Are you on team Christian?

[historia]

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

He went further to say:

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

. . .

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

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

Questions for debate:

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

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

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

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. The 'best of a bad bunch' argument is a waste of effort.

Frankly if I had to pick a religion with a gun at my head (if I had only a choice of Abrahamic religions, I'd tell them to shoot) I'd choose Buddhism and then Hinduism, before I got to Christianity or the only slightly less weird and whacky Taoism.



Judaism and Islam, though they have their good points just have (as Paul recognised) too many restrictions for the liberal Gentiles and unbelievers to put up with.

Being free to question everything (within the law and short of attracting Cancellelation) as a rational atheist is much the more preferable, but of course that doesn't count as it isn't a religion, but it is a Way of Life.

[historia]

This entire line of questioning seems to be some sort of "see, Christianity is great!" kind of thing. However, I think anyone not inside the bubble can see that choosing a better bad is really not the best choice. Sometimes we have to put up with a better bad because that's how life is, but I think we can all agree that having the best (whatever you think that is) is always better.

This "entire line of questioning" follows straight-forwardly from Richard's Dawkins' own statements. He is the one declaring himself to be on "team Christian." Are you saying one of the four horseman of the New Atheism is "inside the bubble"? What "bubble" is that?

You seem to recognize here, too, that life is complicated and might involve many factors. But then proceed to argue as if there is only a single "choice" to be made here, and that there is only one "best" "whatever" that is "always better." Surely that is too simple.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to historia in post #1]
If in real power, christianity is far worse than Islam. We saw that in the middle ages.

We just have no christian theocracys at the moment! That makes Islam look worse!

No team christian for me, Garcon!

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to historia in post #1]
If in real power, christianity is far worse than Islam. We saw that in the middle ages.

We just have no christian theocracys at the moment! That makes Islam look worse!

No team christian for me, Garcon!

It depends. In the days of the Baghdad Caliphate, Islam was tolerant, enlightened and a lover of knowledge, then Ghazi's fundamentalism made Islam great again and it's been ghastly ever since. Fact is that Bacon and prawn pad Thai has the last word in Christianity over Islam. And I have to say that when debating Muslim apologists they are worse than most Christian ones. Well...about on a par with the worst ones.

[benchwarmer]

This entire line of questioning seems to be some sort of "see, Christianity is great!" kind of thing. However, I think anyone not inside the bubble can see that choosing a better bad is really not the best choice. Sometimes we have to put up with a better bad because that's how life is, but I think we can all agree that having the best (whatever you think that is) is always better.

This "entire line of questioning" follows straight-forwardly from Richard's Dawkins' own statements. He is the one declaring himself to be on "team Christian." Are you saying one of the four horseman of the New Atheism is "inside the bubble"? What "bubble" is that?

The beauty of atheism is we don't have to agree on anything other that a disbelief in gods. We have no leaders or people we have to follow or apologize for.

Richard Dawkins (in the interview this discussion arose from) described himself as a "cultural Christian". He was raised in a culture where Christianity was predominant. The 'bubble' being the bias one has for what one is familiar with and prefer due to upbringing and thinking that is 'better'.

I would hope we can all agree that it would be better if religious groups (of any religion) would refrain from inciting war and hate and actually live in the peace and harmony that most of them actually espouse as central tenets. The 'best' in this case would be that we don't have missionaries trying to convert people to their religion and continuing the cycle of religious 'war' (sometimes literally) between various groups.

IMHO, it would be best if religion would die off and be replaced with a common understanding that we are all humans and should strive to live in harmony, peace, and pursuit of truth.

You seem to recognize here, too, that life is complicated and might involve many factors. But then proceed to argue as if there is only a single "choice" to be made here, and that there is only one "best" "whatever" that is "always better." Surely that is too simple.

Humans are a social species. Unfortunately, at our current stage of evolution, we are still very group oriented. Most people want to belong to something. Whether that's religion, race, country, hobby, or whatever, we tend to seek like minded people. I yearn for the time when we toss the groupings that pit us against one another and recognize we are all humans living on the same ball of rock zipping through space and we should all work together.

The 'best' would be the best for everyone, not just those in one's preferred grouping. i.e. it would be best if we stopped trying to convince people that their preferred god(s) is/are real and instead focused on what we can actually know. Sadly it will probably take something like an alien invasion for this to happen and even then humans would probably still be 'stupid' and think their group is the 'bested one ever'.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #25]
You know that there are UFO sects already? Like Scientology?

Even the term "cognitive dissonance" was created from studying an UFO sect!

Alien contact or invasion would make greater, not lessen, worldwide religiosity!

And the end of group thinking would rather lead to more chaos and murder than lessen it!

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. I have previously poiunted to 'cult -think' which is joined to the hip with theist think. The apologetics of the Bible and UFO apologists and other cults and fads are the same.

They all lead to inversion of logic and science - denial.

I hate to put it this way but another term that seeps into my Psyche is USA -think, which I am sorry for as I admire the US. I have a Theory that Not having a church of the state (To keep Royalist influence out)to oversee Dogma led to all kinds of sects springing up, in a way we don't find in Yurrup, where the Established Church would simply wipe them out (unless they fought back and sank their Armarda).

This is why the US has been the source of so many cults and fads including the UFO one that spread (like Christianity from Paul) from one sighting in the post war years, spreading to the other countries, Creationism being eagerly taken up by Islam, which uses exactly the same arguments and apologetics (1), and the UFO cult, which threatened to turn into a religion, like the pseudo science of dianetics (based on Hubbard's sci- fi novels) became a religion to avoid criticism and paying taxes.

see also the UFO - offshoot space alien technology (Daaniken/chariots of the Gods), with alternative 'sea empire' history is used by Creationism.

I actually saw the cult of crop circles evolve from a stunt by Doug and Dave faking a crop circle as a mark made by a landing saucer to a global cult with copycat circles worldwide turning into patterns (requiring the dogma change from saucer nests into signs left by ET saucer pilots and even actual pictures of known things and people. Which is when UFOlogy dropped it and it became an art form and advertising method, but still with cult -following denying everything but ET origin.

Yes, Theist -think and Cult - think are two sides of the same coin.

And I have to say that through the Tea party it has become a political party in the US today. The same apologetics, inverted reasoning and science - denial.

(1) since the cetan sequence is used to debate evolution -denial, this vid puts it front and center in the case for evolution. Denialists should make themselves aware of what the case for evolution is before they try to counter it.

[historia]

This "entire line of questioning" follows straight-forwardly from Richard's Dawkins' own statements. He is the one declaring himself to be on "team Christian." Are you saying one of the four horseman of the New Atheism is "inside the bubble"? What "bubble" is that?

. . .

Richard Dawkins (in the interview this discussion arose from) described himself as a "cultural Christian". He was raised in a culture where Christianity was predominant. The 'bubble' being the bias one has for what one is familiar with and prefer due to upbringing and thinking that is 'better'.

But surely that is stretching the meaning of the word "bubble." Merriam Webster defines bubble as "an enclosed or isolated sphere of experience or activity in which the like-minded members of a homogeneous community support and reinforce their shared opinions."

Dawkins is, as I'm sure you know, quite critical of Christianity -- both in the interview and elsewhere -- and doesn't share the opinions of many Christians on a wide number of issues. Having a preference for something you're familiar with and being in a "bubble" are rather different things.

The 'best' would be the best for everyone

That's a very Christian way of looking at things. Some atheists would argue that what's 'best' is what's best for the human species, and that allowing the strong among us to take what they want at the expense of the weak would improve the species as a whole. Maybe you're in a Christian 'bubble' too?

The 'best' in this case would be that we don't have missionaries trying to convert people to their religion and continuing the cycle of religious 'war' (sometimes literally) between various groups.

IMHO, it would be best if religion would die off and be replaced with a common understanding that we are all humans and should strive to live in harmony, peace, and pursuit of truth.

. . .

Humans are a social species. Unfortunately, at our current stage of evolution, we are still very group oriented. Most people want to belong to something. Whether that's religion, race, country, hobby, or whatever, we tend to seek like minded people. I yearn for the time when we toss the groupings that pit us against one another and recognize we are all humans living on the same ball of rock zipping through space and we should all work together.

First of all, if anyone imagines that, without religion, the world is somehow going to be free of divisions, contention, and war, I would simply invite them to recall the 20th Century, in which secular (and even avowedly atheistic) political ideologies visited death and cruelty upon mankind on a scale like we have never seen before.

But, second, and more directly to your comments: It seems like you recognize that what you are describing here is a kind of (atheistic) utopian vision that runs contrary to human nature. Evolution doesn't move in a straight line toward one's preferred moral state of affairs. And so, if human beings as they actually exist now and into the foreseeable future are very unlikely to ever reach the point where they all share the same atheistic worldview and work in peace and harmony, then it seems to me what you are describing is unattainable. Unattainable states are not the "best," since they cannot be realized.

It seems to me Dawkins has a more realistic approach. I suspect he, too, would prefer a world where no one believes in God or the supernatural. But that's not going to happen. So, as a practical matter, it would be better for some conceptions of God and certain religions to spread over against others. That is the 'best' (preferable and attainable) state of affairs, and so one that should be supported. So why not support it?

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to historia in post #28]
Why not support christianity and help it spread all over the world?

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

And it would seem that it was in reverse the raise of Islam that saved the day to put up some resistance against world christian order.

Dawkins lives in UK where muhammaddan hordes in the streets demand shariah law!
I try to understand him from this point of view. At the moment in UK even cultural christianity is preferable to shariah law!

But support it as a concept? Me, Never!

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to historia in post #1]

This is a great question, and one I believe we really need to think about. I am a Christian so of course; I support the idea of the Christian faith flourishing. However, the type of Christianity which seems to be flourishing the most today in the U.S. I am totally against, which is what is referred to as, Christian nationalism, which looks to enforce Christian principles upon the whole of the nation and is a serious threat to our democratic republic. With this being the case, I highly doubt that Dawkins would be in favor of this sort of Christianity over and above a version of Islam which attempts to enforce Islam upon all. I mean, all one has to do is to take a look at Jan. 6th, and they will discover that the mob who attempted to overthrow our democratic republic were Christian.

This whole movement began in the 1970's with Christian reconstruction, which morphed into "The Moral Majority" in the 80's, which means these groups have been at it for some 50 years now, all the while the culture becomes ever more immoral, as our Churches empty out, and yet these Christians continue to double down on the culture wars, which the Church was never called to fight, and now the ends justify any means, which would include attempting to take over by force. As a Christian, I not only do not want to live in such a society, but I am also ready to stand up with unbelievers to fight against it. This is far more of a threat than I think most folks realize, to the point that I am extremely concerned that our democratic experiment here in the U.S. may be on it's last leg.

I am a Christian who is convinced that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, but I am not certain the Christian nationalist is convinced of such a thing, which seems to be the reason they feel the need to force what it is they believe upon others. If Christ has indeed been raised, then He has conquered the biggest enemy which is death, and I do not believe He is dependent upon me to attempt to force others to behave as Christians. Rather, I believe the command is to love our neighbor as ourselves, no matter what it is they believe, nor how they may behave.

To end, allow me to say, if Christ has not been raised from the dead, then Christianity is a lie, and useless, and should be discarded, no matter how much better one is convinced its effects on society may be. Rather, it is a scam, and a lie which should be exposed for all to see. In other words, as a Christian, I am not excited at all to see Dawkins prefer Christianity. This simply demonstrates to me another reason none of us should even listen to what he has to say. Again, if Christ has not been raised, then Christianity is not at all to be preferred, but rather rejected for the lie that it is.