Not only have you failed to provide such an example, or even made an effort to do so, you have also failed to demonstrate that "Christianity is not a good choice for a religion if you actually cared about peace and harmony". In fact, the only thing you have managed to demonstrate is the awesome measure of your ignorance and ineptitude. Well done, sir.
__________________ Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful.
Not only have you failed to provide such an example, or even made an effort to do so, you have also failed to demonstrate that "Christianity is not a good choice for a religion if you actually cared about peace and harmony". In fact, the only thing you have managed to demonstrate is the awesome measure of your ignorance and ineptitude. Well done, sir.
This is a crazy stupid statement coming from someone who was either unable or unwilling to come up with an example himself. And just laughably stupid when you consider that you are not just an adherent of Christianity but a god chosen representative.
Interesting, adam, I was going another way, for someone who thinks that people shouldnt speak for other people, na seems to have no problems delving into Ang's alleged beliefs about an interventionist god's relationship to His clergy.
So if I were a Christian and I claimed that peace and harmony is what I was about then I would seriously rethink my Christianity.
Just out of curiosity, who are these Christians that claim they are all about peace and harmony? Please provide some specific examples.
Okay, above is the original challenge from Angakuk.
The challenge was stupid because it had nothing to do with what I was talking about. If somebody made the claim or didn't, you would still have to examine the historical evidence to see what effectiveness Christianity has had on creating peace and harmony as compared to other religions.
I have no idea why Angakuk would even ask the question. Whether or not an acceptable person is provided is completely besides the point of whether or not there are better choices than Christianity if you are a person for peace and harmony.
I tried to get him to comprehend this but he just kept blundering along, apparently unable to reconsider that he was having an Emily Litella moment.
He was so hidebound to not recognizing his stupidity that he then claimed that Jesus was not for peace and harmony. As if this somehow did not support my contention. Angakuk, you are a moron. Quit while you are behind.
Still flailing away, I see. Out of curiosity, did you see my edit to this post?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kael
Oh yeah! I remember the pissing. That was right after I joined, too. Feels a bloody long time ago, despite being less than half a year.
ETA: @^
I was wondering in particular if you could answer this question.
Quote:
Quote:
The majority of scientists in the world are atheists.
Source please. I realize that's the common perception, and it's far from the first time I've heard it. I am, however, a bit skeptical about its validity, and would like to know if you actually obtained this information from a reliable source, or are simply repeating it as one of those things that 'everyone knows'.
That's not by way of changing the subject, but honestly I'm getting bored as fuck of reiterating the same shit in the apparently vain hope you'll comprehend the point we're making. Doesn't mean you have to agree, but some sign of comprehension would do this thread a world of good.
And if we're talking about original assertions, let's look at yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
My point is that simply because you call yourself a Christian doesn't mean you hold the high moral ground. Christianity does not confer on anyone any sort of moral wisdom. And Christians as a group are no more "good" than any other religious group or no religion at all. And that anyone that aspires to embrace an ethos of peace and harmony has much better choices than Christianity. Not based on what I say, but on the historical record.
That's a great point. Except no one was claiming that Christianity gives a moral high ground, or that it's a good choice for Peace and HarmonyTM. All we're trying to drum into your head is that your wasting your breath, making a specious and pointless argument, and making it very loudly and repeatedly.
Now, should you care to make any arguments against bey's original assertion:
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyelzu
I will be taking the position that christianity shaped science and politics in the western world, in america, that our freedom is largely derived from religious concerns.
Then we might have an actual discussion going, with possibly interesting avenues of dialogue and insight. Do you think you could see your way clear to letting go of this ridiculous bone you've found to gnaw on and actually address the topic at hand with some specific evidence or relevant opinion?
I have no idea why Angakuk would even ask the question.
I'm pretty sure that, if you look carefully, you'll find the answer to this age old mystery right here in this very thread.
Hint: I've explicitly given this answer at least once, as have Angakuk, Kael, and beyelzu.
Okay, so if you know the answer why do you care if I present an example? Since it has nothing to do with what I am talking about? This obsession with an answer from me to a question that has little to do with what I am talking about it idiotic.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that there exists at least one Christian who claims to be about peace and harmony (i.e., for whom the promotion of peace and harmony constitutes an overriding ethical concern). Further, suppose that it is the case that Christianity has a very poor record of promoting peace and harmony. Does it necessarily follow that Christianity is a poor choice of religion for someone who is about peace and harmony? It appears to me that there are at least two cases in which this might be true.
1. The person in question has chosen Christianity under the mistaken belief that being a Christian will make that person a more effective advocate for peace and harmony. This would, if it were the case that Christianity has a very poor record of promoting peace and harmony, be a poor choice. It would be a bit like choosing to use a screwdriver to drive in a nail. Wrong tool for the job.
2. If it were the case that Christianity, in addition to having a poor record with regard to the promotion of peace and harmony, invariably constitutes (in any and all of its various manifestations) a positive obstacle to the fulfillment of the individual's desire to promote peace and harmony, then the adoption of Christianity by someone interested in promoting peace and harmony would be counter-productive and self-defeating.
With regard to the first scenario, it does not necessarily follow that Christianity is a poor choice of religion for someone who is powerfully motivated to promote peace and harmony, if the purpose for which Christianity has been adopted is unrelated to the person's desire to promote peace and harmony. In other words, just because a person wants to drive a nail does not exclude the possibility that they might also want to screw in a screw. While the choice of a screwdriver does not materially advance the former objective, it is the ideal choice for pursuing the latter objective. The two objectives, while different, are not mutually exclusive. A person may very well entertain the desire to both drive a nail and screw a screw. The wise man uses a hammer on the nail and a screwdriver on the screw. I believe that this was Adam's point with regard to orthogonality. naturalist.atheist's argument, absent evidence for the existence of Christians who claim to have adopted Christianity for the sake of pursuing their desire to promote peace and harmony, is simply an attack on a straw-man.
With regard to the second scenario, it is not sufficient to demonstrate that Christianity has a poor record with regard to the promotion of peace and harmony. The argument requires that it be demonstrated that, in every case, a person's adoption of Christianity has prevented that person from effectively pursuing an agenda directed at promoting peace and harmony. The existence of even one Christian who has effectively promoted peace and harmony would defeat the claim that Christianity is always, in any and all of its manifestations, an obstacle to the promotion of peace and harmony.
The tribadist who practices tribadism as method of procreation is a fool. The tribadist who practices artificial insemination as a means of procreation, and practices tribadism as means of achieving sexual pleasure, is a woman with a plan.
__________________ Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful.
Related to Ang's post, I would like to propose a simple scenario where the adoption of christianity can help a person further an agenda of peace and harmony. We americans live in a judeochristian society with a heavy emphasis on the christian part. Let's say an atheist comes up with a great ethical system or wants to start a movement to help the homeless, something that promotes the public welfare or peace and harmony.
Now many christians in america actually look down on atheists as being less than moral, the reality of this claim doesn't matter. The fact of the claim means that if the atheist in my scenario were to adopt a liberal christian outlook, he might be more successful at promoting peace and harmony.
A second thought, membership in a religion is a strong part of group identity and pseudokinship, by adopting a religion that is prevalent in a specific area it would be easier to work with the other religionists. While ethnocentrism and bigotry are certainly part of joining a group with a well definied "other", nonetheless the flipside is that intragroup conflict is lessened and it is possible to overcome other sets of group divisions.
I'm talking about the answer to "I have no idea why Angakuk would even ask the question."
I think it is a completely fair and reasonable thing to wonder why a person would ask a question. Is it because they lack knowledge, or they know something and wonder if you know. And if the person knows the answer then why ask the question? What are they actually trying to accomplish?
But the most important thing to ask would be, 'Is the answer to the question important to what is being discussed?'
I have no idea why it would be important to the discussion if I could find one, two, fifty or all Christians that were for peace and harmony when I am taking a black box approach. Because in a black box approach it doesn't matter how Christians represent themselves. They could all claim to be for misery and oppression.
Even though his question it is not important to the discussion it is clear that Angakuk is losing bladder control in his decrepitude.
Do you think you could see your way clear to letting go of this ridiculous bone you've found to gnaw on and actually address the topic at hand with some specific evidence or relevant opinion?
Re: Goin to the chapel and I'm goin to
Linear Mode
