, we have had multiple attempts to attack the US since then. Secondly, your entire argument is a post hoc fallacy. We haven't had any terrorist attacks since LOST started showing, doesn't mean the two have anything to do with each other.
Are you really going to label this a post hoc fallacy?
Yes.
Firstly, the multiple attempts on the US came under the Obama administration
Not true. The underoos bomber was under Bush. The attempts to bomb transatlantic flights were under Bush. Assorted car and bus bomb attempts under Bush and Obama both. The Fort Dix attack plot. Etc. That they were stopped is a demonstration of how good police work can stop terrorism, it had nothing to do with who we were bombing at the time, except perhaps to encourage them to try.
which is an entirely different issue. Secondly, if you think that the lack of attacks on this country is simply a coincedental event despite our drone attacks in the middle east you are mistaken. Obama's drone strikes have killed several high profile terrorists, the CIA has captured several 9/11 masterminds, and what would you attribute the lack of attacks on this country to, if not our milityar presense in the middle east?
Solid anti-terrorism investigations carried out by police forces. That is, after all, how most of the attacks were thwarted.
WinePusher wrote:1) Private conflicting statements that show his public statements to be false

Abraxas wrote:This is completely untrue. There were very few private statements indicating anything other than support for Christianity, the vast majority that claim otherwise have been debunked.
Hitler's Table Talk, coupled with his own confessions in Mine Kampf and the History of the Third Reichshow that he would do anything to gian support and power. And Hitler's table Talk has not been debunked, it is accurate and was written by parts of Hitler's administration, not modern historians.....
The translation of Table Talk used that portrayed a negative view of Christianity was rebuked by those people as being inaccurate. A later translation was made available, confirmed as being correct that did not contain the anti-christian rhetoric. Whether or not he would do anything to gain support and power is an independent question from what his religious leanings were.
Abraxas wrote:You asserted Christianity creates and supports a culture of life, I am pointing out that a multitude of staunchly Christian populations readily and easily devalued life, in contrast to your assertions.
And I am pointing out that Nazi Germany was not a staunchly catholic theocracy. You must have a case if you referenced the Holy Roman Empire, but pointing out that the Nazi's were mostly catholic does not prove your point.
Nobody said anything about a theocracy, however, Germany was mostly Catholic and most of the rest were protestant Christians. That does prove my point, that a culture almost wholly Christian permitted and supported Hitler's atrocities, contrary to your assertion that Christianity creates and maintains a culture of life. We have seen how strong that culture is and it seems to have all the strength and rigidity of wet cardboard on its own.
Abraxas wrote:Further, I pointed out how Christianity was in fact, used to devalue that life further by exciting antisemitism cloaked in Christian rhetoric.
Antisemitism is rooted in secularism in the modern world. Martin Luther and other reformed theologians may have sparked antisemitism with replacement theology, but the history of antisemitism was evolutionary. The point of destroying the Jews was to purify the race and create one supreme, ultimate race. Hitler's inspiration came more from Darwain rather than Jesus, as documented in Richard Wiekart's book "From Darwain To Hitler."
/facepalm

On antisemitism having its roots in the modern world: No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism

Also, No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiani ... tisemitism

As for "From Darwin to Hitler", you may as well quote Hovind for all the credibility contained therein. I would be hardpressed to think of a book more universally rejected by scholars than that one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Darwi ... _reception

"Larry Arnhart, a professor of Political Science at Northern Illinois University wrote "Weikart doesn't actually show any direct connection between Darwin and Hitler. In fact, Weikart has responded to my criticisms by admitting that the title of his book is misleading, since he cannot show any direct link between Darwin's ideas and Hitler's Nazism.""
Abraxas wrote:1) Citizens of Christian nations are stripped of basic rights, and millions are killed
2) Hitler's Germany, Spain under Franco, and Liberia are/have been Christian countries that strip their citizens of rights and have killed millions of people
Therefore:
3) Christianity promotes a culture of death

Do you see what I did there? You have proved coincidence, not promotion, as have I. Would you like to attempt to prove either philosophy actually promotes life or death now?
I will concede Spain to you. Please prove me wrong, but I don't think oppresion, genocide and murder are doctrines of christianity. However, they are inherent vallues to communis,
You don't? Ask the Canaanites what they think about genocide, oppression, and murder not being Biblical values. Or how about the Benjamites?
Abraxas wrote:Polls show otherwise.
Absolutly False. The most respectably poll in the country shows that America is a center right country.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conse ... group.aspx

40% of Americans identify themselves as conservative
35%-moderates
21% identify themselves as liberals

It is a fact that this country is center right.
Yet they voted in Obama, the majority wanted a state payer healthcare system, support environmental reforms, etc. Yes, when asked where they fall, most people say center, followed by conservative. When asked where they fall on issues, however, the majority of their responses tend to be in line with leftist policies, often more extreme than that which is offered by the Democrats.
WinePusher wrote:First of all, let me point out that The Great Society was successful with combating poverty because of its promotion of volunterism, not because of mandated governemnt wealth redistribution. As for jobs, there may be more people than jobs, but not everybody works. A household of 5 or 6 people is generally supported by the one head of house who has the job.

Abraxas wrote:That might be true of 1950 but the idea there is a single breadwinner in the family is practically antique at this point. Generally both parents work, as do some of the children once of age. Beyond that, some of the parents work multiple jobs. There are fewer jobs than people seeking jobs and what jobs there are many job seekers are not qualified to hold. This is a basic inescapable fact and I would challenge anyone who thinks we should just abandon those people on any claims they support a culture of life.
I don't think we should abandon these people. However, I do think that it is not the state's job to take care of the citizens. Underprivelaged and poor people exist in America, to alleviate this problem we should be promoting hard work skills into themselve, not giving them government handouts that make them dependent on the government.
I can think of no more important job for a state than to take care of its citizens. As for work skills, did you miss the entire part of the conversation were we established there are more workers than jobs? Work skills don't mean anything if nobody is hiring.
WinePusher wrote:And on the standard of living, America was one of the first nations to create an independent thriving and sustainable middle class, and extend to the poor the basic comforts of afluence.

Abraxaas wrote:Past laurels is no indicator of present conditions. That we were first or among the first in no way indicates our relative standing now.


The fact that even poor households making $10,000-$20,000 per year can afford things such as cable, internet, and so on shows that social mobility has increased. And it is despicable to claim that this nation allows people to die in the streets (not asserting you made that claim). Universal healthcare existed before Obamacare.
That is not what social mobility is. That is standard of living, something else entirely.
WinePusher wrote:Notice whats happening in Greece, the economy is collapsing due to their enourmous social welfare systems.
Actually welfare has pretty much nothing to do with Greece's current economic problems which are the result of monetarism, speculation, and changes to the value of the Euro.
There heavy entitlement system has everything to do with why there dying. Paying citizens a wage that is overly proportional to their hours, allowing early retirement ages, and more vacation time with pay has everything to do with it.[/QUOTE] Yeah, no. Without diverting too far into this, the vast majority of economists who have examined Greece in particular but also Europe as a whole through all this disagree. Many countries who are even better about welfare and social services than Greece, such as the Scandinavian countries are doing fine. Only a few fringe economists have tried to pass off the European market crisis on social programs, in particular since the US is caught in the same mess. The fact of the matter is the changes to the Euro from the Drachma have had repercussions, as have monetarist policies and rampant speculation in the Greek market.
Abraxas wrote:You can claim that but you would be wrong, certainly so depending on the scope of the redistribution you are talking about.
Redistributing wealth never works. Punishing success doesn't encourage people to want strive for high paying positions in life if they know that their check will be cut in half
Yes, because when faced with having half of a million or keeping all of 20,000 from flipping burgers, that I am going to be taxed will keep me in McDonalds. Seriously?

As for redistribution not helping poverty, math says you are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_st ... on_poverty
WinePusher wrote:Why do you think this country is such a strong magnet for immigrants from across the world?

Abraxas wrote:Reputation and location.


A reputation that America has lived up to. Do you believe in American Exceptionalism?
Absolutely not.
WinePusher wrote:Because even they realize that America is the land of oppurtunity, where the poor can rise to the wealthy.

Abraxas wrote:Which immigrant came to the US from Cuba or Mexico or another impoverished country and became wealthy in the past 30-40 years?


I know of none, but that does not mean they exist, does it? Do you really think that a mexican immigrant that came here would be in worse shape?
No, but that is because Mexico is in poor shape and people leaving Mexico tend to be in poor shape by Mexican standards. Someone leaving Norway, on the other hand, stands an exceptionally good chance of being worse off in the US.
WinePusher wrote:Also, to tie this into Christianity. Christinaity teaches every person has inherent worth, whether disabled or poor or whatever. In India, if your born into a cast system, you stay there. Theres no way out of it, your an untouchable, you stay there. Christianity offers an alternative, to say that just because you are human, you have worth and should be treated with dignity.

Abraxas wrote:That has nothing to do with Christianity unless you want to pretend Feudal Europe never happened. That has everything to do with modern western culture which exists for more than just Christians.
Christianity does teach inherent dignity. But the fact that monarchs made pacts with knights for protection has nothing to do with christiainty. The European Experience of Christianity is very different from the American experience, Europe for a long period of time never had a wall between the church and the state, America did. That is why Christianity in America is much healthier htan Christianity in Europe.
So let me get this straight, India has a caste system because it isn't Christian. Then when I point out the hundreds of years Christianity had a caste system, suddenly that doesn't reflect on Christianity at all? Double standard much?

As for separation of Church and state, that is a secular idea. Are we in favor of secularism now?
WinePusher wrote:In the context of the current time, wages are frozen and social mobility is declining because of a temporary reccession. If you look at the grand scheme of things, if you look at America since its founding to today, social mobility has increased.

Abraxas wrote:After a brief surge, principally caused by Europe being reduced to slag at the time, the US has been falling behind in a number of relevant measures including education, healthcare, poverty, standard of living, etc.
I will admit that the American Education system is suffering, because of the inability of choice and competition amoung schools, and the regime of teacher's unions.
You do realize Europe has teacher's unions and public schools too, right? And that the ones there are even more powerful than the ones in the US?
Abraxas wrote:Except ID has zero supporting evidence and has failed peer review every time it has been attempted. Even on it's face ID is entirely unfalsifiable and self contradictory. Teaching it as an alternative or competitor or an equal to evolution is simply dishonest in the same way teaching the luminiferous aether as an alternative theory to photons is dishonest.
ID is a theory supported by the complexity we see in the universe, and is not entirely falsifible.
That it is not falsifiable is the problem. No set of conditions could possibly exist that could not have been put there by a designed, thus rendering the entire idea meaningless. As for complexity, we see all kinds of complexity emerge sans design. Just look at fractals.
Abraxas wrote:Not relevant to what I said. Whether God exists or is held to exist or not is irrelevant to whether cultural values can be pulled from theism if demonstrated to be good for society.
Nietzche certainly believes they do. But the fact is Christianity had contributed much to society, will you concede that? To strip Christianity from the world would also mean to strip the values that Christianity brought into the world, from the word as well. Nietzche's philosophy entirely supports this, if God is killed than all meaning and purpose is also killed, thus you get nihilism.
Christians have certainly brought much into the world, and I will grant as far as art and architecture go, Christianity may well have been a net positive for the species. However, going forward, it does not appear Christianity is or will make further advances to either of those fields. The values you are so concerned about have existed much longer than Christianity and independently of it. They would continue to exist, if they are beneficial to society, regardless of whether Christianity does simply because the values that are beneficial are the ones that get propagated in successful societies. Conversely, harmful values tend to lead to societal collapse and reform on the lines of beneficial ones.
WinePusher wrote:Perhaps you could rephrase this as I'm not quite understanding it. As for any inherant values of christianity, Christian doctrines can be summed up in two things; the 10 commandments, and Jesus' discourses. There is nothing unique about the 10 commandments. However, Jesus' teachings are unique in the sense that it is difficult for one to turn the other cheek or love your enemy. You have to try and work at it, in the sens that Jesus' teachings run contrary to instinctive human behavior is how they are unique.
Abraxas wrote:Thus in order for you to demonstrate the inherent superiority of Christianity, you must demonstrate there exists some unique characteristic of Christianity that cannot simply be transferred to the culture of a secular society on the basis we all agree it is good.
I will make this point again, even thought you will object, but christianity does inherently support life. Infanticide was gleefully practiced by the Greeks before the Christianity came into the world, and the ancient thinkers of Greece paid barely no attention to this topic. What made infanticide contreversial was the fact that christianity teaches the value of life.
It was practiced by some Greeks, yes. However, a great many societies do not practice and have never practiced infanticide, even though they were not or are not Christian.
You can say what you want about the bible and slavery, but in the abolition movement in the United States was a Christian movement. What gave MLK the authority to say all men are created equal, the fact that he believed in a loving Creator.
Yes, Christians were largely (though not solely) involved in those movements. On the flipside, who led the opposition but the protestant Christian KKK?
Why did Jefferson, a deist, claim that are natural rights are endowed by a creator, because he too realized the absurdity of life without a God.
Again on the reverse, Louis XIV used God to justify inequality, that some are chosen by God to rule over the rest. That God can be used to justify whatever you are doing anyway is not a strong argument in your favor.

WinePusher

Post #19

Post by WinePusher »

Abraxas wrote:As I mentioned earlier, technically speaking a sperm is life.
:blink: Wrong. A "life" is a being that has the genetical information of both parents and has its own DNA code. A sperm is not a life, once a sperm makes contact with an ovary it becomes a life.
WinePusher wrote:This may be possible, but it is unlikely. The fact is, people call themselves "christians" because they agree with the doctrines and teachings of their church and their bible

Abraxas wrote:More common than you think. How many minor sins can you name that most people think are okay because nobody really gets hurt but if you were to ask a priest they would tell you it is a sin?
Irrelavent and a misrepresentation. Just because the church says something is a sin does not mean it is a sin.
Abraxas wrote:People identify themselves as Christians because they believe Jesus Christ is their lord and savior and will take them to meet God when they die.
I do not disagree, but a Christian, namely a catholic, who attends weekly mass, generally agrees with what the church teaches. Theres no way around that.
Abraxas wrote:Inconsistency is wrong. The divine laws of Solomon very clearly and directly state killing a fetus is a grossly different offense from killing a person.
This is logically incorrect.

-Your conclusion is: The Bible does not teach that a fetus is a life
-Your evidence for this conclusion is: The penalities for hurting a fetus carry less weight then the penalties for hurting a grown human

It is simply an irrelevant conclusion.
WinePusher wrote:Well, I don't recall saying Christianity as a whole but if I did I overstated my opinion. Obviously christianity is a big tent, and has many followers and people who interpret the Bible and dogma differently. My statement should have been, the majority of traditional churches that interpret the bible unambiguiously uphold life frmo conception to natural death.

Abraxas wrote:Ah, but the topic of debate was just Christianity. If Christianity is so scattered, so open to interpretation, and so prone to having it's constituents reading into Christianity the things the churches you favor do not, how is it supposed to provide any kind of inherent stabilizing effect?
Christian is not "so scattered." You have two sects of the religion, liberal christianity and conservative christianity. Liberal Christianity is in the minority and liberal christians tend to pick and choose their favorite parts of the bible. Conservative Christianity is in the majority and this sect opposes abortion. There is a growing population of Islamic extremists who like to kill terrorize, so is Islam a religion that promotes terrorism?
Abraxas wrote:And yet for 20 years he attended Christian church, including all of his time as a state senator. You can deny he is and was a Christian all you like, but the fact of the matter is he is one.
Obama can claim to be a christian all he wants, but actions speak louder than words. He does not currently attend church, unlike his predeccesor, and when he did attend church he was not paying attention to his preacher's sermons, as he says he is unware of Jeremiah Wright's hate speech.
Abraxas wrote:The people who did the killing were more than Nazis. To pretend they were just Nazis is the short, simple and wrong version of history. The fact of the matter is the people doing the killing were people, with all the complexity thereof.
What!? The people who did the holocaust were the Nazi's and the S.S. The people who threw the Jews into the furnaces were S.S guards.
Abraxas wrote:The majority of them were Catholics.
And did they kill the Jews because their Catholicism said to, or because there crazy dictator ordered them to?
Abraxas wrote:Nazi propaganda used their religious views to increase the levels of antisemitism and increase levels of unity.
Allow me to edit this:

"The Nazi's used religion as a propoganda tool to increase levels of antisemitism and increase levels of unity."
Abraxas wrote:Yes, the Nazi leadership used and abused Christianity to promote it's own goals, but the fact remains, Christianity was the vessel which they used to spread hatred and death. They could not have done as much as they did were it not for the religion of the people being a convenient channel through which to do it.
Ok, we agree that Christianity was abused and was used as a vessel by humans to spread hatred and death. Medicine is inherently a good thing, but if you abuse it, it becomes harmful.
WinePusher wrote:Is Kayman's number drastically inaccurate? If not, theres no issue.

Abraxas wrote:Yes, they are dramatically different.
Not to sound facetious, but I don't think your an authority on this subject and I don't think your opinion weighs more than a Historian who wrote a multivolume study on the matter.
Abraxas wrote:The US hardly promotes a culture of life, certainly not when compared to post-WWII Europe.
According to this standard, no country promotes life. They're called world wars for a reason.
Abraxas wrote:We don't provide medical care to those who need it most as well.
This is a liberal lie. I'm sorry to say it, but this is another distortion from the left abuot this great country, America has always had universal care. If you were poor and couldn't afford care you would still get it. Its called an emergency room, the government does not need to be injected into the healthcare system to make it universal. Look at Medical and Medicare, two government run programs, and they're bankrupt.
Abraxas wrote:We have been engaged in military conflicts every year in the past 120 years excepting 1934-1940, 1977 and 1979.
Were we trying to conquer more territory and exploit the resources of other soverign nations? Or were we assisting countries in achieving liberty?
Abraxas wrote:Still allow the death penalty.
No, some states still allow the death penalty.
Abraxas wrote:If you want countries that promote a culture of life, the best examples are the Scandinavian states and Switzerland, followed by much of the rest of Europe.
The fact that Switzerland has never been involved in a World War is hardly due to their "peacful" nature. Just take a look at the terrain surrounding that country. Blitzkreg doesn't work when you have rugged terrain with high mountain ranges.
WinePusher wrote:1) Societies that are secular and lack any type of religion devalue life. Which I already demonstrated.

Abraxas wrote:No, actually, you showed societies completely unlike western democracies have a poor track record.
What do these societies have in common? I'll answer it, secularism.
WinePusher wrote:2) Societies that are inherently christian respect life and uphold individual rights. Such as America

Abraxas wrote:Except America doesn't and neither have countless other Christian nations and empires throughout history. See all of Feudal and Colonial Europe for reference.
America does promote a culture of life and respects the dignity of life. We have a functioning government that realizes its duty to defend our right to life, regardless of what the left says, we have universal healthcare and we take care of the poor. Just because our way of doing it differs from Europe doesn't mean its worse.
WinePusher wrote:3) Christianity does not hinder OR impede freethinking and learning, as you claim. The first universities that were created were in Christendom by the Church, advancements in mathematics, science and literature were made by practicing Christians as well.
Abraxas wrote:Galileo might have something to say about that. That Christianity is still trying to pretend evolution and the history of the universe older than 6-10 thousand years never happened, some still even try to claim we are at the center of the universe in clear disregard for scientific evidence in some circles.
Some aspects of Christianity pretend the earth is 6000 years old. The Catholic Church does not.
Abraxas wrote:Can you think of a single noteworthy source opposed to the proliferation of scientific knowledge outside of Christianity in the western world?
A false intial premise. Without the university and equipment being supported by the church science would be impossible.
Abraxas wrote:I challenge the idea that faith based organizations make the largest charity groups. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is not religious, certainly, to name one example already covered in this thread.
Take every single Catholic Church in america and compare their work the Bill Gates. Does Bill Gates give out food baskets at Thanksgiving, does Bill Gates collect toys for underprivaleged children during Christmas as the churches do? Doctors without borders is a great group, but is very small compared to faith based charities.
Abraxas wrote:I also find it interesting how when you attempt to make a point in favor of religion, you are willing to accept the general population as representative of the nation while claiming the leader is of a different faith, the US and Obama,
Point?
Abraxas wrote:but when it gets reversed you try to pretend the two have nothing to do with each other, like Germany and Hitler.
Dealt with this above. You concede Christinaity was an abused vessel used by Nazi Germany, I agreed. But you are simply wrong when it comes to Hitler's so called christianity. The myth that he was a christian has been debunked over and over and over and over again. I'm surprised your even making the argument.
WinePusher wrote:The fact is, Dostoyesvki is right when he said "without God, all things are permitted." This claim has been proven true every time a Godless communist leader rises to power.

Abraxas wrote:If we have degenerated into "argumentum ad quoting celebrities and historical figures", I have quite a number of quotes on Christianity I can bring into this, starting with Gandhi. Is this really a productive route for you to take?
Nice dodge. If you have quotes that you think will strengthen your case feel free to list them. However, simply listing a quote without any substantiation is futile. But to get back to my original point, can you dispute Fydor Dostoyesvki? If there is no moral accountability, if there is no "cosmic justice", if there is no "final judgement" whats stopping you from living in your id and being selfish without any concern for others wellbeing?
WinePusher wrote:Are you really suggesting that the word "opium" is interchangable with "medicine" in the context of that quote? The entire meaning would be misconstruted.

Abraxas wrote:More interchangeable with "painkiller" or "numbing agent" than medicine. He felt it caused the masses to ignore the hardship and injustice around them because they were promised paradise and justice when they died.
Yes, religion deludes the masses from his communist idea of a perfect society. Exactly.
WinePusher wrote:That is the legacy of fundamentalist atheism. But what you said above, that religion can be destroyed through education, is largely representational of what is happening now.

Abraxas wrote:Yes, it is. As education increases, religion decreases. Hopefully within my lifetime the religious will be a dying breed as reason takes over.
Education from biased "educators" decreases religion.
WinePusher wrote:Indoctrinating young, naiive students is a way to abolish religion and conservative America, and it is currently going on.

Abraxas wrote:Young and naive? These are adults we are talking about here. You want to talk indoctrination, why don't we discuss the practice of taking young children to church or sending them to Catholic schools? Christianity wouldn't exist today but for that practice.
The fact is most college acadmics are liberal, some marxist, others atheists. I had a philosophy of religion course taught by an atheist, political sciences courses are almost always taught by biased liberal marxist professors who inject their outdated ideas into the syllabus that these young, impressionable adults take as fact.

As for Catholic Schools and Church, if you don't want your kid there, don't take them. Its simple, the government doesn't force you to go to Catholic School. But one must wonder why the faith based catholic schools outperform the secular public schools. :-k Seems like secularism ruins everthing.
Abraxas wrote:Yes, but you ignore Hitler, Franco, Taylor, etc. who also all violated human rights.
I ignore Hitler because your narrative that he was a so called "christian" leader is false, which I have already proven. Now, Franco did claim to be of God, but his crimes are nowhere near equivalent to those communist dictators I mention.[/quote] Hitler was Catholic, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Further, the only reason Franco and Taylor weren't as bad as Stalin or Mao is because they had much smaller populations to work with. Per capita, Franco was every bit the monster any of the Communist dictators you mentioned was.
Abraxas wrote:All you have established is dictators, whether atheist or Christian, have a tendency to misuse power. You have not established atheism leads towards dictatorship nor that Christianity opposes it.
I have established that secularism leads to oppression and a devaluization of life, that is an undeniable facy. The philosophy of Nietzche is that, if you kill God, you will eventually end up with nihilism. Now, I realize your an atheist, but I doubt any atheist will go as far to call themselves nihilists.
You claim you have but I trust the readers can see otherwise. So far you have launched a three pronged attack but attempted to pass them off as a single argument. Firstly, you have attributed all the evils of Communist dictatorships to atheism as opposed to Communist dictatorships. You have then claimed to have proven this demonstrates atheism devalues human life, while simultaneously arguing social democratic Europe is too secular, trying to act like Communism has anything to do with the European model when it clearly does not.

So far all you have demonstrated, really, is that Communist dictatorships devalue human life. Nobody has argued otherwise. You then attempt to claim anything not like your version of Christianity is like that even though we both know this isn't the case. A hasty generalization fallacy.

Then, finally, you have simply been dismissive, either through quote dropping or whitewashing all the times Christianity was explicitly used as mechanism for, or even the dominant cultural feature of populations that devalued and destroyed human life.

You haven't shown anything except that you have been unable or unwilling to confront secularism or Christianity head on, instead relying on avoidance.
WinePusher wrote:You said "Regardless, I don't think you will find anyone who doesn't want to reduce the number of abortions." I assume that means you want to reduce the number of abortion? If so, can you answer my objections quoted above?
Abraxas wrote:Your objections are strawmen. I never said abortions never have negative mental effects or even that they aren't life, just that the right to life does not trump the right of another to control their body and that the mental effects you described were greatly exaggerated from reality.
Ok, your dodging. Please answer this question "For what reason do you think that the number of abortions should be reduced?"
Firstly, because abortions tend to be symptoms of socioeconomic problems I want to see handled, like poverty and a lack of support mechanisms. Secondly, they are a process that takes a mental toll on all involved, causing a lot of worry and heartache. Thirdly, they are incredibly complicated, when you factor in all the possible situations such as the father wanting it or not. Thirdly, I do believe it is a human life, and that even though it does not have the right to use the body of another against their will to sustain life, it is certainly less than ideal when anyone dies.
Abraxas wrote:Still leaves the child open to retaliation if the parents have moral objections.
So because family strife is possible, minors should be able to have abortions and decieve their parents?
Yes. Minors should have the option to seek any medical procedure they need and if in order to do so they must deceive their parents it should be permitted they do so. The alternative is to allow the parents to threaten and punish children into not receiving medical procedures which is the greater evil.
Abraxas wrote: They can't, which is much my point. It all comes down to human judgment, which, in your view, is evidently playing God.
No, I will say it once more and drop this subject. The determinant in Triage care is the fatality of a person's wounds. A person with a bullet in their heart gets priority over a person with a broken leg because the intent is to preserve life. Human judgement is not in play here.
Clearly you do not understand triage care. Quite often the worse off patient is allowed to die because they think a slightly better off patient shows more chance of pulling through in the long run.
Abraxas wrote:Not always, sometimes the doctor chooses to treat the one in better health because he believes that one will have a better shot of living. The preconceived opinions and biases are the medical information they have on the condition of the patients. In the end, it all comes down to human judgment which is inseparable from bias and opinion.
Well, that is true, but it is rare and would only happen if rationing were to occur.
In emergency situations doctors must work with what they have on the scene and sometimes there are more dying than doctors. Certainly so in wartime triage scenarios.
="Abraxas"]Depends on how they go about safeguarding it. Regardless though, safeguarding life is still interfering with who lives and who dies which is still playing God per your definition, which you are still holding to be bad.
Nope. Safeguarding life is setting a standard that life will be preserved by natural means. It is not "playing God" in the sense which I used.
The sense you seems to be something along the lines of it being playing God when it is bad or something you think is bad but not when you think it isn't. All human decision is the result of human judgment and the result of human bias, including all decisions related to the preservation and safeguarding of human life. To not play God would involve a kind of fatalism wherein whatever happens happens and no efforts is ever made to hasten or delay death, which is clearly not what is good for society.
WinePusher wrote:As an illinois legislator, he was the only one who voted aganist a bill that would have allowed medical treatment to go to infants born alive after an abortion. A form of passive newborn killing.

Abraxas wrote:Why did he vote against it?
Indeed, this is very troubling and befuzzeling as he was the only one who voted aganist it. I've no clue of the man's rationale or decision making process, but according to this, he supports passive newborn killing.
Perhaps it had something to do with the added obligations and burdens the bill placed on the mother in addition to the medical treatment for the infant. Of course, finding out why would take research where repeating he is in favor of murdering infants just requires repeating talking points.
Abraxas wrote:Realistically, assuming we even have a well defined objective? Establish a long term military presence in the region near Iran and Pakistan in an effort to control nuclear proliferation in the area that doesn't require the approval and cooperation of Saudi Arabia or Turkey.
Well, the obivious reason why we're there is to defeat the people who attacked us on 9/11. And if it were our goal to establish a long term military presense in the middle east, I would reject that. But that is not our goal, that is a conspiracy coupled with the theory that our goal is to contorl the oil wells in the middle east.
The people who attacked us on 9/11 were never in Iraq. If we are there to get the people who attacked us, I strongly urge that war making power be taken away from the republicans until they are sufficiently technologically savvy to operate a map.

The only reason to have been there as long as we have is if we have an interest in controlling the area for some strategic purpose. The most strategically valuable goal in the region is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons out of Pakistan and Iran. Considering we now have staging areas on both sides of Iran and on the border of Pakistan, we are in an excellent position to enforce that should the need arise. You can call it a conspiracy theory but it is a good deal more sane than the majority of the alternatives.

Of course, all of this assumes we even have an objective at this stage, which is debatable.
Abraxas wrote:A mighty strange definition of "functioning" you have there.
Not so, the Iraqi people held a recent election with minor interupptions and protests.
If they are so functional, why do they require an occupying army?
WinePusher wrote:Lets see, we invaded Iraq and other parts of the middle east during the beginning years of Bush. Since the invasions, we've had no attacks. What do you call that? I call it a prevention of attacks on the homeland due to the war on terrorism.

Abraxas wrote:Firstly, we have had multiple attempts to attack the US since then. Secondly, your entire argument is a post hoc fallacy. We haven't had any terrorist attacks since LOST started showing, doesn't mean the two have anything to do with each other.
Are you really going to label this a post hoc fallacy?
Yes.
Firstly, the multiple attempts on the US came under the Obama administration
Not true. The underoos bomber was under Bush. The attempts to bomb transatlantic flights were under Bush. Assorted car and bus bomb attempts under Bush and Obama both. The Fort Dix attack plot. Etc. That they were stopped is a demonstration of how good police work can stop terrorism, it had nothing to do with who we were bombing at the time, except perhaps to encourage them to try.
which is an entirely different issue. Secondly, if you think that the lack of attacks on this country is simply a coincedental event despite our drone attacks in the middle east you are mistaken. Obama's drone strikes have killed several high profile terrorists, the CIA has captured several 9/11 masterminds, and what would you attribute the lack of attacks on this country to, if not our milityar presense in the middle east?
Solid anti-terrorism investigations carried out by police forces. That is, after all, how most of the attacks were thwarted.
WinePusher wrote:1) Private conflicting statements that show his public statements to be false

Abraxas wrote:This is completely untrue. There were very few private statements indicating anything other than support for Christianity, the vast majority that claim otherwise have been debunked.
Hitler's Table Talk, coupled with his own confessions in Mine Kampf and the History of the Third Reichshow that he would do anything to gian support and power. And Hitler's table Talk has not been debunked, it is accurate and was written by parts of Hitler's administration, not modern historians.....
The translation of Table Talk used that portrayed a negative view of Christianity was rebuked by those people as being inaccurate. A later translation was made available, confirmed as being correct that did not contain the anti-christian rhetoric. Whether or not he would do anything to gain support and power is an independent question from what his religious leanings were.
Abraxas wrote:You asserted Christianity creates and supports a culture of life, I am pointing out that a multitude of staunchly Christian populations readily and easily devalued life, in contrast to your assertions.
And I am pointing out that Nazi Germany was not a staunchly catholic theocracy. You must have a case if you referenced the Holy Roman Empire, but pointing out that the Nazi's were mostly catholic does not prove your point.
Nobody said anything about a theocracy, however, Germany was mostly Catholic and most of the rest were protestant Christians. That does prove my point, that a culture almost wholly Christian permitted and supported Hitler's atrocities, contrary to your assertion that Christianity creates and maintains a culture of life. We have seen how strong that culture is and it seems to have all the strength and rigidity of wet cardboard on its own.
Abraxas wrote:Further, I pointed out how Christianity was in fact, used to devalue that life further by exciting antisemitism cloaked in Christian rhetoric.
Antisemitism is rooted in secularism in the modern world. Martin Luther and other reformed theologians may have sparked antisemitism with replacement theology, but the history of antisemitism was evolutionary. The point of destroying the Jews was to purify the race and create one supreme, ultimate race. Hitler's inspiration came more from Darwain rather than Jesus, as documented in Richard Wiekart's book "From Darwain To Hitler."
/facepalm

On antisemitism having its roots in the modern world: No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism

Also, No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiani ... tisemitism

As for "From Darwin to Hitler", you may as well quote Hovind for all the credibility contained therein. I would be hardpressed to think of a book more universally rejected by scholars than that one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Darwi ... _reception

"Larry Arnhart, a professor of Political Science at Northern Illinois University wrote "Weikart doesn't actually show any direct connection between Darwin and Hitler. In fact, Weikart has responded to my criticisms by admitting that the title of his book is misleading, since he cannot show any direct link between Darwin's ideas and Hitler's Nazism.""
Abraxas wrote:1) Citizens of Christian nations are stripped of basic rights, and millions are killed
2) Hitler's Germany, Spain under Franco, and Liberia are/have been Christian countries that strip their citizens of rights and have killed millions of people
Therefore:
3) Christianity promotes a culture of death

Do you see what I did there? You have proved coincidence, not promotion, as have I. Would you like to attempt to prove either philosophy actually promotes life or death now?
I will concede Spain to you. Please prove me wrong, but I don't think oppresion, genocide and murder are doctrines of christianity. However, they are inherent vallues to communis,
You don't? Ask the Canaanites what they think about genocide, oppression, and murder not being Biblical values. Or how about the Benjamites?
Abraxas wrote:Polls show otherwise.
Absolutly False. The most respectably poll in the country shows that America is a center right country.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conse ... group.aspx

40% of Americans identify themselves as conservative
35%-moderates
21% identify themselves as liberals

It is a fact that this country is center right.
Yet they voted in Obama, the majority wanted a state payer healthcare system, support environmental reforms, etc. Yes, when asked where they fall, most people say center, followed by conservative. When asked where they fall on issues, however, the majority of their responses tend to be in line with leftist policies, often more extreme than that which is offered by the Democrats.
WinePusher wrote:First of all, let me point out that The Great Society was successful with combating poverty because of its promotion of volunterism, not because of mandated governemnt wealth redistribution. As for jobs, there may be more people than jobs, but not everybody works. A household of 5 or 6 people is generally supported by the one head of house who has the job.

Abraxas wrote:That might be true of 1950 but the idea there is a single breadwinner in the family is practically antique at this point. Generally both parents work, as do some of the children once of age. Beyond that, some of the parents work multiple jobs. There are fewer jobs than people seeking jobs and what jobs there are many job seekers are not qualified to hold. This is a basic inescapable fact and I would challenge anyone who thinks we should just abandon those people on any claims they support a culture of life.
I don't think we should abandon these people. However, I do think that it is not the state's job to take care of the citizens. Underprivelaged and poor people exist in America, to alleviate this problem we should be promoting hard work skills into themselve, not giving them government handouts that make them dependent on the government.
I can think of no more important job for a state than to take care of its citizens. As for work skills, did you miss the entire part of the conversation were we established there are more workers than jobs? Work skills don't mean anything if nobody is hiring.
WinePusher wrote:And on the standard of living, America was one of the first nations to create an independent thriving and sustainable middle class, and extend to the poor the basic comforts of afluence.

Abraxaas wrote:Past laurels is no indicator of present conditions. That we were first or among the first in no way indicates our relative standing now.


The fact that even poor households making $10,000-$20,000 per year can afford things such as cable, internet, and so on shows that social mobility has increased. And it is despicable to claim that this nation allows people to die in the streets (not asserting you made that claim). Universal healthcare existed before Obamacare.
That is not what social mobility is. That is standard of living, something else entirely.
WinePusher wrote:Notice whats happening in Greece, the economy is collapsing due to their enourmous social welfare systems.
Actually welfare has pretty much nothing to do with Greece's current economic problems which are the result of monetarism, speculation, and changes to the value of the Euro.
There heavy entitlement system has everything to do with why there dying. Paying citizens a wage that is overly proportional to their hours, allowing early retirement ages, and more vacation time with pay has everything to do with it.[/QUOTE] Yeah, no. Without diverting too far into this, the vast majority of economists who have examined Greece in particular but also Europe as a whole through all this disagree. Many countries who are even better about welfare and social services than Greece, such as the Scandinavian countries are doing fine. Only a few fringe economists have tried to pass off the European market crisis on social programs, in particular since the US is caught in the same mess. The fact of the matter is the changes to the Euro from the Drachma have had repercussions, as have monetarist policies and rampant speculation in the Greek market.
Abraxas wrote:You can claim that but you would be wrong, certainly so depending on the scope of the redistribution you are talking about.
Redistributing wealth never works. Punishing success doesn't encourage people to want strive for high paying positions in life if they know that their check will be cut in half
Yes, because when faced with having half of a million or keeping all of 20,000 from flipping burgers, that I am going to be taxed will keep me in McDonalds. Seriously?

As for redistribution not helping poverty, math says you are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_st ... on_poverty
WinePusher wrote:Why do you think this country is such a strong magnet for immigrants from across the world?

Abraxas wrote:Reputation and location.


A reputation that America has lived up to. Do you believe in American Exceptionalism?
Absolutely not.
WinePusher wrote:Because even they realize that America is the land of oppurtunity, where the poor can rise to the wealthy.

Abraxas wrote:Which immigrant came to the US from Cuba or Mexico or another impoverished country and became wealthy in the past 30-40 years?


I know of none, but that does not mean they exist, does it? Do you really think that a mexican immigrant that came here would be in worse shape?
No, but that is because Mexico is in poor shape and people leaving Mexico tend to be in poor shape by Mexican standards. Someone leaving Norway, on the other hand, stands an exceptionally good chance of being worse off in the US.
WinePusher wrote:Also, to tie this into Christianity. Christinaity teaches every person has inherent worth, whether disabled or poor or whatever. In India, if your born into a cast system, you stay there. Theres no way out of it, your an untouchable, you stay there. Christianity offers an alternative, to say that just because you are human, you have worth and should be treated with dignity.

Abraxas wrote:That has nothing to do with Christianity unless you want to pretend Feudal Europe never happened. That has everything to do with modern western culture which exists for more than just Christians.
Christianity does teach inherent dignity. But the fact that monarchs made pacts with knights for protection has nothing to do with christiainty. The European Experience of Christianity is very different from the American experience, Europe for a long period of time never had a wall between the church and the state, America did. That is why Christianity in America is much healthier htan Christianity in Europe.
So let me get this straight, India has a caste system because it isn't Christian. Then when I point out the hundreds of years Christianity had a caste system, suddenly that doesn't reflect on Christianity at all? Double standard much?

As for separation of Church and state, that is a secular idea. Are we in favor of secularism now?
WinePusher wrote:In the context of the current time, wages are frozen and social mobility is declining because of a temporary reccession. If you look at the grand scheme of things, if you look at America since its founding to today, social mobility has increased.

Abraxas wrote:After a brief surge, principally caused by Europe being reduced to slag at the time, the US has been falling behind in a number of relevant measures including education, healthcare, poverty, standard of living, etc.
I will admit that the American Education system is suffering, because of the inability of choice and competition amoung schools, and the regime of teacher's unions.
You do realize Europe has teacher's unions and public schools too, right? And that the ones there are even more powerful than the ones in the US?
Abraxas wrote:Except ID has zero supporting evidence and has failed peer review every time it has been attempted. Even on it's face ID is entirely unfalsifiable and self contradictory. Teaching it as an alternative or competitor or an equal to evolution is simply dishonest in the same way teaching the luminiferous aether as an alternative theory to photons is dishonest.
ID is a theory supported by the complexity we see in the universe, and is not entirely falsifible.
That it is not falsifiable is the problem. No set of conditions could possibly exist that could not have been put there by a designed, thus rendering the entire idea meaningless. As for complexity, we see all kinds of complexity emerge sans design. Just look at fractals.
Abraxas wrote:Not relevant to what I said. Whether God exists or is held to exist or not is irrelevant to whether cultural values can be pulled from theism if demonstrated to be good for society.
Nietzche certainly believes they do. But the fact is Christianity had contributed much to society, will you concede that? To strip Christianity from the world would also mean to strip the values that Christianity brought into the world, from the word as well. Nietzche's philosophy entirely supports this, if God is killed than all meaning and purpose is also killed, thus you get nihilism.
Christians have certainly brought much into the world, and I will grant as far as art and architecture go, Christianity may well have been a net positive for the species. However, going forward, it does not appear Christianity is or will make further advances to either of those fields. The values you are so concerned about have existed much longer than Christianity and independently of it. They would continue to exist, if they are beneficial to society, regardless of whether Christianity does simply because the values that are beneficial are the ones that get propagated in successful societies. Conversely, harmful values tend to lead to societal collapse and reform on the lines of beneficial ones.
WinePusher wrote:Perhaps you could rephrase this as I'm not quite understanding it. As for any inherant values of christianity, Christian doctrines can be summed up in two things; the 10 commandments, and Jesus' discourses. There is nothing unique about the 10 commandments. However, Jesus' teachings are unique in the sense that it is difficult for one to turn the other cheek or love your enemy. You have to try and work at it, in the sens that Jesus' teachings run contrary to instinctive human behavior is how they are unique.
Abraxas wrote:Thus in order for you to demonstrate the inherent superiority of Christianity, you must demonstrate there exists some unique characteristic of Christianity that cannot simply be transferred to the culture of a secular society on the basis we all agree it is good.
I will make this point again, even thought you will object, but christianity does inherently support life. Infanticide was gleefully practiced by the Greeks before the Christianity came into the world, and the ancient thinkers of Greece paid barely no attention to this topic. What made infanticide contreversial was the fact that christianity teaches the value of life.
It was practiced by some Greeks, yes. However, a great many societies do not practice and have never practiced infanticide, even though they were not or are not Christian.
You can say what you want about the bible and slavery, but in the abolition movement in the United States was a Christian movement. What gave MLK the authority to say all men are created equal, the fact that he believed in a loving Creator.
Yes, Christians were largely (though not solely) involved in those movements. On the flipside, who led the opposition but the protestant Christian KKK?
Why did Jefferson, a deist, claim that are natural rights are endowed by a creator, because he too realized the absurdity of life without a God.
Again on the reverse, Louis XIV used God to justify inequality, that some are chosen by God to rule over the rest. That God can be used to justify whatever you are doing anyway is not a strong argument in your favor.[/quote]

WinePusher

Post #20

Post by WinePusher »

Abraxas wrote:As I mentioned earlier, technically speaking a sperm is life.
:blink: Wrong. A "life" is a being that has the genetical information of both parents and has its own DNA code. A sperm is not a life, once a sperm makes contact with an ovary it becomes a life.
WinePusher wrote:This may be possible, but it is unlikely. The fact is, people call themselves "christians" because they agree with the doctrines and teachings of their church and their bible

Abraxas wrote:More common than you think. How many minor sins can you name that most people think are okay because nobody really gets hurt but if you were to ask a priest they would tell you it is a sin?
Irrelavent and a misrepresentation. Just because the church says something is a sin does not mean it is a sin.
Abraxas wrote:People identify themselves as Christians because they believe Jesus Christ is their lord and savior and will take them to meet God when they die.
I do not disagree, but a Christian, namely a catholic, who attends weekly mass, generally agrees with what the church teaches. Theres no way around that.
Abraxas wrote:Inconsistency is wrong. The divine laws of Solomon very clearly and directly state killing a fetus is a grossly different offense from killing a person.
This is logically incorrect.

-Your conclusion is: The Bible does not teach that a fetus is a life
-Your evidence for this conclusion is: The penalities for hurting a fetus carry less weight then the penalties for hurting a grown human

It is simply an irrelevant conclusion.
WinePusher wrote:Well, I don't recall saying Christianity as a whole but if I did I overstated my opinion. Obviously christianity is a big tent, and has many followers and people who interpret the Bible and dogma differently. My statement should have been, the majority of traditional churches that interpret the bible unambiguiously uphold life frmo conception to natural death.

Abraxas wrote:Ah, but the topic of debate was just Christianity. If Christianity is so scattered, so open to interpretation, and so prone to having it's constituents reading into Christianity the things the churches you favor do not, how is it supposed to provide any kind of inherent stabilizing effect?
Christian is not "so scattered." You have two sects of the religion, liberal christianity and conservative christianity. Liberal Christianity is in the minority and liberal christians tend to pick and choose their favorite parts of the bible. Conservative Christianity is in the majority and this sect opposes abortion. There is a growing population of Islamic extremists who like to kill terrorize, so is Islam a religion that promotes terrorism?
Abraxas wrote:And yet for 20 years he attended Christian church, including all of his time as a state senator. You can deny he is and was a Christian all you like, but the fact of the matter is he is one.
Obama can claim to be a christian all he wants, but actions speak louder than words. He does not currently attend church, unlike his predeccesor, and when he did attend church he was not paying attention to his preacher's sermons, as he says he is unware of Jeremiah Wright's hate speech.
Abraxas wrote:The people who did the killing were more than Nazis. To pretend they were just Nazis is the short, simple and wrong version of history. The fact of the matter is the people doing the killing were people, with all the complexity thereof.
What!? The people who did the holocaust were the Nazi's and the S.S. The people who threw the Jews into the furnaces were S.S guards.
Abraxas wrote:The majority of them were Catholics.
And did they kill the Jews because their Catholicism said to, or because there crazy dictator ordered them to?
Abraxas wrote:Nazi propaganda used their religious views to increase the levels of antisemitism and increase levels of unity.
Allow me to edit this:

"The Nazi's used religion as a propoganda tool to increase levels of antisemitism and increase levels of unity."
Abraxas wrote:Yes, the Nazi leadership used and abused Christianity to promote it's own goals, but the fact remains, Christianity was the vessel which they used to spread hatred and death. They could not have done as much as they did were it not for the religion of the people being a convenient channel through which to do it.
Ok, we agree that Christianity was abused and was used as a vessel by humans to spread hatred and death. Medicine is inherently a good thing, but if you abuse it, it becomes harmful.
WinePusher wrote:Is Kayman's number drastically inaccurate? If not, theres no issue.

Abraxas wrote:Yes, they are dramatically different.
Not to sound facetious, but I don't think your an authority on this subject and I don't think your opinion weighs more than a Historian who wrote a multivolume study on the matter.
Abraxas wrote:The US hardly promotes a culture of life, certainly not when compared to post-WWII Europe.
According to this standard, no country promotes life. They're called world wars for a reason.
Abraxas wrote:We don't provide medical care to those who need it most as well.
This is a liberal lie. I'm sorry to say it, but this is another distortion from the left abuot this great country, America has always had universal care. If you were poor and couldn't afford care you would still get it. Its called an emergency room, the government does not need to be injected into the healthcare system to make it universal. Look at Medical and Medicare, two government run programs, and they're bankrupt.
Abraxas wrote:We have been engaged in military conflicts every year in the past 120 years excepting 1934-1940, 1977 and 1979.
Were we trying to conquer more territory and exploit the resources of other soverign nations? Or were we assisting countries in achieving liberty?
Abraxas wrote:Still allow the death penalty.
No, some states still allow the death penalty.
Abraxas wrote:If you want countries that promote a culture of life, the best examples are the Scandinavian states and Switzerland, followed by much of the rest of Europe.
The fact that Switzerland has never been involved in a World War is hardly due to their "peacful" nature. Just take a look at the terrain surrounding that country. Blitzkreg doesn't work when you have rugged terrain with high mountain ranges.
WinePusher wrote:1) Societies that are secular and lack any type of religion devalue life. Which I already demonstrated.

Abraxas wrote:No, actually, you showed societies completely unlike western democracies have a poor track record.
What do these societies have in common? I'll answer it, secularism.
WinePusher wrote:2) Societies that are inherently christian respect life and uphold individual rights. Such as America

Abraxas wrote:Except America doesn't and neither have countless other Christian nations and empires throughout history. See all of Feudal and Colonial Europe for reference.
America does promote a culture of life and respects the dignity of life. We have a functioning government that realizes its duty to defend our right to life, regardless of what the left says, we have universal healthcare and we take care of the poor. Just because our way of doing it differs from Europe doesn't mean its worse.
WinePusher wrote:3) Christianity does not hinder OR impede freethinking and learning, as you claim. The first universities that were created were in Christendom by the Church, advancements in mathematics, science and literature were made by practicing Christians as well.
Abraxas wrote:Galileo might have something to say about that. That Christianity is still trying to pretend evolution and the history of the universe older than 6-10 thousand years never happened, some still even try to claim we are at the center of the universe in clear disregard for scientific evidence in some circles.
Some aspects of Christianity pretend the earth is 6000 years old. The Catholic Church does not.
Abraxas wrote:Can you think of a single noteworthy source opposed to the proliferation of scientific knowledge outside of Christianity in the western world?
A false intial premise. Without the university and equipment being supported by the church science would be impossible.
Abraxas wrote:I challenge the idea that faith based organizations make the largest charity groups. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is not religious, certainly, to name one example already covered in this thread.
Take every single Catholic Church in america and compare their work the Bill Gates. Does Bill Gates give out food baskets at Thanksgiving, does Bill Gates collect toys for underprivaleged children during Christmas as the churches do? Doctors without borders is a great group, but is very small compared to faith based charities.
Abraxas wrote:I also find it interesting how when you attempt to make a point in favor of religion, you are willing to accept the general population as representative of the nation while claiming the leader is of a different faith, the US and Obama,
Point?
Abraxas wrote:but when it gets reversed you try to pretend the two have nothing to do with each other, like Germany and Hitler.
Dealt with this above. You concede Christinaity was an abused vessel used by Nazi Germany, I agreed. But you are simply wrong when it comes to Hitler's so called christianity. The myth that he was a christian has been debunked over and over and over and over again. I'm surprised your even making the argument.
WinePusher wrote:The fact is, Dostoyesvki is right when he said "without God, all things are permitted." This claim has been proven true every time a Godless communist leader rises to power.

Abraxas wrote:If we have degenerated into "argumentum ad quoting celebrities and historical figures", I have quite a number of quotes on Christianity I can bring into this, starting with Gandhi. Is this really a productive route for you to take?
Nice dodge. If you have quotes that you think will strengthen your case feel free to list them. However, simply listing a quote without any substantiation is futile. But to get back to my original point, can you dispute Fydor Dostoyesvki? If there is no moral accountability, if there is no "cosmic justice", if there is no "final judgement" whats stopping you from living in your id and being selfish without any concern for others wellbeing?
WinePusher wrote:Are you really suggesting that the word "opium" is interchangable with "medicine" in the context of that quote? The entire meaning would be misconstruted.

Abraxas wrote:More interchangeable with "painkiller" or "numbing agent" than medicine. He felt it caused the masses to ignore the hardship and injustice around them because they were promised paradise and justice when they died.
Yes, religion deludes the masses from his communist idea of a perfect society. Exactly.
WinePusher wrote:That is the legacy of fundamentalist atheism. But what you said above, that religion can be destroyed through education, is largely representational of what is happening now.

Abraxas wrote:Yes, it is. As education increases, religion decreases. Hopefully within my lifetime the religious will be a dying breed as reason takes over.
Education from biased "educators" decreases religion.
WinePusher wrote:Indoctrinating young, naiive students is a way to abolish religion and conservative America, and it is currently going on.

Abraxas wrote:Young and naive? These are adults we are talking about here. You want to talk indoctrination, why don't we discuss the practice of taking young children to church or sending them to Catholic schools? Christianity wouldn't exist today but for that practice.
The fact is most college acadmics are liberal, some marxist, others atheists. I had a philosophy of religion course taught by an atheist, political sciences courses are almost always taught by biased liberal marxist professors who inject their outdated ideas into the syllabus that these young, impressionable adults take as fact.

As for Catholic Schools and Church, if you don't want your kid there, don't take them. Its simple, the government doesn't force you to go to Catholic School. But one must wonder why the faith based catholic schools outperform the secular public schools. :-k Seems like secularism ruins everthing.
Abraxas wrote:Hitler was Catholic, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.
He claimed to be Catholic, yes. He was not a true believer though, as indicated by his personal feelings and sentiments.
Abraxas wrote:Firstly, you have attributed all the evils of Communist dictatorships to atheism as opposed to Communist dictatorships.
What? I believe this may be a repeat error........
Abraxas wrote:You have then claimed to have proven this demonstrates atheism devalues human life, while simultaneously arguing social democratic Europe is too secular, trying to act like Communism has anything to do with the European model when it clearly does not.
I claim that countries that lack any type of religion devalue life. You cannot dispute this established fact. And I never said Europe was trying to be communist, I'm saying the population is largely are secular. That is also a fact.
Abraxas wrote:So far all you have demonstrated, really, is that Communist dictatorships devalue human life. Nobody has argued otherwise.
Can you tell us why they devalue life? I can.
Abraxas wrote:Then, finally, you have simply been dismissive, either through quote dropping or whitewashing all the times Christianity was explicitly used as mechanism for, or even the dominant cultural feature of populations that devalued and destroyed human life.
The only thing I dispute is your narrative the Christianity was the inspiration and cause of the holocaust. I do not dispute the existence of feudalism, I dispute your misinformation that Hitler was inspired by christianity as were his nazi's.......
WinePusher wrote:Ok, your dodging. Please answer this question "For what reason do you think that the number of abortions should be reduced?"
WinePusher wrote:So because family strife is possible, minors should be able to have abortions and decieve their parents?

Abraxas wrote:Yes. Minors should have the option to seek any medical procedure they need and if in order to do so they must deceive their parents it should be permitted they do so. The alternative is to allow the parents to threaten and punish children into not receiving medical procedures which is the greater evil.
I don't understand what it is with the left that makes them think they have the right to usurp parental rights. This is all speculation, you are speculating over the worst cscenerio. The greater evil is when the state thinks they have the ability to allow minors to make choices for themselves. They have legal guardians and parents for a reason, and the state isn't their guardian.
WinePusher wrote:Indeed, this is very troubling and befuzzeling as he was the only one who voted aganist it. I've no clue of the man's rationale or decision making process, but according to this, he supports passive newborn killing.
Abraxas wrote:Perhaps it had something to do with the added obligations and burdens the bill placed on the mother in addition to the medical treatment for the infant.
I guess Obama was the only legisator who was more concerned with medical bills than the child's life. This only proves my point that he is the most radical pro abortion president ever.
Abraxas wrote:The people who attacked us on 9/11 were never in Iraq. If we are there to get the people who attacked us, I strongly urge that war making power be taken away from the republicans until they are sufficiently technologically savvy to operate a map.
I realize they weren't from Iraq. But you know who was in Iraq, Al-Qaeda and a mad man by the name of Saddam Hussein who NATO believed to have WMD.
WinePusher wrote:Not so, the Iraqi people held a recent election with minor interupptions and protests.
Abraxas wrote:If they are so functional, why do they require an occupying army?
As of now, they don't.
WinePusher wrote:Firstly, the multiple attempts on the US came under the Obama administration

Abraxas wrote:Not true. The underoos bomber was under Bush. The attempts to bomb transatlantic flights were under Bush. Assorted car and bus bomb attempts under Bush and Obama both. The Fort Dix attack plot. Etc. That they were stopped is a demonstration of how good police work can stop terrorism, it had nothing to do with who we were bombing at the time, except perhaps to encourage them to try.
Ok, let me adjust my statement. There have been no attacks on this country since 9/11, do you agree. Expect for domestic attacks.
WinePusher wrote:Hitler's Table Talk, coupled with his own confessions in Mine Kampf and the History of the Third Reich show that he would do anything to gian support and power. And Hitler's table Talk has not been debunked, it is accurate and was written by parts of Hitler's administration, not modern historians.....

Abraxas wrote:The translation of Table Talk used that portrayed a negative view of Christianity was rebuked by those people as being inaccurate. A later translation was made available, confirmed as being correct that did not contain the anti-christian rhetoric. Whether or not he would do anything to gain support and power is an independent question from what his religious leanings were.
Regardless of whether the translation captured every single quotation perfectly, the question is whether he made those statements or not. I find it interesting how, for my claims, I have texts and books that support them. Yet, your only argument aganist them is to discredit the source-----

1) "Who Really Care" Arthur Brooks: A book establishing the fact that christians give more than secularists
2) "Hitler's Table Talk" Rover: A book establishing the fact that Hitler's personal views were anti christian, and that he used the churches as a propoganda tool
3) "The Spanish inquisition" Henry Kamen: A book establishing the fact that the deaths of the spanish inquisition were miniscule
4) "From Darwain To Hitler" Richard Weikart: A book establishing the fact that Hitler's motivations are somewhat rooted in Darwainism.
Abraxas wrote:That does prove my point, that a culture almost wholly Christian permitted and supported Hitler's atrocities, contrary to your assertion that Christianity creates and maintains a culture of life.
This is getting off topic, but the fact that Christians "permitted" Hitler means nothing. Do you think that the churches had the power to confront a him and his armies? And it is deceitful for you to say they "supported" him. Some supported Hitler, some didn't.
Abraxas wrote:Antisemitism is rooted in secularism in the modern world. Martin Luther and other reformed theologians may have sparked antisemitism with replacement theology, but the history of antisemitism was evolutionary. The point of destroying the Jews was to purify the race and create one supreme, ultimate race. Hitler's inspiration came more from Darwain rather than Jesus, as documented in Richard Wiekart's book "From Darwain To Hitler."

Abraxas wrote:As for "From Darwin to Hitler", you may as well quote Hovind for all the credibility contained therein. I would be hardpressed to think of a book more universally rejected by scholars than that one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Darwi ... _reception
What is the idea of evolutionary darwinian theory and social darwainism. It is the idea that one must essentially compete to survive, read your internet source to find Darwain's own quote in "Descent of Man." Even The Atheist Bart Ehrman recognizes the evolutionary motivations behind the holocaust, the weaker species will die and the gene pool must be purified and all that darwinian dogma motivated Hitler.
WinePusher wrote:I will concede Spain to you. Please prove me wrong, but I don't think oppresion, genocide and murder are doctrines of christianity. However, they are inherent vallues to communis,

Abraxas wrote:You don't? Ask the Canaanites what they think about genocide, oppression, and murder not being Biblical values. Or how about the Benjamites?
No, I don't think the Bible teaches people to oppress your enemies and commit genocide. That may have been how the ancient Israelites thought and the Bible accuratly lists these historical events, but it is contrary to what the Bible actually teaches, which is love of enemy and forgiveness.
WinePusher wrote:Absolutly False. The most respectably poll in the country shows that America is a center right country.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conse ... group.aspx

40% of Americans identify themselves as conservative
35%-moderates
21% identify themselves as liberals

It is a fact that this country is center right.

Abraxas wrote:Yet they voted in Obama, the majority wanted a state payer healthcare system, support environmental reforms, etc.
No. Again, polls prove you wrong. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... are_reform

54%-60% of Americans did not want Obamacare. The fact that Obama read a good teleprompter during his campaign doesn't prove that this country is not center right.
Abraxas wrote:Yes, when asked where they fall, most people say center, followed by conservative. When asked where they fall on issues, however, the majority of their responses tend to be in line with leftist policies, often more extreme than that which is offered by the Democrats.
Your kidding right? Look at Missouri and their rejection of Obamacare, look at the huge support for the Arizona Law. If the public wanted leftist policies they'd be supporting Open Borders, but they're are supporting the opposite of that.
Abraxas wrote:I can think of no more important job for a state than to take care of its citizens. As for work skills, did you miss the entire part of the conversation were we established there are more workers than jobs? Work skills don't mean anything if nobody is hiring.
Well, this is a fundamental disagreement. I do not think the governments job is to take care of its citizens and provide for their every whim. The government should provide an enviroment where citizens can thrive, such as creating jobs.
WinePusher wrote:Redistributing wealth never works. Punishing success doesn't encourage people to want strive for high paying positions in life if they know that their check will be cut in half
Abraxas wrote:Yes, because when faced with having half of a million or keeping all of 20,000 from flipping burgers, that I am going to be taxed will keep me in McDonalds. Seriously?
A misrepresentational caricature. Why strive to achieve in life if the government is going to end up taking it from you?
WinePusher wrote:A reputation that America has lived up to. Do you believe in American Exceptionalism?

Abraxas wrote:Absolutely not.
:blink: :confused2: Care to explain why you don't think this is the greatest country in the world?
WinePusher wrote:I know of none, but that does not mean they exist, does it? Do you really think that a mexican immigrant that came here would be in worse shape?

Abraxas wrote:No, but that is because Mexico is in poor shape and people leaving Mexico tend to be in poor shape by Mexican standards. Someone leaving Norway, on the other hand, stands an exceptionally good chance of being worse off in the US.
Yes, because they will be leaving a country that takes care of them. Do you not believe in indepence, self reliance and hard work. The fact that the Standard of living may be better in Europe is because the people there get more vacation time and leisure. In America, hard work as been its legacy, you don't get everything handed to you on a silver plate, instead you have to work for it. I'd choose that over Europe any day of the week.
WinePusher wrote:Christianity does teach inherent dignity. But the fact that monarchs made pacts with knights for protection has nothing to do with christiainty. The European Experience of Christianity is very different from the American experience, Europe for a long period of time never had a wall between the church and the state, America did. That is why Christianity in America is much healthier htan Christianity in Europe.

Abraxas wrote:So let me get this straight, India has a caste system because it isn't Christian. Then when I point out the hundreds of years Christianity had a caste system, suddenly that doesn't reflect on Christianity at all? Double standard much?
I didn't realize that was your point because feudalism is not a caste system in the sense of India. Feudalism was a political system used for the protection of a society, the caste system in India is much different and its trivial for you to compare the two together.
Abraxas wrote:As for separation of Church and state, that is a secular idea. Are we in favor of secularism now?
Actually, the Bible speaks of it in the infamous quote "Render Unto Caesar What Is Caesar's, render unto God what is God's."
WinePusher wrote:I will admit that the American Education system is suffering, because of the inability of choice and competition amoung schools, and the regime of teacher's unions.

Abraxas wrote:You do realize Europe has teacher's unions and public schools too, right? And that the ones there are even more powerful than the ones in the US?
Are they? The only problem the unions are creating is an inability to choose. Do you think if parents were given vouchers and school choice that education would become betteR?
WinePusher wrote:ID is a theory supported by the complexity we see in the universe, and is not entirely falsifible.

Abraxas wrote:That it is not falsifiable is the problem. No set of conditions could possibly exist that could not have been put there by a designed, thus rendering the entire idea meaningless. As for complexity, we see all kinds of complexity emerge sans design. Just look at fractals.
When a reasonable person sees complexity, they assume design.
WinePusher wrote:Nietzche certainly believes they do. But the fact is Christianity had contributed much to society, will you concede that? To strip Christianity from the world would also mean to strip the values that Christianity brought into the world, from the word as well. Nietzche's philosophy entirely supports this, if God is killed than all meaning and purpose is also killed, thus you get nihilism.

Abraxas wrote:Christians have certainly brought much into the world, and I will grant as far as art and architecture go, Christianity may well have been a net positive for the species. However, going forward, it does not appear Christianity is or will make further advances to either of those fields.
Will you also concede that western civilization was built on Christianity? Let me make a contreversial point. Some of the greatest music we have is religious music. Music since the age of secularism is uncomparable, it is filled with cusing and sexual references and so on. This is what has happened to music when you take Christinaity out of the equation, you get a fringe version of rap.
WinePusher wrote:I will make this point again, even thought you will object, but christianity does inherently support life. Infanticide was gleefully practiced by the Greeks before the Christianity came into the world, and the ancient thinkers of Greece paid barely no attention to this topic. What made infanticide contreversial was the fact that christianity teaches the value of life.

Abraxas wrote:It was practiced by some Greeks, yes. However, a great many societies do not practice and have never practiced infanticide, even though they were not or are not Christian.
This brings us back to Peter Singer. Why not practice infanticide if there is no God. Why donate blood, why risk your own life to save the drowning baby. Why is altruism such a pervasive characteristic in humans if not for an objective source. Evolution cannot account for it.
WinePusher wrote:You can say what you want about the bible and slavery, but in the abolition movement in the United States was a Christian movement. What gave MLK the authority to say all men are created equal, the fact that he believed in a loving Creator.

Abraxas wrote:Yes, Christians were largely (though not solely) involved in those movements. On the flipside, who led the opposition but the protestant Christian KKK?
Yes, that is a fair point.
WinePusher wrote:Why did Jefferson, a deist, claim that are natural rights are endowed by a creator, because he too realized the absurdity of life without a God.

Abraxas wrote:Again on the reverse, Louis XIV used God to justify inequality, that some are chosen by God to rule over the rest. That God can be used to justify whatever you are doing anyway is not a strong argument in your favor.
Ok, but that is not the point. Beginning with the premise that humans have inalienable rights, there must exist a divine source of those rights. Any earthly source would mean that those rights ar enot unalienable.

Post Reply