Need Help Debating a Christian

[LegendarySandwich]

Hey. I'm arguing with a Christian; even though I know that a lot of his points are common and have been refuted many times before, I've been a pretty lousy debater, and now I'm not sure how to refute some of his arguments his latest post.

Dear Christopher, Research shows Christians give much more to charity, lie less, cheat on their spouse less, steal less--you name it, when it comes to morality, Christians are better. Try picking up a copy of "Who Really Cares" or "Makers and Takers".

But I would like to know on what grounds you talk about "immoral acts" and "bad deeds"? If there is no God, then life is pointless and there isn't any real right or wrong. Was it wrong for the Aztecs to rip out the still beating heart of a captive? It was just their culture.

There can only be an ultimate right and wrong in this world if there is a God, as Nietzsche so acidly pointed out. Everything else is merely your opinion and culture versus mine.

And as for "I would like you to show me specifically how the Christian religion, not Christians themselves, has caused good>"--nothing could be easier.

Christianity said all people had souls and were equal in the sight of God. This has had enormous impact throughout western civilization. It's where the concept of inalienable rights came from, and without God, whatever 'rights' there are in the world depends on the vagaries of culture.

Take just the subject of children. From the start, Christians forbade abortion and infanticide because children had souls. Yet the Romans, like Seneca, called children, that 'thing' and saw nothing at all wrong with abusing children, especially slave children, sexually and physically.

Christians viewed children as complete and valuable human beings from the time of their conception. Because Christians felt that the way they brought up their child could affect nothing less than that child's eternal salvation, historians show that Christians had a far greater involvement in upbringing than pagans. Pick up a copy of "When Children Became People"

Throughout much of the ancient world anyone who worked with his hands was regarded as servile. A worker was thought to be incapable of virtue, degraded, and stupid. Even the most famous of philosophers agreed that slaves were barely human.

Throughout the ancient world, the poor were despised. Allowed to die of hunger or sell their children as slaves. It was Christianity that would bring charity to the poor, free hospitals and hostels to the unfortunate. It was Christianity which required morality of everyone, slave or emperor, husband or wife, rich or poor.

Haven't you ever read a book on why only the west developed real science? And I am talking here about real science, not just mere technology. Science, with its organized effort to explain and understand nature, with its interest in abstract subjects and its testing of theories, only developed in the west. And the reason for that is Christianity.

Historians argue that the Chinese would seem to have had the most likely of civilizations to invent science. They had long periods of peace, a wonderful exam system that encouraged education, and they had a passionate interest inventions.

What they didn't have was the Christian belief that absolute truth exists. Christianity taught God was truth and reason, and therefore Christian scientists hunted for the truth.

Then there was the problem of how all the other ancients, and the Chinese and Indians as well, viewed time. Across the entire of the western ancient world, as well as India and China, time was viewed as a great wheel, with one golden age with great technologies succeeded by a fallen era, when idea would be lost. Then the golden age would reappear, with all the same technologies.

But Christianity proposed time that progressed. Christ, after all, came in historical time.

Alfred North Whitehead argued that the reason the west developed science was Christian theology. He said, "There seems but one source...It must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God...Every detail was supervised and ordered; the search in to nature could only result in the vindication of the faith in rationality".

From the very start, as shown in such Christian theologians as Tertullian and Augustine, Christians argued that there was a truth. Truth was God. And the truth could be discovered by rationality.

Your comment, "Even on its most prosaic level, religion is irrational, a rejection of logic and reason." is simply incorrect.

I can list many good books on this subject. And I could also go on and on and on about the good Christianity has done.

So far, all the atheists have done is slaughter one hundred and fifty million people.

May God grant you grace and miracles, Jeri

[Matt]

It seems like a lot of these arguments are unfounded.  Most of these points can be taken down if you just ask for references.  The references are likely to be bad or refuted by better ones.

Dear Christopher, Research shows Christians give much more to charity, lie less, cheat on their spouse less, steal less--you name it, when it comes to morality, Christians are better. Try picking up a copy of "Who Really Cares" or "Makers and Takers".

Ask if he could provide the relevant sections.  Provide statistics of your own, if you can find them.  Make sure they're good ones, though.

But I would like to know on what grounds you talk about "immoral acts" and "bad deeds"? If there is no God, then life is pointless and there isn't any real right or wrong. Was it wrong for the Aztecs to rip out the still beating heart of a captive? It was just their culture.

There can only be an ultimate right and wrong in this world if there is a God, as Nietzsche so acidly pointed out. Everything else is merely your opinion and culture versus mine.

I'm not sure how this is relevant.  Believing there is no ultimate source of morals means that your morals are either relative or nonexistent.  What does this prove?

And as for "I would like you to show me specifically how the Christian religion, not Christians themselves, has caused good>"--nothing could be easier.

Christianity said all people had souls and were equal in the sight of God. This has had enormous impact throughout western civilization. It's where the concept of inalienable rights came from, and without God, whatever 'rights' there are in the world depends on the vagaries of culture.

Bust out your Bible.  All people aren't equal in the sight of God.

Take just the subject of children. From the start, Christians forbade abortion and infanticide because children had souls. Yet the Romans, like Seneca, called children, that 'thing' and saw nothing at all wrong with abusing children, especially slave children, sexually and physically.

Christians viewed children as complete and valuable human beings from the time of their conception. Because Christians felt that the way they brought up their child could affect nothing less than that child's eternal salvation, historians show that Christians had a far greater involvement in upbringing than pagans. Pick up a copy of "When Children Became People"

Wasn't the point he's trying to debunk that Christianity wasn't good, not Christians?

Throughout much of the ancient world anyone who worked with his hands was regarded as servile. A worker was thought to be incapable of virtue, degraded, and stupid. Even the most famous of philosophers agreed that slaves were barely human.

Throughout the ancient world, the poor were despised. Allowed to die of hunger or sell their children as slaves. It was Christianity that would bring charity to the poor, free hospitals and hostels to the unfortunate. It was Christianity which required morality of everyone, slave or emperor, husband or wife, rich or poor.

This one's a pretty good point.  I would bring up the Inquisition.

Haven't you ever read a book on why only the west developed real science? And I am talking here about real science, not just mere technology. Science, with its organized effort to explain and understand nature, with its interest in abstract subjects and its testing of theories, only developed in the west. And the reason for that is Christianity.

Actually, Islam beat it to the punch.  Alhazen was one of the important ones.  Some of the Greek philosophers did sciencey things, too.

Historians argue that the Chinese would seem to have had the most likely of civilizations to invent science. They had long periods of peace, a wonderful exam system that encouraged education, and they had a passionate interest inventions.

What historians?

What they didn't have was the Christian belief that absolute truth exists. Christianity taught God was truth and reason, and therefore Christian scientists hunted for the truth.

Then there was the problem of how all the other ancients, and the Chinese and Indians as well, viewed time. Across the entire of the western ancient world, as well as India and China, time was viewed as a great wheel, with one golden age with great technologies succeeded by a fallen era, when idea would be lost. Then the golden age would reappear, with all the same technologies.

But Christianity proposed time that progressed. Christ, after all, came in historical time.

Alfred North Whitehead argued that the reason the west developed science was Christian theology. He said, "There seems but one source...It must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God...Every detail was supervised and ordered; the search in to nature could only result in the vindication of the faith in rationality".

From the very start, as shown in such Christian theologians as Tertullian and Augustine, Christians argued that there was a truth. Truth was God. And the truth could be discovered by rationality.

Your comment, "Even on its most prosaic level, religion is irrational, a rejection of logic and reason." is simply incorrect.

Christians can be very rational people (Augustine and the like) and apply rationality to interpreting scripture and learning about God's creation (though for many prominent modern religious people, not anymore, it seems), and I think he's right, there.  But he's not shown that the religion has any basis in rationality.

I can list many good books on this subject. And I could also go on and on and on about the good Christianity has done.

And whatever other religion you can think of.

So far, all the atheists have done is slaughter one hundred and fifty million people.

Er, what?  If she wants to count heads, I think Christianity's got a lead there.

May God grant you grace and miracles, Jeri

I often see debates as games to be won, which is a habit I should probably break.  I look more to beating the other person than finding out if what they're saying is something that might be right.  I suggest ceding points to your opponent when they appear correct to you rather than to find some outlandish way to argue against it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Dear Christopher, Research shows Christians give much more to charity, lie less, cheat on their spouse less, steal less--you name it, when it comes to morality, Christians are better. Try picking up a copy of "Who Really Cares" or "Makers and Takers".

I mentioned that the proportion of Roman Catholics in penal institutions is at least twice their representation in the population at large. Though I was under the impression that this was a well-known fact, it caused some derisive laughter. But on checking the statistics, I find that again I erred on the side of caution: RCs comprise 12 to 13 percent of the population of England and Wales, but 25 to 35 per cent of the inmates of borstals, detention centres, prisons and hostels for drug addicts, alcoholics, and the like [...] and similar ratios pertain in all Western countries.

A book entitled "The Church Now" (published in October 1980 by Gill and Macmillan) contains a chapter by a Catholic priest, Fr Terence Tanner, enquiring why this should be so. He points out that the answer generally given in the past - that RCs are unduly represented among the poorer sections of the community - is no longer valid.”

"Freethoughts" by Barbara Smoker (2002)

source: http://www.humanreligions.info/violence_and_crime.html

But I would like to know on what grounds you talk about "immoral acts" and "bad deeds"? If there is no God, then life is pointless and there isn't any real right or wrong. Was it wrong for the Aztecs to rip out the still beating heart of a captive? It was just their culture.

If there is still a god, why does he not advocate stoning adulterers?  Note:  He will object that "that is the Old Testament", at which point remind him that Jesus didn't "come to replace the law but fulfill it."

There can only be an ultimate right and wrong in this world if there is a God, as Nietzsche so acidly pointed out. Everything else is merely your opinion and culture versus mine.

Of course morality is relative.  The change from Biblical slavery to current freedoms is one example of it.  Another example is how it is "right" for god to penalize (with the death penalty) every human in history for the sin of Adam and Eve, but it is wrong for humans to inflict mass punishments.  He accepts moral relativity implicitly with his beliefs.

And as for "I would like you to show me specifically how the Christian religion, not Christians themselves, has caused good>"--nothing could be easier.

Christianity said all people had souls and were equal in the sight of God. This has had enormous impact throughout western civilization. It's where the concept of inalienable rights came from, and without God, whatever 'rights' there are in the world depends on the vagaries of culture.

It's a pity that for 1600 years, Christians thought slavery was acceptable, and it's a good thing they don't think so anymore.  So, did their god change his mind to improve his work (implying his prior imperfection), or did man realize that holding slaves was wrong?

Take just the subject of children. From the start, Christians forbade abortion (there is no Biblical injunction against abortion, and some evidence that the Bible encourages it) and infanticide (see 1 Sam 15:3, Ps 135:8, 136:10, & 137:9 for direct contradiction of this) because children had souls. Yet the Romans, like Seneca, called children, that 'thing' and saw nothing at all wrong with abusing children, especially slave children, sexually and physically.

Does he have a cite for the claim about Romans?  Is it religious or good history?

Christians viewed children as complete and valuable human beings from the time of their conception. Because Christians felt that the way they brought up their child could affect nothing less than that child's eternal salvation, historians show that Christians had a far greater involvement in upbringing than pagans. Pick up a copy of "When Children Became People"

Remind him of the verses above.  Remind him of the abuse scandals rocking not just the Catholic Church, but Protestant denominations as well:  http://www.reformation.com/ .  Wouldn't clergymen be the most exemplary Christians?  If not, what is their qualification for preaching?  If so, whence these awful cases?

Throughout much of the ancient world anyone who worked with his hands was regarded as servile. A worker was thought to be incapable of virtue, degraded, and stupid. Even the most famous of philosophers agreed that slaves were barely human.

Throughout the ancient world, the poor were despised. Allowed to die of hunger or sell their children as slaves. It was Christianity that would bring charity to the poor, free hospitals and hostels to the unfortunate. It was Christianity which required morality of everyone, slave or emperor, husband or wife, rich or poor.

Ask him for the verse where Christ condemns slavery.  Do not let him weasel out.

Haven't you ever read a book on why only the west developed real science? And I am talking here about real science, not just mere technology. Science, with its organized effort to explain and understand nature, with its interest in abstract subjects and its testing of theories, only developed in the west. And the reason for that is Christianity.

Q:  Who invented gunpowder?  A:  The Chinese
Q:  Who invented geometry? A:  The Ancient Greeks
Q:  Who invented Algebra?  A:  Probably the Indians; if not them, the Arabs.
Q:  Who invented trans-oceanic navigation?  A:  Polynesians.
Q:  Who invented the forging of iron?  A:  North Africans
Q:  Who discovered America?  A:  the Vikings
Q:  Who invented the battery?  The Babylonians

None Christian.

Now, for another set of questions:

Q:  Who burned Giordano Bruno at the stake because he hypothesized that stars were distant suns?
Q:  Who scared Copernicus so much so that he waited until death to publish De Revolutionibus?
Q:  Who maintained the Index of Forbidden Books until 1966?
Q:  Who argues against evolution being taught in schools?
Q:  Who argues that prayer is efficacious medical treatment?
Q:  Who fights against sex education in schools even though it is shown to reduce both teen pregnancy and abortion?

All Christian.

Historians argue that the Chinese would seem to have had the most likely of civilizations to invent science. They had long periods of peace, a wonderful exam system that encouraged education, and they had a passionate interest inventions.

What they didn't have was the Christian belief that absolute truth exists. Christianity taught God was truth and reason, and therefore Christian scientists hunted for the truth.

That is not why the Chinese faltered.  The reason why they faltered is multifold:  1) They suffered ongoing wars with nomadic tribesmen from the steppes to the west and northwest; 2) They were burdened with a conservative social outlook arising from a centralized bureaucracy; 3) Unlike Western Europe, they did not have constant struggle between petty fiefdoms, so that they didn't have nearly as much incentive to discover better ways to kill each other.  Oddly enough, only this last reason supports his view that Christianity fueled the growth of science in Europe: they were busy inventing better ways to kill each other over the Reformation.   "Thirty Years' War".

Then there was the problem of how all the other ancients, and the Chinese and Indians as well, viewed time. Across the entire of the western ancient world, as well as India and China, time was viewed as a great wheel, with one golden age with great technologies succeeded by a fallen era, when idea would be lost. Then the golden age would reappear, with all the same technologies.

But Christianity proposed time that progressed. Christ, after all, came in historical time.

Not so fast.  Where's the evidence that Christ existed?  No, not 2nd generation historians, but real evidence?

Alfred North Whitehead argued that the reason the west developed science was Christian theology. He said, "There seems but one source...It must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God...Every detail was supervised and ordered; the search in to nature could only result in the vindication of the faith in rationality".

From the very start, as shown in such Christian theologians as Tertullian and Augustine, Christians argued that there was a truth. Truth was God. And the truth could be discovered by rationality.

And the many millions of deaths inflicted by, over, and because of Christianity give evidence that Christian truth is not universal.  After all, no Inquisition was required to illustrate gravity.

Your comment, "Even on its most prosaic level, religion is irrational, a rejection of logic and reason." is simply incorrect.

Christians make use of logic, but in refusing to submit their sine qua non, God, to logical testing, they reveal both their most obvious fallacy and their most basic fear.

I can list many good books on this subject. And I could also go on and on and on about the good Christianity has done.

A truly unbiased view would look at the evils done in Christianity's name as well, and see if they comport with the claims made of the faith.

So far, all the atheists have done is slaughter one hundred and fifty million people.

God has murdered every human in history because of the applebite of the first two.  Who is your interlocutor to criticize atheist for killing a mere 150 million?

[The Magic Pudding]

Well done, but those dumb Chinese not realising what gunpowder is best for, if only they were blessed with inspiration from Jesus.

[LegendarySandwich]

Thanks.

[Gawen]

Dear Christopher, Research shows Christians give much more to charity, lie less, cheat on their spouse less, steal less--you name it, when it comes to morality,

Unsubstantiated assertion. Why are there more Christians in U.S. prisons? Atheists make up less than 1/3 of 1 percent in prison populations.

...when it comes to morality, Christians are better.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

Try picking up a copy of "Who Really Cares" or "Makers and Takers".

Preaching to the choir, I wager.

But I would like to know on what grounds you talk about "immoral acts" and "bad deeds"?

Ask the same of him. It seems clear to me that Jesus’ moral teachings in the synoptic Gospels are in large part irrelevant, indefensible, not original to him and an unjustified model of morality. The otherworldliness, harshness, and insistence on unthinking obedience, and mean-spirited vindictiveness are not only unacceptable, but quite a long ways from the claim of “moral perfection.”

If there is no God, then life is pointless...

Sucks to be a Christian, then. If life were pointless without the Bible God, then there should only be 1.2 billion people living on the earth.

and there isn't any real right or wrong.

Unsubstantiated assertion. Jesus couldn't make up his mind about right and wrong: Jesus was of two minds in repeating the Old Testament commandment: “Honor your father and mother” and “hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple”.

Was it wrong for the Aztecs to rip out the still beating heart of a captive? It was just their culture.

Was it wrong for Calvinists to burn women at the stake for being something they can't be (witch)? Oh....it was just their culture.

There can only be an ultimate right and wrong in this world if there is a God, as Nietzsche so acidly pointed out.

Yeah, if Nietzsche said it, it must be true. But first, your opponent has to prove beyond doubt there is a God before he can say this god has ultimate right or wrong.

Everything else is merely your opinion and culture versus mine.

Move the goalposts much?

And as for "I would like you to show me specifically how the Christian religion, not Christians themselves, has caused good>"--nothing could be easier.

Of course it's easy for someone who is so biased of their own religion.

Christianity said all people had souls and were equal in the sight of God.

It's obvious he hasn't read his bible.

This has had enormous impact throughout western civilization. It's where the concept of inalienable rights came from,

Tell that to the Midianites. Tell that to the Canaanite women in Matthew:15:22-28, where Jesus calls her kind 'dogs'

and without God, whatever 'rights' there are in the world depends on the vagaries of culture.

True. That already happens anyway.

Take just the subject of children. From the start, Christians forbade abortion

With no biblical support whatsoever.

and infanticide because children had souls.

Unsubstantiated assertion. Prove souls exists.

Yet the Romans, like Seneca, called children, that 'thing' and saw nothing at all wrong with abusing children, especially slave children, sexually and physically.

Neither did the Israelites.

Christians viewed children as complete and valuable human beings from the time of their conception.

That is untrue.

Because Christians felt that the way they brought up their child could affect nothing less than that child's eternal salvation, historians show that Christians had a far greater involvement in upbringing than pagans.

Still doesn't answer why there are more Christians in prisons.

Pick up a copy of "When Children Became People"

Apologetics

Throughout much of the ancient world anyone who worked with his hands was regarded as servile. A worker was thought to be incapable of virtue, degraded, and stupid. Even the most famous of philosophers agreed that slaves were barely human.

Good grief...this is getting hard for me. I'm becoming more sickened with every word this guy writes.

Throughout the ancient world, the poor were despised. Allowed to die of hunger or sell their children as slaves. It was Christianity that would bring charity to the poor, free hospitals and hostels to the unfortunate. It was Christianity which required morality of everyone, slave or emperor, husband or wife, rich or poor.

Tell that to the Aztecs and American Indians.

What they didn't have was the Christian belief that absolute truth exists.

Unsubstantiated assertion. Show that absolute truth exists.

Christianity taught God was truth and reason,

Christianity is a joke of untruths in its own right.

and therefore Christian scientists hunted for the truth.

Yup. That how we know dinosaurs lived with man and the earth is 6000 years old.

[lundberg500]

when it comes to morality, Christians are better.

Have him explain why North America is the most devout Christian country in the world with most of the population attending christian churches yet America also has one of the highest crime rates in the world. Secular European countries who have less than 10% of the population attending church have only a fraction of the crime rate as America.

Was it wrong for the Aztecs to rip out the still beating heart of a captive? It was just their culture.

Unbelievable. He's actually bringing up history? Was it wrong for the Crusaders to slaughter Jews in Europe before heading out for Jerusalem? Was it then wrong for these Crusaders, who had accepted Jesus into their hearts, to scale the walls of Jerusalem in 1099 CE and thrust their swords into the little children and women and men behind those walls because they didn't believe in Jesus? Was it wrong for the Inquisitors in Europe to violently torture thousands of accused heretics using methods such as the ordeal of water where the accused was forced to swallow large quantities of water through a funnel or soaked linen, or the ordeal of fire where burning fat or grease was placed at their feet until a confession of heresy was obtained or they would faint, or maybe the strappado pulley system where their ankles and wrists were tied and they were hoisted up in pain dropped and then hoisted up again over and over, or maybe the rack where they would stretch heretics until a confession of heresy was obtained. Or how about the stivaletto where boards were were attached to each leg with rope then wedges were driven in between those boards until the pressure became intolerable. Or how about all the thousands of people that were burned alive by the Inquisitors. Burned alive because they were accused and convicted of heresy. What a waste of human life to go out that way. All done by Christians who had accepted Jesus and couldn't stand it when someone else didn't. More blood has been shed in the name of Christianity than this person is obviously aware of.

Take just the subject of children

Unbelievable. Christians will NEVER realize the harm they do to children. The threat of hell is one of the cruelest things you could ever impose on the impressionable innocent mind of a child. It is truly one of most insane atrocities ever forced upon young children. The church gets into the minds of children early on and they instil this fear of hell that lasts long into their adult years. I see people all the time that still have this inane fear of hell. Christians should NEVER believe that they are in a position that creates a safer environment for children.

It was Christianity that would bring charity to the poor, free hospitals and hostels to the unfortunate. It was Christianity which required morality of everyone, slave or emperor, husband or wife, rich or poor.

Christianity got it's start by appealing to the uneducated, the unwise, the illiterate, slaves, and women. Celsus (2nd century CE Greek philosopher) wrote The True Doctrine around 170-180 CE. As he states: “Their injunctions (rules for joining) are like this: let no one educated, no one wise, no one sensible draw near. For these abilities are thought by us to be evils. But as for anyone ignorant, anyone stupid, anyone uneducated, anyone childish, let him come boldly” (Celsus). He also said: “We see that these christians display their trickery in the marketplace and go around begging. They would not dare to enter into conversation with intelligent men, or to voice their beliefs in the presence of the wise. On the other hand, wherever one finds a crowd of adolescent boys, or a bunch of slaves, or a company of fools, there will the christian teachers be also.” “They pitch their message to the uneducated, the slaves, and the ignorant â€" those wholly without wisdom â€" and then convince them that the wisdom they possess in their newfound superstition is divine” (Celsus)

Christianity taught God was truth and reason, and therefore Christian scientists hunted for the truth.

:shake:

Christ, after all, came in historical time.

I could debate this all day. The physical existence of Jesus has never been proven or can't, for that matter. That's because he didn't exist.

all the atheists have done is slaughter one hundred and fifty million people.

And he ends on an incredibly unfound and insane comment like that? At this point I would stop debating this fool. He is obviously not all there mentally.

[LegendarySandwich]

Was it wrong for the Aztecs to rip out the still beating heart of a captive? It was just their culture.

Unbelievable. He's actually bringing up history? Was it wrong for the Crusaders to slaughter Jews in Europe before heading out for Jerusalem? Was it then wrong for these Crusaders, who had accepted Jesus into their hearts, to scale the walls of Jerusalem in 1099 CE and thrust their swords into the little children and women and men behind those walls because they didn't believe in Jesus?

Apparently not -- here's his previous post:

Dear Christopher,
"Look, the first time in history atheists had a stab at anything, ever, was during the 20th century."
What?

Why yes, the first and only time a regime that could be called atheist ever existed was the atheist communists of the 20th century. Think about it; there never has been another one. And atheism was not peripheral to communism; it was utterly necessary, even the main building block. They declared war on religion and they went about that war in the crudest and most murderous way possible. I can refer you to a number of books on the subject.

Your argument that "if you want to say that these people did these things because they were atheists, then you have to let me say that religious murders such as The Crusades were committed by people who murdered because they were Christians" is incorrect for many reasons.

The Crusades were not Christian wars of aggression. Pope Urban called for a Crusade because the emperor of Byzantium had written to him, begging for help. This was after centuries of Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land ending up murdered, enslaved, or undergoing gruesome tortures. By the time the emperor wrote to the pope Islamic armies stood within one hundred miles of Constantinople.

Vast stretches of once Christian lands had, by bloody war, become forcibly Muslim. The entire of North Africa, once so solidly Christian it had produced a pope and boasted of 500 bishoprics, was now completely Islamic. Egypt was lost, save for some embattled pockets of Coptic Christians. Much of the Middle East was lost. Muslim armies seemed poised to attack a weak Byzantium, and after that, a fractious, divided Europe. The situation appeared dire.

Thus, your point that there was something morally wrong with the Crusades, at least judging by the morality of the time, is simply incorrect.

I believe I can show that Christianity has created a cascade of good upon the world. Which, sorry, is not what anyone would say of atheism. Even on its most prosaic level, atheism is sterile, a rejection of hope.

May God grant you all that is best, Jeri

Here's the rest of it, including his original review. Yeah, I know, I sucked. I need to work on my debating skills.

Thanks for the help, guys.

[lundberg500]

your point that there was something morally wrong with the Crusades, at least judging by the morality of the time, is simply incorrect.

Do you notice that he doesn't mention that these pious crusaders first stopped over to kill some Jews before heading out to Constantinople? How can he possibly explain that? The year was 1096 CE. These crusaders were called upon by Pope Urban II to help out in Constantinople but they were also out to take back Jerusalem from the infidel Muslims. But, before they left they decided to murder some infidels already there in Europe. So they went after the Jews because they were "christ killers".

This guy you are debating is delusional and living in his own world. He's not worth the trouble...

[Thumpalumpacus]

Apparently not -- here's his previous post:

Dear Christopher,
"Look, the first time in history atheists had a stab at anything, ever, was during the 20th century."
What?

Why yes, the first and only time a regime that could be called atheist ever existed was the atheist communists of the 20th century. Think about it; there never has been another one. And atheism was not peripheral to communism; it was utterly necessary, even the main building block.

Nonsense.  The Russian Orthodox Church made a deal with the Communists in order to use the government to wipe out other, competing sects.  The ROC was permitted to exist.  If atheism was the "main building block", how does he explain this tolerance of the ROC?

They declared war on religion and they went about that war in the crudest and most murderous way possible. I can refer you to a number of books on the subject.

Please do.  Very few were persecuted solely for religious cause, as Solzhenitsyn (a Christian himself) documents.

Your argument that "if you want to say that these people did these things because they were atheists, then you have to let me say that religious murders such as The Crusades were committed by people who murdered because they were Christians" is incorrect for many reasons.

The Crusades were not Christian wars of aggression. Pope Urban called for a Crusade because the emperor of Byzantium had written to him, begging for help. This was after centuries of Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land ending up murdered, enslaved, or undergoing gruesome tortures. By the time the emperor wrote to the pope Islamic armies stood within one hundred miles of Constantinople.

While it is true that the Byzantine Empire was having difficulties with Islam, and requested help, that doesn't justify the atrocities perpetrated against infidels.  Indeed,the fact the two religions were at war at all over the same god only points up that worshiping the Abrahamic god often ended up in the killing of human beings -- and also the fact that at least one, and possibly both, faiths are wrong.  

Vast stretches of once Christian lands had, by bloody war, become forcibly Muslim. The entire of North Africa, once so solidly Christian it had produced a pope and boasted of 500 bishoprics, was now completely Islamic. Egypt was lost, save for some embattled pockets of Coptic Christians. Much of the Middle East was lost. Muslim armies seemed poised to attack a weak Byzantium, and after that, a fractious, divided Europe. The situation appeared dire.

So much for "turn the other cheek," huh?  How does any of this explain:

They were unsuccessful though and on 15 July 1099 the crusaders entered the city.[20] They proceeded to massacre the remaining Jewish and Muslim civilians and pillaged or destroyed mosques and the city itself.[22] One historian has written that the "isolation, alienation and fear"[1][page needed] felt by the Franks so far from home helps to explain the atrocities they committed, including the cannibalism which was recorded after the Siege of Maarat in 1098.

Thus, your point that there was something morally wrong with the Crusades, at least judging by the morality of the time, is simply incorrect.

"Morality of the time"?  Is this Christian really basing his argument on moral relativity?

I believe I can show that Christianity has created a cascade of good upon the world. Which, sorry, is not what anyone would say of atheism. Even on its most prosaic level, atheism is sterile, a rejection of hope.

[/quote]

Stereotype often?

[SomewhereInND]

Debating a christian---in general use their bible

I was on a member of a differnt forum where there were several christians vigurously posting messages against abortion.

Each time, I asked them if they have read the part of the bible that apparently contains an abortion precedure, and if they had any opinion on the authors view.

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com ... rtion.html

Eventually, you will get a very angry response from some christian.   Just ask them why are they so angry.

After several weeks, it stopped.

For general bible debating, Another good website is http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

[Thumpalumpacus]

SAB rocks.

[Achronos]

It would be self-defeating for the Christian to use the Bible as a source of argument to counter the atheist. Rather the atheist would need to present key verses or chapters that exemplify their discord with Christianity.

[LegendarySandwich]

I decided to stop posting, because a) the guy I was debating seemed pretty unreasonable and there was definitely something "off" about him, and b) it seemed like a waste of time.

[Thumpalumpacus]

a) is a common experience, and b) goes without saying.