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.

WinePusher

Post #2

Post by WinePusher »

Hm :-k Seems that Abraxas may be busy so I'll start off the discussion. In this debate, I will be contending and defending the following points.

1) A removal of christianity from society would eventually lead to a devalulization of life.

2) Violence, discord, persecution and intolerance exist more in Godless socities dominated by secularism/atheism than it does in inherantly christian societies.

3) American society would benefit more if it did not go the way of Europe and lose its christian religion, but if it maintained its christian heritage.

Abraxas is also welcome to add any furthur points of disccussion, but I'll go ahead and begin with life. It is the Christian position that abortion is the taking of a human life; that the use of embryotic stem cells for medicial purposes is wrong as the embryos should not be there to begin with; that passive, active or consented euthansia is wrong because it is essentially humans playing God with other lives; and that life is "sacred" and should be safeguarded from conception to natural death.

America has made abortion a legal practice, and Obama has reinstated research on embryotic stem cells, and a few states have made euthanasia a legal practice. On the life issues, it is my opinion that America can do better. Specifically on abortion, the entire thing is a lose lose situation.

One argument for abortion is that it should be the choice of the mother, and that sometimes it is neccesary. First of all, it is a well known fact that the vast mothers who have had abortions seek or require therapy, therefore abortion essentially harms the mothers psychological health. Secondly, conception (or fertilization) is the moment when the DNA for that child is set and begins to replicate and genes fuse together. Life begins at conception, and those who disagree are encouraged to give us a time when they think life begins. Therefore, the argument that a mother should have a choice is worthless, as life is an unalienable right and is not trumpted by choice. A mothers choice does not overide our right to life.

Secondly, the basis for the Christian view of the sacredness of all life, from the disabled to the retarded, is that we are all made in God's image. That view rests solely upon the idea that all of us are an image of God. Now, I'm sure that many atheists/secularists hold a view of life that is similar to the christian view, but on what foundation does that view rest. What coherant argument can a nonbeliever give in favor of the life of a disabled person, they are clearly a burden to society. Look at the Godless regimes of Hitler and Stalin, you only have to read of the holocaust and the Soviet persecutions to realize that already fully developed life was disregarded for. Read a little further to find out about Mengele and his experiments. In the Godless communist regimes that have existed in throughtout history, there is no consideration for the value of life.

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

Post #3

Post by Abraxas »

I am sorry for the delay, I have been battling an evolved chest infection and this is the first opportunity I have had to get to this thread.

---------------

[center]Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

...
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
~Excerpt from John Lennon's Imagine
[/center]

The topic for this debate has been selected as whether Christianity is a more or less prudent philosophy, specifically when it comes to public policy using the United States as a baseline.

I will be arguing primarily along three tracks, firstly, that any benefit derived from religion can be provided equally well or better from a system grounded in reason and logic. Secondly, that many of the perceived benefits of religion are either entirely subjective or not really benefits at all. Finally, I will be arguing that religion is actively detrimental to the well being of a society through the promotion of ignorance, prejudice, and superstition which undermine the development and good function of a society.

The values of our society are not new, and they are certainly not specific to Christianity. Valuing of life, obedience to the law, charity, kindness, and so forth are all held as the best qualities of the Christian faith, however, the idea these are inherently Christian, or that they would be lost without Christianity is simply mistaken. Buddhism, for example, holds to the sacredness of all life and yet it is an atheistic religion. I would be hard pressed to find a society outside of anarchist communes that did not value the rule of law, Christian or not. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, the two largest charitable givers in the US, if not the world, are agnostic. That leaves kindness, a feature found in every society, every culture, in human history. Christianity has no distinctive positive features that would cease to exist should humans leave it alongside the worship of Zeus and dancing for rain in the wastebin of religious history.

Many times religion has been held up as defending against moral decay. One of the more prominent examples of this has been on the issue of homosexuality, how most churches are currently "fighting the good fight" to prevent gays from being accepted by society. Christianity in America has been responsible for the systematic persecution of people for their sexual orientation for decades. They cite this as a benefit, but ruining the lives of countless people, forcing them to forgo the rights and privileges freely given to others, in some cases murdering them outright. Why? To "defend" institutions like marriage and the "nuclear family" even though such institutions require no defense and can receive none. People will continue to have families, continue to get married, and what gay people do in no way threatens that, and yet, the Church continues the hunting of witches.

Further, Christianity promotes ignorance, at least enough of it that it threatens the future of American industry. Evolution is a proven fact. There is zero dispute of this in scientific circles. Further, evolution is required to explain a multitude of phenomenon encountered in fields related to health care, pharmaceuticals, agribusiness, and others, and companies looking to advance in those fields will need workers educated in them. A lack of those workers would eventually result in displaced jobs or those fields of study being underdeveloped, at least in the US, causing it to fall behind the rest of the world. All modern opposition to evolution comes from religious objections centered around a literal interpretation of the Bible, and, as such, can be held responsible for the damage being done to the US because of it.

It is with these three lines of argument I intend to argue that Christianity is ultimately a detriment to society and, were we to discard it as we have so many other superstitions, we would be better off.

WinePusher

Post #4

Post by WinePusher »

Abraxas wrote:The values of our society are not new, and they are certainly not specific to Christianity. Valuing of life, obedience to the law, charity, kindness, and so forth are all held as the best qualities of the Christian faith, however, the idea these are inherently Christian, or that they would be lost without Christianity is simply mistaken. Buddhism, for example, holds to the sacredness of all life and yet it is an atheistic religion.
Yes, the virtures of christianity are not primarily exclusive to christianity. But in the context of western civilization and culture, Buddhism did not have much influence, rather it was Christianity. Now, there is a rather large amount of consensus amoung religions when it comes to morality. As you said Christianity and Buddhism teach the same things concerning life, and it would be difficult to find someone who does not agree with these teachings. But one person does come to mind, and that is the atheist Peter Singer who is an adament animal libertationist and an abortion/euthanasia/infanticide supporter.
Peter Singer wrote:killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.
Singer is also an outspoken atheist. Now, its ironic how his views on human life contradict his sympathy for animals, when one does not view human life as sacred, obviously the status of the animals elevates. It would be difficult to find a practicing Christian who shares Singer's ethical views.
Abraxas wrote:I would be hard pressed to find a society outside of anarchist communes that did not value the rule of law, Christian or not. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, the two largest charitable givers in the US, if not the world, are agnostic. That leaves kindness, a feature found in every society, every culture, in human history. Christianity has no distinctive positive features that would cease to exist should humans leave it alongside the worship of Zeus and dancing for rain in the wastebin of religious history.


Bill Gates and Warren Buffet may be the largest charitable contributors, but in the United States faith based organizations and churches are one of the largest charitable groups. Now, I came across this interesting data in a dbeate between Dinesh D' Souza and Michael Shermer and D' Souza cites a man named Arthur Brooks who did a comparative study of philantrophy.



Now, from that lecture Arthur Brooks (in his book "Who Really Cares) divides the category his study into 4 demographics.

Religious Conservatives
Secular Conservatives
Religious Liberals
Secular Liberals

From the data he accumulated, it showed the the democraphic which gives the most charitable contributions, including blood and volunteer work, are the religious conservatives. Followed by the religious liberals followed by the secular conservatives followed by the secular liberals. This says much about generousity and charity, as the demographics which identified themselves with religion give more than the demographic which identify themselves with secularism.
Abraxas wrote:Many times religion has been held up as defending against moral decay. One of the more prominent examples of this has been on the issue of homosexuality, how most churches are currently "fighting the good fight" to prevent gays from being accepted by society.
I think this is a false representation of the Christian position. There are indeed radical christians that do persecuate gays, but these make up the fringe of our religion. Mainstream Catholic and Evangelical churches do not persecute gays, but defend the traditional institution of marriage. Now, there are some who may interpret defending traditional marriage as the persecution of gays, but this is false interpretation.
Abraxas wrote:Christianity in America has been responsible for the systematic persecution of people for their sexual orientation for decades. They cite this as a benefit, but ruining the lives of countless people, forcing them to forgo the rights and privileges freely given to others, in some cases murdering them outright.
Preserving an institution that has always been meant to be between one man and one woman is not gay persecution. Many who advocate this also advocate granting every right of marriage to gay couples, such as visition and property rights. The fact of the matter is, the definition of marriage in America has been defined to be a union between one man and one woman. There are progressives who wish to change this definition in order to include people of the same sex, but then that raises that question of those who may have other sexual preferences and wish to marry. Redefine marriage to include the same sex and there will be others lobbying for marriage to include polygamy.
Abraxas wrote:Why? To "defend" institutions like marriage and the "nuclear family" even though such institutions require no defense and can receive none. People will continue to have families, continue to get married, and what gay people do in no way threatens that, and yet, the Church continues the hunting of witches.
The traditional family in America usually includes one mother and one father and a determined number of children. It is the promotion of single mother hood covered by the liberal hollywood pop culture and the promotion of broken divorced families that is a deliberet assult on the traditional family. There are boundaries and walls set around marriage and the family that have prevented these institutions from succuming to change that secularists want, and while gay couples deserve every single right a straight couple has, the future of these institutions takes precedent.

The Church is generally more conservative and the point of conservative is to conserve the good/traditional things of America which they consider to be marriage and the nuclear family.
Abraxas wrote:Further, Christianity promotes ignorance, at least enough of it that it threatens the future of American industry. Evolution is a proven fact. There is zero dispute of this in scientific circles. Further, evolution is required to explain a multitude of phenomenon encountered in fields related to health care, pharmaceuticals, agribusiness, and others, and companies looking to advance in those fields will need workers educated in them. A lack of those workers would eventually result in displaced jobs or those fields of study being underdeveloped, at least in the US, causing it to fall behind the rest of the world. All modern opposition to evolution comes from religious objections centered around a literal interpretation of the Bible, and, as such, can be held responsible for the damage being done to the US because of it.
While I do accept the theory of evolution, I believe there should be a distinction between the scientific theory of evolution and the evolution promoted by the American Atheists Association and the Dawkins.

It is with these three lines of argument I intend to argue that Christianity is ultimately a detriment to society and, were we to discard it as we have so many other superstitions, we would be better off.[/quote]

WinePusher

Post #5

Post by WinePusher »

Abraxas wrote:The values of our society are not new, and they are certainly not specific to Christianity. Valuing of life, obedience to the law, charity, kindness, and so forth are all held as the best qualities of the Christian faith, however, the idea these are inherently Christian, or that they would be lost without Christianity is simply mistaken. Buddhism, for example, holds to the sacredness of all life and yet it is an atheistic religion.
Yes, the virtures of christianity are not primarily exclusive to christianity. But in the context of western civilization and culture, Buddhism did not have much influence, rather it was Christianity. Now, there is a rather large amount of consensus amoung religions when it comes to morality. As you said Christianity and Buddhism teach the same things concerning life, and it would be difficult to find someone who does not agree with these teachings. But one person does come to mind, and that is the atheist Peter Singer who is an adament animal libertationist and an abortion/euthanasia/infanticide supporter.
Peter Singer wrote:killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.
Singer is also an outspoken atheist. Now, its ironic how his views on human life contradict his sympathy for animals, when one does not view human life as sacred, obviously the status of the animals elevates. It would be difficult to find a practicing Christian who shares Singer's ethical views.
Abraxas wrote:I would be hard pressed to find a society outside of anarchist communes that did not value the rule of law, Christian or not. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, the two largest charitable givers in the US, if not the world, are agnostic. That leaves kindness, a feature found in every society, every culture, in human history. Christianity has no distinctive positive features that would cease to exist should humans leave it alongside the worship of Zeus and dancing for rain in the wastebin of religious history.


Bill Gates and Warren Buffet may be the largest charitable contributors, but in the United States faith based organizations and churches are one of the largest charitable groups. Now, I came across this interesting data in a dbeate between Dinesh D' Souza and Michael Shermer and D' Souza cites a man named Arthur Brooks who did a comparative study of philantrophy.



Now, from that lecture Arthur Brooks (in his book "Who Really Cares) divides the category his study into 4 demographics.

Religious Conservatives
Secular Conservatives
Religious Liberals
Secular Liberals

From the data he accumulated, it showed the the democraphic which gives the most charitable contributions, including blood and volunteer work, are the religious conservatives. Followed by the religious liberals followed by the secular conservatives followed by the secular liberals. This says much about generousity and charity, as the demographics which identified themselves with religion give more than the demographic which identify themselves with secularism.
Abraxas wrote:Many times religion has been held up as defending against moral decay. One of the more prominent examples of this has been on the issue of homosexuality, how most churches are currently "fighting the good fight" to prevent gays from being accepted by society.
I think this is a false representation of the Christian position. There are indeed radical christians that do persecuate gays, but these make up the fringe of our religion. Mainstream Catholic and Evangelical churches do not persecute gays, but defend the traditional institution of marriage. Now, there are some who may interpret defending traditional marriage as the persecution of gays, but this is false interpretation.
Abraxas wrote:Christianity in America has been responsible for the systematic persecution of people for their sexual orientation for decades. They cite this as a benefit, but ruining the lives of countless people, forcing them to forgo the rights and privileges freely given to others, in some cases murdering them outright.
Preserving an institution that has always been meant to be between one man and one woman is not gay persecution. Many who advocate this also advocate granting every right of marriage to gay couples, such as visition and property rights. The fact of the matter is, the definition of marriage in America has been defined to be a union between one man and one woman. There are progressives who wish to change this definition in order to include people of the same sex, but then that raises that question of those who may have other sexual preferences and wish to marry. Redefine marriage to include the same sex and there will be others lobbying for marriage to include polygamy.
Abraxas wrote:Why? To "defend" institutions like marriage and the "nuclear family" even though such institutions require no defense and can receive none. People will continue to have families, continue to get married, and what gay people do in no way threatens that, and yet, the Church continues the hunting of witches.
The traditional family in America usually includes one mother and one father and a determined number of children. It is the promotion of single mother hood covered by the liberal hollywood pop culture and the promotion of broken divorced families that is a deliberet assult on the traditional family. There are boundaries and walls set around marriage and the family that have prevented these institutions from succuming to change that secularists want, and while gay couples deserve every single right a straight couple has, the future of these institutions takes precedent.

The Church is generally more conservative and the point of conservative is to conserve the good/traditional things of America which they consider to be marriage and the nuclear family.
Abraxas wrote:Further, Christianity promotes ignorance, at least enough of it that it threatens the future of American industry. Evolution is a proven fact. There is zero dispute of this in scientific circles. Further, evolution is required to explain a multitude of phenomenon encountered in fields related to health care, pharmaceuticals, agribusiness, and others, and companies looking to advance in those fields will need workers educated in them. A lack of those workers would eventually result in displaced jobs or those fields of study being underdeveloped, at least in the US, causing it to fall behind the rest of the world. All modern opposition to evolution comes from religious objections centered around a literal interpretation of the Bible, and, as such, can be held responsible for the damage being done to the US because of it.
While I do accept the theory of evolution, I believe there should be a distinction between the scientific theory of evolution and the evolution promoted by the American Atheists Association and the Dawkins.

The proven fact of evolution which you allude to is known as descent with modification, in that living things descend with change from earlier organism. However that is not the sole claim made by evolutionists, some go further to make the claim of common descent and natural selection joined with genetic mutation. First of all, there is a lack of evidence to support the claim that self replication and natural selection can account for the vast amount of biological diverstiy, all that is cited as proof are usually Darwain's finches which really is not sufficient. And then it is very pressumpotious to assume that evolution is an entirely naturalistic process and a supernatural explanation can be completly ruled out. The creationists simply want the theory to be taught in a more humble fashion along with the flaws and holes.

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

Post #6

Post by Abraxas »

I'm going to move pieces around a bit here to address one topic at a time.
WinePusher wrote: 1) A removal of christianity from society would eventually lead to a devalulization of life.

Abraxas is also welcome to add any furthur points of disccussion, but I'll go ahead and begin with life. It is the Christian position that abortion is the taking of a human life; and that life is "sacred" and should be safeguarded from conception to natural death.

On the life issues, it is my opinion that America can do better. Specifically on abortion, the entire thing is a lose lose situation.

One argument for abortion is that it should be the choice of the mother, and that sometimes it is neccesary. Therefore, the argument that a mother should have a choice is worthless, as life is an unalienable right and is not trumpted by choice. A mothers choice does not overide our right to life.

America has made abortion a legal practice,
Alight, I will reply to the abortion topic almost all at once here. Firstly, the idea a fetus is even a person runs contrary to biblical teaching. Exodus 21:22 indicates that the penalty for causing a mother to miscarry is a fine as to be determined by the court. Conversely, Solomon's Code then goes on to say that the penalty for taking a life is to be death. The idea that the Bible forbids abortion is a relatively recent phenomenon, with Saint Augustine, Saint Aquinas, and Popes Innocent III and Gregory XIV explicitly supporting abortion, at least in early stages. Further, even among modern Christians in the US, there exists strong support to keep abortion legal, thus even if you could prove abortion is bad, you will have an uphill fight to prove Christianity is even against it.

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

If you wish to engage on abortion further, allow me to ask one simple question first. Do you believe there are ever circumstances where one should be required by the state to allow another to use their body against their will for any purpose?

First of all, it is a well known fact that the vast mothers who have had abortions seek or require therapy, therefore abortion essentially harms the mothers psychological health.
That is simply false. In fact the APA has determined the idea of post abortion trauma to be largely made up.

"The best quality studies indicate no significant differences in long-term mental health between women in the United States who choose to terminate a pregnancy and those who do not."[24][25] Dr. Robert Blum, the senior author on the study, stated: "The best research does not support the existence of a 'post-abortion syndrome' similar to post-traumatic stress disorder." The researchers further reported that "... studies with the most flawed methodology consistently found negative mental health consequences of abortion," and wrote: "Scientists are still conducting research to answer politically motivated questions."

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

Secondly, conception (or fertilization) is the moment when the DNA for that child is set and begins to replicate and genes fuse together. Life begins at conception, and those who disagree are encouraged to give us a time when they think life begins.
Technically speaking, life begins the moment the sperm is created, but I don't see this question as particularly relevant to the debate.
that the use of embryotic stem cells for medicial purposes is wrong as the embryos should not be there to begin with;

and Obama has reinstated research on embryotic stem cells,
It is for this reason, among others, I question the idea Christianity supports life. Embryos that are going to be destroyed anyway being used to advance medical research that can both save life and substantially raise the quality of life seems to be the default stance for "prolife". Similarly, condemning the creation of the embryos, the vast majority of which were created so that someone could have a child seems rather "antilife" as it condemns the process some people need to have children. It seems on this one you are at odds with your claimed stance of Christianity supporting life. Indeed, I give atheism the edge here.

that passive, active or consented euthansia is wrong because it is essentially humans playing God with other lives;

and a few states have made euthanasia a legal practice.
Playing God, what an interesting phrase. I assume it fair to assert that by playing God, you mean humans attempting to control life and death when that is God's role? Well, I have news for you, humans do that every moment of every day. Every time a doctor gives medicine for a disease that could be fatal, he is playing God. Every time a police officer uses a weapon in the line of duty, he is playing God. Every time a wound is treated, every time a prisoner is executed, every time a guardrail is erected, and every time a war is declared humans play God. It is in our nature to attempt to control who lives and who dies.

I will ask you to defend the positive value of forcing someone to spend days or weeks or months in agony when we know for certain they will die and the individual in question wants to end that suffering even at the cost of their own life.
Yes, the virtures of christianity are not primarily exclusive to christianity. But in the context of western civilization and culture, Buddhism did not have much influence, rather it was Christianity. Now, there is a rather large amount of consensus amoung religions when it comes to morality. As you said Christianity and Buddhism teach the same things concerning life, and it would be difficult to find someone who does not agree with these teachings. But one person does come to mind, and that is the atheist Peter Singer who is an adament animal libertationist and an abortion/euthanasia/infanticide supporter.
killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.
Singer is also an outspoken atheist. Now, its ironic how his views on human life contradict his sympathy for animals, when one does not view human life as sacred, obviously the status of the animals elevates. It would be difficult to find a practicing Christian who shares Singer's ethical views.
Not really. When responding to a question about the effect of killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in the US interventions in the Middle East, a practicing Christian replied "Not people, we are not killing people, we are killing terrorists".

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=13960

It seems to me it is not only atheists who can either excuse or promote actions that result in the deaths of innocents if it supports their agenda.
2) Violence, discord, persecution and intolerance exist more in Godless socities dominated by secularism/atheism than it does in inherantly christian societies.

Secondly, the basis for the Christian view of the sacredness of all life, from the disabled to the retarded, is that we are all made in God's image. That view rests solely upon the idea that all of us are an image of God. Now, I'm sure that many atheists/secularists hold a view of life that is similar to the christian view, but on what foundation does that view rest. What coherant argument can a nonbeliever give in favor of the life of a disabled person, they are clearly a burden to society.
That persons have inherent worth.
Look at the Godless regimes of Hitler and Stalin, you only have to read of the holocaust and the Soviet persecutions to realize that already fully developed life was disregarded for.
Except of course Hitler was Catholic, not Atheist.
Read a little further to find out about Mengele and his experiments. In the Godless communist regimes that have existed in throughtout history, there is no consideration for the value of life.
How about Christian regimes? Does Bloody Mary mean anything to you? The Spanish Inquisition? The Salem witch trials? The Crusades? Joseph Menge... Wait, why are you filing Joseph Mengele, another devout Catholic, into the atheist category?
3) American society would benefit more if it did not go the way of Europe and lose its christian religion, but if it maintained its christian heritage.
Waiting for this one.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet may be the largest charitable contributors, but in the United States faith based organizations and churches are one of the largest charitable groups. Now, I came across this interesting data in a dbeate between Dinesh D' Souza and Michael Shermer and D' Souza cites a man named Arthur Brooks who did a comparative study of philantrophy.



Now, from that lecture Arthur Brooks (in his book "Who Really Cares) divides the category his study into 4 demographics.

Religious Conservatives
Secular Conservatives
Religious Liberals
Secular Liberals

From the data he accumulated, it showed the the democraphic which gives the most charitable contributions, including blood and volunteer work, are the religious conservatives. Followed by the religious liberals followed by the secular conservatives followed by the secular liberals. This says much about generousity and charity, as the demographics which identified themselves with religion give more than the demographic which identify themselves with secularism.
I've read it, the problem is it assumes a lot that it doesn't account for. For example, it includes things like tithes and volunteer work done for the church as "charity" and makes no effort to account for the average socioeconomic status of each class. Further, the standards it uses to determine who is and who is not religious are unrealistic, requiring a minimum level of church attendance to get into the religious category. When taking the data and filtering it correctly, moving declared Christians who do not attend church as regularly back to the Christianity side, things level out. Why this is important is that church is a poor measure of faith, people who have to work multiple jobs, for example, may be as devout but unable to attend church, and further less likely to donate because of low income.

Flawed methodology produced a flawed result.
I think this is a false representation of the Christian position. There are indeed radical christians that do persecuate gays, but these make up the fringe of our religion. Mainstream Catholic and Evangelical churches do not persecute gays, but defend the traditional institution of marriage. Now, there are some who may interpret defending traditional marriage as the persecution of gays, but this is false interpretation.

The traditional family in America usually includes one mother and one father and a determined number of children. It is the promotion of single mother hood covered by the liberal hollywood pop culture and the promotion of broken divorced families that is a deliberet assult on the traditional family. There are boundaries and walls set around marriage and the family that have prevented these institutions from succuming to change that secularists want, and while gay couples deserve every single right a straight couple has, the future of these institutions takes precedent.

The Church is generally more conservative and the point of conservative is to conserve the good/traditional things of America which they consider to be marriage and the nuclear family.
I disagree entirely that "defense of marriage and the nuclear family" is anything more than the persecution of homosexuals. These people are not out there attempting to remove children from single mothers or forcing infertile couples to get divorced, there one and only interest is to deny homosexuals rights enjoyed by heterosexuals. Marriage has no value beyond what the participants and the state place on it. Whether gay couples marry or not in no way changes the value of your marriage. Whether gay couples adopt children in no way damages the children nor the strength of your family. The entire idea that family or marriage are being defended is a lie, a falsehood, a sham, a thinly veiled attempt to enforce their hatred of homosexuals into the law so that they are punished for being different.
While I do accept the theory of evolution, I believe there should be a distinction between the scientific theory of evolution and the evolution promoted by the American Atheists Association and the Dawkins.

The proven fact of evolution which you allude to is known as descent with modification, in that living things descend with change from earlier organism. However that is not the sole claim made by evolutionists, some go further to make the claim of common descent and natural selection joined with genetic mutation. First of all, there is a lack of evidence to support the claim that self replication and natural selection can account for the vast amount of biological diverstiy, all that is cited as proof are usually Darwain's finches which really is not sufficient. And then it is very pressumpotious to assume that evolution is an entirely naturalistic process and a supernatural explanation can be completly ruled out. The creationists simply want the theory to be taught in a more humble fashion along with the flaws and holes.
Whether or not evolution is guided or not is not relevant to the topic at hand. The fact of the matter is there are no real holes in evolution. There are areas where it is incomplete, areas that are still being worked out, but there is an overwhelming and compelling evidence that common descent does, in fact, account for the complete biodiversity of the planet save man made genetic modifications. Retroviral DNA markers and the Primordial sperm gene, for instance, can be traced back to the very early origins of modern life and show where branching took place. This knowledge is critical to scientific work being done and by promoting ignorance of it, Christianity harms our society in the long run.

WinePusher

Post #7

Post by WinePusher »

Abraxas wrote:Firstly, the idea a fetus is even a person runs contrary to biblical teaching. Exodus 21:22 indicates that the penalty for causing a mother to miscarry is a fine as to be determined by the court.
I don't see how this verse is relevant to the topic of abortion. And this supports my position rather than yours as the offender who induces miscarriage is to recieve punishment, which is to say the fetus is a viable life and any harm that a person does to it is equivalent to doing harm to an actual person. 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:The idea that the Bible forbids abortion is a relatively recent phenomenon, with Saint Augustine, Saint Aquinas, and Popes Innocent III and Gregory XIV explicitly supporting abortion, at least in early stages. Further, even among modern Christians in the US, there exists strong support to keep abortion legal, thus even if you could prove abortion is bad, you will have an uphill fight to prove Christianity is even against it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_abortion
On the issue of abortion, there are two aspects surrounding the contreversy: the religious and the political/legal. While the Church, thourghout history, as had members who vary on the abortion issue its stance is unified today. Augustine never supported abortion, he simply regarded it not as homocide. Secondly, the conservative traditional churches, from your source, oppose abortion.

LDS, Southern Baptists, Roman Catholics, Mainstream Evangelical churches oppose abortion. Its the reformed, liberal Episcopal and "Wright" Churches that support the practice and they are in the minority. The Christian majority of America opposes abortion.

On the political/legal aspect of this, there is absolutly no right to an abortion in the constitution. There is a God given right to life unalienable to all which has been promoted and advanced, not by the American Framers, but by John Locke. Is not abortion a direct violation of this natural right?
Abraxas wrote:If you wish to engage on abortion further, allow me to ask one simple question first. Do you believe there are ever circumstances where one should be required by the state to allow another to use their body against their will for any purpose?
Maybe your could rephrase this question as I'm not understanding it. But I hope you realize that abortion or not, the fetus (dead or alive) will in the end come out of the womb.

WinePusher wrote:First of all, it is a well known fact that the vast mothers who have had abortions seek or require therapy, therefore abortion essentially harms the mothers psychological health.

Abraxas wrote:That is simply false. In fact the APA has determined the idea of post abortion trauma to be largely made up.
While there is no direct causal relationship between abortion and post abortion trauma, but the fact is there exists a pattern of correlation among abortion recipients. ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16405636 ). 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:It is for this reason, among others, I question the idea Christianity supports life. Embryos that are going to be destroyed anyway being used to advance medical research that can both save life and substantially raise the quality of life seems to be the default stance for "prolife". Similarly, condemning the creation of the embryos, the vast majority of which were created so that someone could have a child seems rather "antilife" as it condemns the process some people need to have children. It seems on this one you are at odds with your claimed stance of Christianity supporting life. Indeed, I give atheism the edge here.
Well, the fact is on the issue of stem cells, adult stem cell research as made more progress than embryotic stem cell research. 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.
Abraxas wrote:Playing God, what an interesting phrase. I assume it fair to assert that by playing God, you mean humans attempting to control life and death when that is God's role?
By the phrase "playing God" I mean that humans humans, based on their own judgements and opinions, decide who can live and who can die by their own standards.
Abraxas wrote:Well, I have news for you, humans do that every moment of every day. Every time a doctor gives medicine for a disease that could be fatal, he is playing God. Every time a police officer uses a weapon in the line of duty, he is playing God. Every time a wound is treated, every time a prisoner is executed, every time a guardrail is erected, and every time a war is declared humans play God. It is in our nature to attempt to control who lives and who dies.
First of all, your above post is an example of a slippery slope. Your basing your conclusion that because we have laws that punish criminals, and we have a society that trys to prevent death through medicine, that humans control life and decide who lives and who dies. Our society has it is now is a culture of life, where in life is promoted and safeguarded through all ordinary means. A police officer who uses a firearm, if his intent is pure, is to prevent more loss of life or crime. The doctor and the police officer are not selective in their administration of treatment and justice in America. If the doctor decides who gets treatment based on race, or the police officer decides that the homeless begger should be shot because he is loitering, that would be an example of playing God.
Abraxas wrote:I will ask you to defend the positive value of forcing someone to spend days or weeks or months in agony when we know for certain they will die and the individual in question wants to end that suffering even at the cost of their own life.
I will not defend a notion that I never purported to assert. If we know for certain that their death is inevitable and the process will be agonizing, and if the patient wishes to be euthanized, I would not oppose that.
Abraxas wrote:Not really. When responding to a question about the effect of killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in the US interventions in the Middle East, a practicing Christian replied "Not people, we are not killing people, we are killing terrorists".

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=13960

It seems to me it is not only atheists who can either excuse or promote actions that result in the deaths of innocents if it supports their agenda.
First of all, this seems to be a dodge of my original point that the devaluization of life comes from the secular atheists, such as Peter Singer. But in that specific post I was addressing intentionality. It is no the intention of the soldiers of the United States to go out and kill civilians. It is their intent to go out and kill terrorists, an objective I support.
Abraxas wrote:Except of course Hitler was Catholic, not Atheist.


It is a hasty generalization to assume Hitler was a Catholic. His religious views are certainly inconclusive, but we do now he was an expert with propoganda. He fueled flames of anti semiticism in the churches and his so called "catholic faith" to fuel anti jewish hate. It's also a fact that his private statements concerning christianity conflict with his outward public demonstrations of faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitl ... statements
Abraxas wrote:How about Christian regimes? Does Bloody Mary mean anything to you? The Spanish Inquisition? The Salem witch trials? The Crusades?
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.

I believe that historian Henry Kayman put the Spanish Inquisition in perspective.
( http://www.ask.com/wiki/Henry_Kamen ). As for the salem witch trials, I believe that that was motivated by fear and distress amoung early puritan communities rather than the bible and Christianity. The Crucible captures it quite well.

WinePusher wrote:3) American society would benefit more if it did not go the way of Europe and lose its christian religion, but if it maintained its christian heritage.
Abraxas wrote:Waiting for this one.
Well, would you rather america follow the steps of secular Europe? The funny thing is, countries like Ireland restrict abortion and for the most part of history, the Church and State of Europe have been heavily intertwined. The American experience of religion is quite different from Europe, as from the get go, America had a clear wall which seperated Church from State. For the most part of European history, you had Popes influencing Monarchs and advising Kings and so on. And now, Europe has rebelled aganist this percieved version of Christianity and we see atheism on the rise in the region. To the consequence, you see larger monentary entitlements, and a more whimsical european lifestyle. America, to the contrary has always been a center right nation and more traditional because of its christian heritage.
Abraxas wrote: I disagree entirely that "defense of marriage and the nuclear family" is anything more than the persecution of homosexuals. These people are not out there attempting to remove children from single mothers or forcing infertile couples to get divorced, there one and only interest is to deny homosexuals rights enjoyed by heterosexuals. Marriage has no value beyond what the participants and the state place on it. Whether gay couples marry or not in no way changes the value of your marriage. Whether gay couples adopt children in no way damages the children nor the strength of your family. The entire idea that family or marriage are being defended is a lie, a falsehood, a sham, a thinly veiled attempt to enforce their hatred of homosexuals into the law so that they are punished for being different.
I think this may be an example of sterotyping.....I believe the liberals in California voted to uphold traditional marriage, and that America in general prefers traditional marriage. Is it democratic to overturn a majority vote in the courts because one side claims "civil liberties" is at stake? The fact is, marriage has always been in America between one man and one woman. If your side wants to have an institution recognizing the union of one man and one man, create it and call it something else.
Abraxas wrote:There are areas where it is incomplete, areas that are still being worked out, but there is an overwhelming and compelling evidence that common descent does, in fact, account for the complete biodiversity of the planet save man made genetic modifications. Retroviral DNA markers and the Primordial sperm gene, for instance, can be traced back to the very early origins of modern life and show where branching took place. This knowledge is critical to scientific work being done and by promoting ignorance of it, Christianity harms our society in the long run.
First of all, its quite hypocritical for one side to absolutly argue that evolution should be taught in the schools as "fact" aganist the will of creationists, but the Bible and Theology cannot be taught in the school (not as fact) as it upsets the atheists. Common ancestery can be taught as "fact" but prayer and "silent contemplation" is outlawed. There is an overt attack on Christianity and God by the left, wanting to strip God from the pledge and the ten commandments from the courts and the Christmas tree star. The only thing harmful about Christianity is when it is not promoted and/or incorporated into a society.

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

Post #8

Post by Abraxas »

WinePusher wrote:
Abraxas wrote:Firstly, the idea a fetus is even a person runs contrary to biblical teaching. Exodus 21:22 indicates that the penalty for causing a mother to miscarry is a fine as to be determined by the court.
I don't see how this verse is relevant to the topic of abortion. And this supports my position rather than yours as the offender who induces miscarriage is to recieve punishment, which is to say the fetus is a viable life and any harm that a person does to it is equivalent to doing harm to an actual person.
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.

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.
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.
Abraxas wrote:The idea that the Bible forbids abortion is a relatively recent phenomenon, with Saint Augustine, Saint Aquinas, and Popes Innocent III and Gregory XIV explicitly supporting abortion, at least in early stages. Further, even among modern Christians in the US, there exists strong support to keep abortion legal, thus even if you could prove abortion is bad, you will have an uphill fight to prove Christianity is even against it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_abortion
On the issue of abortion, there are two aspects surrounding the contreversy: the religious and the political/legal. While the Church, thourghout history, as had members who vary on the abortion issue its stance is unified today. Augustine never supported abortion, he simply regarded it not as homocide.
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. 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?
Secondly, the conservative traditional churches, from your source, oppose abortion.

LDS, Southern Baptists, Roman Catholics, Mainstream Evangelical churches oppose abortion. Its the reformed, liberal Episcopal and "Wright" Churches that support the practice and they are in the minority. The Christian majority of America opposes abortion.
http://pewforum.org/uploadedfiles/Topic ... tion09.pdf

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.
On the political/legal aspect of this, there is absolutly no right to an abortion in the constitution.
Not relevant to the issue of Christianity vs. secularism in setting public policy.
There is a God given right to life unalienable to all which has been promoted and advanced, not by the American Framers, but by John Locke. Is not abortion a direct violation of this natural right?
I don't think so for reasons that will become clear once you answer the next question.
Abraxas wrote:If you wish to engage on abortion further, allow me to ask one simple question first. Do you believe there are ever circumstances where one should be required by the state to allow another to use their body against their will for any purpose?
Maybe your could rephrase this question as I'm not understanding it. But I hope you realize that abortion or not, the fetus (dead or alive) will in the end come out of the womb.
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?
WinePusher wrote:First of all, it is a well known fact that the vast mothers who have had abortions seek or require therapy, therefore abortion essentially harms the mothers psychological health.

Abraxas wrote:That is simply false. In fact the APA has determined the idea of post abortion trauma to be largely made up.
While there is no direct causal relationship between abortion and post abortion trauma, but the fact is there exists a pattern of correlation among abortion recipients. ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16405636 ).
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.
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.
I don't know what this has to do with the above. Could you enlighten me?
Abraxas wrote:It is for this reason, among others, I question the idea Christianity supports life. Embryos that are going to be destroyed anyway being used to advance medical research that can both save life and substantially raise the quality of life seems to be the default stance for "prolife". Similarly, condemning the creation of the embryos, the vast majority of which were created so that someone could have a child seems rather "antilife" as it condemns the process some people need to have children. It seems on this one you are at odds with your claimed stance of Christianity supporting life. Indeed, I give atheism the edge here.
Well, the fact is on the issue of stem cells, adult stem cell research as made more progress than embryotic stem cell research. 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.
The FDA seems to disagree with you, as they approved a treatment using embryonic stem cells to treat spinal cord injuries just last year.
Abraxas wrote:Playing God, what an interesting phrase. I assume it fair to assert that by playing God, you mean humans attempting to control life and death when that is God's role?
By the phrase "playing God" I mean that humans humans, based on their own judgements and opinions, decide who can live and who can die by their own standards.
Abraxas wrote:Well, I have news for you, humans do that every moment of every day. Every time a doctor gives medicine for a disease that could be fatal, he is playing God. Every time a police officer uses a weapon in the line of duty, he is playing God. Every time a wound is treated, every time a prisoner is executed, every time a guardrail is erected, and every time a war is declared humans play God. It is in our nature to attempt to control who lives and who dies.
First of all, your above post is an example of a slippery slope.
No, actually, that is not what a slippery slope is. A slippery slope is asserting that if X happens, then A, B, C, Y, and then finally a disastrous Z will happen with no causal links between them. I am simply asserting under your definition we constantly play God and 99% of the time you don't have a problem with it, which makes it an odd objection to level here.
Your basing your conclusion that because we have laws that punish criminals, and we have a society that trys to prevent death through medicine, that humans control life and decide who lives and who dies. Our society has it is now is a culture of life, where in life is promoted and safeguarded through all ordinary means. A police officer who uses a firearm, if his intent is pure, is to prevent more loss of life or crime. The doctor and the police officer are not selective in their administration of treatment and justice in America. If the doctor decides who gets treatment based on race, or the police officer decides that the homeless begger should be shot because he is loitering, that would be an example of playing God.
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.
Abraxas wrote:I will ask you to defend the positive value of forcing someone to spend days or weeks or months in agony when we know for certain they will die and the individual in question wants to end that suffering even at the cost of their own life.
I will not defend a notion that I never purported to assert. If we know for certain that their death is inevitable and the process will be agonizing, and if the patient wishes to be euthanized, I would not oppose that.
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?
Abraxas wrote:Not really. When responding to a question about the effect of killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in the US interventions in the Middle East, a practicing Christian replied "Not people, we are not killing people, we are killing terrorists".

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=13960

It seems to me it is not only atheists who can either excuse or promote actions that result in the deaths of innocents if it supports their agenda.
First of all, this seems to be a dodge of my original point that the devaluization of life comes from the secular atheists, such as Peter Singer.
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. It is a hasty generalization fallacy. Further, I did not dodge the point, I simply pointed out a practicing Christian devaluing life, something you said I would have a hard time doing.
But in that specific post I was addressing intentionality. It is no the intention of the soldiers of the United States to go out and kill civilians. It is their intent to go out and kill terrorists, an objective I support.
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.
Abraxas wrote:Except of course Hitler was Catholic, not Atheist.


It is a hasty generalization to assume Hitler was a Catholic.
From what small data set am I drawing broad ranging conclusions? That is, after all, what a hasty generalization is.
His religious views are certainly inconclusive, but we do now he was an expert with propoganda. He fueled flames of anti semiticism in the churches and his so called "catholic faith" to fuel anti jewish hate. It's also a fact that his private statements concerning christianity conflict with his outward public demonstrations of faith.
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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitl ... statements
Abraxas wrote:How about Christian regimes? Does Bloody Mary mean anything to you? The Spanish Inquisition? The Salem witch trials? The Crusades?
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. [/QUOTE] 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.
I believe that historian Henry Kayman put the Spanish Inquisition in perspective.
( http://www.ask.com/wiki/Henry_Kamen ).
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.
As for the salem witch trials, I believe that that was motivated by fear and distress amoung early puritan communities rather than the bible and Christianity. The Crucible captures it quite well.
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.
WinePusher wrote:3) American society would benefit more if it did not go the way of Europe and lose its christian religion, but if it maintained its christian heritage.
Abraxas wrote:Waiting for this one.
Well, would you rather america follow the steps of secular Europe?
Yes?
The funny thing is, countries like Ireland restrict abortion and for the most part of history, the Church and State of Europe have been heavily intertwined. The American experience of religion is quite different from Europe, as from the get go, America had a clear wall which seperated Church from State. For the most part of European history, you had Popes influencing Monarchs and advising Kings and so on. And now, Europe has rebelled aganist this percieved version of Christianity and we see atheism on the rise in the region. To the consequence, you see larger monentary entitlements, and a more whimsical european lifestyle. America, to the contrary has always been a center right nation and more traditional because of its christian heritage.
By monetary entitlements you mean they take better care of their poor and whimsical lifestyles they have more leisure time. 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.
Abraxas wrote: I disagree entirely that "defense of marriage and the nuclear family" is anything more than the persecution of homosexuals. These people are not out there attempting to remove children from single mothers or forcing infertile couples to get divorced, there one and only interest is to deny homosexuals rights enjoyed by heterosexuals. Marriage has no value beyond what the participants and the state place on it. Whether gay couples marry or not in no way changes the value of your marriage. Whether gay couples adopt children in no way damages the children nor the strength of your family. The entire idea that family or marriage are being defended is a lie, a falsehood, a sham, a thinly veiled attempt to enforce their hatred of homosexuals into the law so that they are punished for being different.
I think this may be an example of sterotyping.....I believe the liberals in California voted to uphold traditional marriage, and that America in general prefers traditional marriage. Is it democratic to overturn a majority vote in the courts because one side claims "civil liberties" is at stake? The fact is, marriage has always been in America between one man and one woman. If your side wants to have an institution recognizing the union of one man and one man, create it and call it something else.
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.
Abraxas wrote:There are areas where it is incomplete, areas that are still being worked out, but there is an overwhelming and compelling evidence that common descent does, in fact, account for the complete biodiversity of the planet save man made genetic modifications. Retroviral DNA markers and the Primordial sperm gene, for instance, can be traced back to the very early origins of modern life and show where branching took place. This knowledge is critical to scientific work being done and by promoting ignorance of it, Christianity harms our society in the long run.
First of all, its quite hypocritical for one side to absolutly argue that evolution should be taught in the schools as "fact" aganist the will of creationists, but the Bible and Theology cannot be taught in the school (not as fact) as it upsets the atheists.Common ancestery can be taught as "fact" but prayer and "silent contemplation" is outlawed.
Not really, facts are facts. Schools area place to impart facts. Religion is culture. It is the responsibility of parents and/or caregivers to impart culture.
There is an overt attack on Christianity and God by the left, wanting to strip God from the pledge
Was never in the pledge to begin with. Why should it not be removed?
and the ten commandments from the courts
Why should they be there to begin with when they are not a part of American law?
and the Christmas tree star. The only thing harmful about Christianity is when it is not promoted and/or incorporated into a society.
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 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?

WinePusher

Post #9

Post by WinePusher »

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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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. 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.
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.

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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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? 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.
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.
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.
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? 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, 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.
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.

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.
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.

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

Post #10

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 I don't believe either the speaker or the president are psychologists.
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.
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
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. 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.
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.

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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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? 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.
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.
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.
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? 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, 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.
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.

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.
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.[/quote]

Post Reply