[Zombrex]

Originally Posted by King Mob

I think he's mis-applying a version of the false dichotomy.
For example we might argue that disproving evolution does not prove or provide support to the idea of creationism and vice versa, and suggesting otherwise is a false dichotomy or dilemma.
However he does not understand that atheist is simply a lack of a belief, and would be more akin to the position of believing neither evolution or creationism in the above example.

This is why I asked him what the heck does he think atheism is. I think he thinks atheism is the position that deities don't exist. Needless to say it isn't. And needless to say Phil really has no excuse for thinking it is.

This all seems to be smoke and mirrors because he came up against arguments against Christianity that challenged him more than he would care to admit.

[King Mob]

Originally Posted by philologos

It isn't anywhere near as beneficial for atheism to present negative arguments as it is to present positive arguments for why God's existence is improbable.

But we can't provide positive arguments as that's impossible, which you now know since you've yet again failed to provide examples.

Originally Posted by philologos

One requires that one go systematically through each faith and claim that they are false. The other just requires that one phrase general reasoning behind why God's existence is improbable.

The latter is a heck of a lot more convincing and useful for people like me. The former isn't convincing at all.

First, explaining why God's existence is improbable, is by definition a negative argument. It is criticising the claim that god exists.

And again, to use the example you are ignoring, you know the other option is nonsense because you haven't and can't gone through every version fairyism and rejected them all.

Or maybe you can provide these while you provide your positive arguments for afairyism I'm still waiting for.

Originally Posted by philologos

King Mob: Atheism is against all theism. That's my point. That's why if you rubbish Christianity, you're not advocating atheism. It's a win for anyone who is opposed to Christianity, someone who advocates for Islam for example.

Often times when rubbishing Christianity the arguments cross over to others.
But the only reason we rubbish christianity the most is because those are the claims we encounter the most.

[philologos]

Zombrex: Actually, I have zero interest in rubbishing anyones opinion. What I do have an interest is in advocating Christianity as a positive argument, in its own rights and in its own terms.

muppeteer: I'm going to address the argument purely in terms of Christianity. The situation of Baba, or Smith or anyone else is entirely different to the case of the Resurrection. It would be ignoring the argument if you're simply going to bring in cases which have no relation to that topic, and to be honest it could very quickly become a waste of both our time.

I'm going to address the post in full at some stage tomorrow, and I'll explain exactly my reasoning for this position, but simply put, I'm not going to address other faiths in my argument, I'm simply going to present Jesus and His word.

[Zombrex]

Originally Posted by philologos

Zombrex: Actually, I have zero interest in rubbishing anyones opinion. What I do have an interest is in advocating Christianity as a positive argument, in its own rights and in its own terms.

Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by philologos

muppeteer: I'm going to address the argument purely in terms of Christianity. The situation of Baba, or Smith or anyone else is entirely different to the case of the Resurrection. It would be ignoring the argument if you're simply going to bring in cases which have no relation to that topic, and to be honest it could very quickly become a waste of both our time.

I'm going to address the post in full at some stage tomorrow, and I'll explain exactly my reasoning for this position, but simply put, I'm not going to address other faiths in my argument, I'm simply going to present Jesus and His word.

If you are going to present argument about what humans would or wouldn't do in order to strengthen your evidence for the resurrection (and lets be honest that is all you have to support the resurrection) it shouldn't be a surprise to you when you are presented with counter arguments showing humans acting the opposite to how you claim they would.

You can say you are going to ignore these, but then you should remove from our arguments appeals to what humans will or won't do.

I would be very interested in any argument for the resurrection that remains once you have done this.

[marienbad]

Philologos - I just don't get your point at this stage. Atheism has no values as such

Think of it this way . It is like being a smoker or a non-smoker
To become a non-smoker you don't have to try every brand just to prove they are all equally bad/addictive/pleasurable/comforting- whatever /

On the other hand if one never smoked one takes it for granted that this is the natural order.

[marienbad]

Originally Posted by Fanny Cradock

Yes, I know where it can be found. I linked to it first, remember?

OK, so you checked the footnotes - all 64 of them, I gather. Fine. But I still don't understand what the history of education according to a wikipedia article has got to do with PDN's point? As afar as I can see he didn't claim that formal education began with Christianity. Rather, he talked about the development of institutions. But perhaps I am missing something?


No. You may not ask



To my mind he did play the ball and perhaps he played the man after that. But that is all part of the sport, no?

In answer to your question above, I take my understanding of PDN's point straight from the horse's mouth. He said that "Christianity opened the way for institutions to develop, institutions that failed to develop anywhere else in the world". It might be a certain bet that you will disagree with this, but I don't see why there remains any confusion. Nor for that matter do I see why there is a need to cite large proportions of wikipedia or bring Hitler, Stalin or Himmler into this.

To reiterate, the point being made -- at lest as far as I can see -- is not that Christians don't do bad things or that Christian institutions have not stood in the way of what we now consider to be progress. It's that Christianity (with all that this word entails) shaped Europe in such a way that made certain things we now take for granted a reality - the same things we didn't see develop in other parts of the world.

It's interesting that an atheist like Alain de Botton can happily admit that something like the Welfare State arose because, and not in spite, of Christianity. On the other hand, you seem to think that we got here against the best efforts of Christianity.

What you you think is the primary achievement (and by this I speaking terms of positive impact) that Christianity has had on mankind and why?

To be honest Fanny Cradock , while Christianity may have given comfort on an individual basis throughout the first millenium , overall I believe its influence was negative - most definitely so from the time of the so called
Donation Of Constantine and the Church becoming a Temporal Power. Any good that came thereafter was purely incidental as its main goal was the pursuit and maintenance of power.

Thereafter it really is the story of shaking off this influence through the renaissance/reformation/enlightenment right up to our own times.

Any unique message was lost when religion became organised on such a centralised scale. Now that christianity is losing influence and in many cases not wishing to have such influence in temporal affairs they are carrying that message better than ever before.

Dante pointed that out way back when he consigned Pope Boniface VIII to the 8th Circle of hell for proclaiming that not alone was he the spiritual head but also superiour in temporal matters to the Emperor. Christians should have listened more to Dante and less to the popes.

As for all the claims regarding Art Sculpture etc- I don't really buy it- what was it Gene Kelly said ''Gotta Dance'' - Michelangelo- Titian- Bernini - Palestrina- Giotto would have followed their gift no matter what- talent like that dos'nt give them a choice. They just would have had different patrons.

That is obviously my shorthand version , if you want to continue the conversation -then no problem.

Now may I ask you a question ? Accepting you believe in Christianity and you believe it is unique and accepting that as yer man said the medium is the message and not wishing to get into a slanging match ,

Can you tell me what ideas , philosophy , message that is unique to Christianity ? That was not already known and discussed or practiced in some shape or form somewhere else?

[Doc Farrell]

Marienbad the central event of Christianity is the Resurrection. If one doesnt believe in that then one isn't a Christian. Christianity is about love for all, no matter what tribe or class or background, that's the revolutionary aspect of it, or it used to be!

I normally avoid this thread because it goes around in circles so in shorthand I think it's fair to say that if one doesn't believe in the supernatural, any aspect of it in any way, then one is an atheist.
Unfortunately my Buddhist friends believe in the supernatural but not in God! So with them the question becomes how does one define the nature and concept of God!

But basically if you think, after investigation, that the supernatural is nonsense then you are an atheist. Of course one can choose to be a lazy or, God forbid, an arrogant atheist, and not investigate the supernatural.
(As you are aware there have never been lazy or arrogant Christians!)

[Fanny Cradock]

Originally Posted by marienbad

To be honest Fanny Cradock , while Christianity may have given comfort on an individual basis throughout the first millenium , overall I believe its influence was negative...

Sorry, what is the significance of the first millennium? Are you suggesting that people stopped deriving comfort sometime after 1000 AD?

Originally Posted by marienbad

That is obviously my shorthand version , if you want to continue the conversation -then no problem.

I would certainly love to hear more. Maybe with something to back up your position. I find it interesting to read that you think that Christianity with all it's far reaching influence over the centuries (for better or worse) has contributed nothing positive apart from some warm fuzzy feeling it gives the individual. I've honestly never heard anyone go so far as to claim this. So please fill me in on the long-hand version. PM me if you like.

Originally Posted by marienbad

Michelangelo- Titian- Bernini - Palestrina- Giotto would have followed their gift no matter what- talent like that dos'nt give them a choice. They just would have had different patrons.

Please note that what I didn't ask was what would have happened if Christianity had never existed. What I asked you presupposed history as we know know it (or think we do) and not a fantasy realm without McDonalds, Christianity, Manchester United or any other staple of reality. I'm not asking a "what if..." question. I'm asking you what is the main positive contribution Christianity (and this can mean anything from a religious institution like the RCC to social reform to art or whatever) has made to humanity. Now this correction may not change your answer but it is nevertheless worth clarifying exactly what I was asking.

Originally Posted by marienbad

Can you tell me what ideas , philosophy , message that is unique to Christianity ? That was not already known and discussed or practiced in some shape or form somewhere else?

I don't think I am well versed enough in world religions or philosophy to adequately answer your question. But let me be clear - I don't claim that Christianity must have brought something new to the table in order for it to be true. Indeed, the idea the that law has been written to all hearts is fairly fundamental to the NT. Besides, the fact that Christianity grew out of Judaism and in opposition to other hostile pagan world-views means that it was never a tabula rasa religion. It didn't pull itself up by its own bootstraps. Your question seems like a modification of Christopher Hitchens' rhetorical stunt - "Name me one act of kindness that a theist can do that an atheist can't ". (I'm paraphrasing there). I am not saying that Christianity created absolutely unique ideas or that Christians are somehow able to be kinder than atheists.

The unique claims of Christianity - for example, the idea that the Messiah was God himself or the formulation of the Trinity - aren't things that would move you. So in a way I am confused by the question. Is this the point you mention Zeitgeist: The Movie and the parallel claims with Christ and other near-eastern religions?

[Fanny Cradock]

BTW, you might be interested in this discussion between Terry Sanderson of the UK's national Secular Society - who would probably be sympathetic to your perspective - and David B Hart. The discussion, which is not entirely dissimilar to the one that has been raging over the last few pages, might take a while to get going, but I found it edifying enough that I've now listened to it on two occasions.

[himnextdoor]

Originally Posted by PDN

Thank you for proving my point so eloquently. For someone who claims to be a historian you seem to have real difficuloty with understanding what it is written in front of your eyes.

My one straightforward point (in response to himnextdoor) was that Christianity was pivotal to the development of so much of modern life. You appear to be trying to argue against some other position that neither myself nor anyone else here has taken - namely that Christianity came up with everything as original ideas.

You could have saved yourself a whole lot of typing if you had actually taken the time to read my post.

I'm sorry; I got the impression that you were saying that Christianity is responsible for bringing about less cruelty in the world.

You espoused capitalism as a virtue that was enabled by Christianity but isn't losing your home over interest rates an act of barbarism?

Catholicism was so effective in its fear campaign that when democracy came along it gave people an opportunity to bury their heads in the sans; rather than be tortured we will suffer to be abused by the state and content ourselves with the notion that we are leading the way forward as opposed to being led to oblivion.

Sound dramatic? Read Revelations.

[himnextdoor]

Originally Posted by PDN

Fair enough, apology accepted.

Btw, you can use the same point for many bad things as well as good things. I could say (as I have on many occasions) that without Christianity there would be no Crusades, Inquisition, or 9/11. But then, if you and the chorus were consistent, you would argue that this only happened because Christianity borrowed ideas from other people. Or, of course, you could make the claim that these things would all have happened anyway, even if there had been no Christianity.

The problem with counter-factual history is that it allows people's prejudices to dominate over reason or logic. So we get one-eyed reasoning that says:
"Yeah, all the good things would have happened if there was no Christianity, but none of the bad things would have happened".

And my point was precisely that the world would not necessarily be a worse place without Christianity.

Apology accepted.

[himnextdoor]

Originally Posted by Benny_Cake

Sorry, is there some kind of cruelty index that I'm unaware of? With regard to suffering, it might help to familiarise yourself with what Christians actually believe. A good place to start might be the many fine Christian organisations which are working to relieve human suffering.

As for your final sentence, both are bad. If you can find a single Christian here who thinks that either of those acts are ok on the basis of the Gospel, I may.concede you have a point. I'd doubt it somehow.

You miss the point; Christian authorities are recorded as being every bit as cruel as non-Christian ones.

Or else tell me, what did Ghengis Khan do that was worse than what the inquisition did?

[himnextdoor]

Originally Posted by PDN

I think you're falling into the trap of feeding the troll, Benny.

There are atheists who will use this thread to engage in discussion - and others that use it to simply bait Christians and throw out vague or generalised insults.

And there are those who call a spade a spade.

[himnextdoor]

Originally Posted by PDN

Anyway, stimulating as I'm finding this conversation, I'll have to bow out now. I'm flying out to work on a project in a location where, for centuries and until very recently, they were free from the stultlfying repression and anti-intellectualism of Christianity. As a result I won't have access to electricity or the internet for the next couple of weeks.

Would you be going to a location that has been stripped of its resources by Christian nations?

[ISAW]

Originally Posted by King Mob

F. None of the above.

The closest you can get would be a combination of A and B with modification and better wording.

which is still NOT A i.e NOT atheist as defined and quoted in the research!
when I refer to "atheist3 and when they do they are referring to the people who answered A.
As long as we are clear on that you can call yourself anything you like.

The options you are offering do not properly cover what I and most atheist positions are, hence your definitions are useless.

They are not MY definitions and they are peer reviewed research and published . If your personal opinion is that the report is useless you are entitles to that opinion. you are also entitled to believe the Moon is made of cheese or invisible pink unicorns are controlling a world government. We have however gone to the Moon and returned rocks from it which we can analyse using geology. Trinity college conducted a VALID statistical analysis of NONES. If you believe it is useless that is your perogative. it does not however make the survey invalid nor does it make it unrelable.

the validity is the main issue above. that is why i am being so stringent as to what "atheist" means when i use it i.e. it is as defined in the search. Because i am not talking about MY unsuppoeted opinion but about a valid and reliable objective statistical and scientific measurement

By the way F "none of the above" comes under "dont know" and is covered by the survey. It is still not A and therefore not atheist as objectively defined.