Reason and Experience tell us that there is Evidence for a Creator

[Czernobog]

P.S. I am still taking you to school. The school of logic.

Why would I waste my time on unnecessary actions?

Because if it were the great evil that you say it is, then that would be the logical conclusion. Besides there is no action. It is just a hypothetical question. The only action required is to type yes or no. You have already exceeded that by taking the unecessary actions of typing unnecessary actions.

So.. hypothetically speaking... if it did not require any unnecessary actions on your part.... and if alI you had to do was type in the word "yes"... would you abolish religion? A simple yes or no will do.

See, this is the shortsightedness of religious zealots, like yourself. They think the only way to be rid of what they perceive to be unhealthy influences is to legislate them out of existence. How'd that work out with homosexuality?

We atheists have learned a secret that you have yet to learn. It is not necessary to criminalize unhealthy behaviour. Mockery works just fine. As one exposes all of the flaws, and damage inherent to magical thinking, rational people just choose to stop subjecting themselves to it.

See, my goal isn't to "abolish" religion. I just want to limit the ability of religious zealots to inflict their influence on the non-religious.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I see. Did you have to check back at the home office for that? Never mind. How has that strategy been working for you? Let's say that all efforts fail to fix religion. Let's say it doesn't get any better than it is right now. What then? Would you abolish religion then?

It's working out pretty well. Atheism is the fastest growing theological position in the US, while Christianity is actually losing ground. No laws necessary. Just exposing religion for what it is.

Let's move on to your objectivity or lack of.

Do I understand you correctly that you blame religion for doing evil and give zero credit to religion for doing good. Please feel free to put that in your own words.

Well, one can hardly blame an idea, any more than one can blame any inanimate object. "Blaming religion" are your words, not mine. Now, I do recognise that religion has been the motivation behind nearly every atrocity committed by man. As to the second part of your question, I have yet to have any positive effects for humanity demonstrated to me. Now, have I seen individuals who credit religion for their behaviours? Sure. But, on a global, or cultural level, like the Inquisition, or the Witch burnings (most of whom, incidentally, weren't witches in any sense of the word)? No. I have not had any influences at that level shown to me. If you would like to be the first, I am still waiting for someone to do so. Bear in mind, I mean ;positive effects of Christianity, because of Christianity, not advances made by scientists who just happened to be Christian. For instance, yes, Copernicus was a Christian, and he determined that our solar system was heliocentric. he was also thrown into prison by The Church for espousing such heresy. So, as you see, even though a Christian happened to discover that amazing reality, Christianity was certainly not responsible for the discovery; Christianity, in fact, punished it.

So, yes, I am completely open to any positive cultural influences that you wish to impress me with. Somehow i doubt you will...

 

[Czernobog]

P.S. I am still taking you to school. The school of logic.

See, this is the shortsightedness of religious zealots, like yourself. They think the only way to be rid of what they perceive to be unhealthy influences is to legislate them out of existence. How'd that work out with homosexuality?

We atheists have learned a secret that you have yet to learn. It is not necessary to criminalize unhealthy behaviour. Mockery works just fine. As one exposes all of the flaws, and damage inherent to magical thinking, rational people just choose to stop subjecting themselves to it.

See, my goal isn't to "abolish" religion. I just want to limit the ability of religious zealots to inflict their influence on the non-religious.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I see. Did you have to check back at the home office for that? Never mind. How has that strategy been working for you? Let's say that all efforts fail to fix religion. Let's say it doesn't get any better than it is right now. What then? Would you abolish religion then?

It's working out pretty well. Atheism is the fastest growing theological position in the US, while Christianity is actually losing ground. No laws necessary. Just exposing religion for what it is.

Let's move on to your objectivity or lack of.

Do I understand you correctly that you blame religion for doing evil and give zero credit to religion for doing good. Please feel free to put that in your own words.

Tired of getting your ass kicked on your irrational accusation that I want to pass legislation to abolish religion, are you?

No. We both know you would do it in a heartbeat if you could. You aren't fooling anyone.

LOL! Fuck you. Yes, that is my go to response to anyone who arbitrarily calls me a liar. So, fuck you.

 

[ding]

P.S. I am still taking you to school. The school of logic.

Because if it were the great evil that you say it is, then that would be the logical conclusion. Besides there is no action. It is just a hypothetical question. The only action required is to type yes or no. You have already exceeded that by taking the unecessary actions of typing unnecessary actions.

So.. hypothetically speaking... if it did not require any unnecessary actions on your part.... and if alI you had to do was type in the word "yes"... would you abolish religion? A simple yes or no will do.

See, this is the shortsightedness of religious zealots, like yourself. They think the only way to be rid of what they perceive to be unhealthy influences is to legislate them out of existence. How'd that work out with homosexuality?

We atheists have learned a secret that you have yet to learn. It is not necessary to criminalize unhealthy behaviour. Mockery works just fine. As one exposes all of the flaws, and damage inherent to magical thinking, rational people just choose to stop subjecting themselves to it.

See, my goal isn't to "abolish" religion. I just want to limit the ability of religious zealots to inflict their influence on the non-religious.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I see. Did you have to check back at the home office for that? Never mind. How has that strategy been working for you? Let's say that all efforts fail to fix religion. Let's say it doesn't get any better than it is right now. What then? Would you abolish religion then?

It's working out pretty well. Atheism is the fastest growing theological position in the US, while Christianity is actually losing ground. No laws necessary. Just exposing religion for what it is.

Let's move on to your objectivity or lack of.

Do I understand you correctly that you blame religion for doing evil and give zero credit to religion for doing good. Please feel free to put that in your own words.

Well, one can hardly blame an idea, any more than one can blame any inanimate object. "Blaming religion" are your words, not mine. Now, I do recognise that religion has been the motivation behind nearly every atrocity committed by man. As to the second part of your question, I have yet to have any positive effects for humanity demonstrated to me. Now, have I seen individuals who credit religion for their behaviours? Sure. But, on a global, or cultural level, like the Inquisition, or the Witch burnings (most of whom, incidentally, weren't witches in any sense of the word)? No. I have not had any influences at that level shown to me. If you would like to be the first, I am still waiting for someone to do so. Bear in mind, I mean ;positive effects of Christianity, because of Christianity, not advances made by scientists who just happened to be Christian. For instance, yes, Copernicus was a Christian, and he determined that our solar system was heliocentric. he was also thrown into prison by The Church for espousing such heresy. So, as you see, even though a Christian happened to discover that amazing reality, Christianity was certainly not responsible for the discovery; Christianity, in fact, punished it.

So, yes, I am completely open to any positive cultural influences that you wish to impress me with. Somehow i doubt you will...

Wow... that was a total back pedal on your part. Are you turning pussy on me?

 

[Czernobog]

P.S. I am still taking you to school. The school of logic.

See, this is the shortsightedness of religious zealots, like yourself. They think the only way to be rid of what they perceive to be unhealthy influences is to legislate them out of existence. How'd that work out with homosexuality?

We atheists have learned a secret that you have yet to learn. It is not necessary to criminalize unhealthy behaviour. Mockery works just fine. As one exposes all of the flaws, and damage inherent to magical thinking, rational people just choose to stop subjecting themselves to it.

See, my goal isn't to "abolish" religion. I just want to limit the ability of religious zealots to inflict their influence on the non-religious.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I see. Did you have to check back at the home office for that? Never mind. How has that strategy been working for you? Let's say that all efforts fail to fix religion. Let's say it doesn't get any better than it is right now. What then? Would you abolish religion then?

It's working out pretty well. Atheism is the fastest growing theological position in the US, while Christianity is actually losing ground. No laws necessary. Just exposing religion for what it is.

Let's move on to your objectivity or lack of.

Do I understand you correctly that you blame religion for doing evil and give zero credit to religion for doing good. Please feel free to put that in your own words.

Tired of getting your ass kicked on your irrational accusation that I want to pass legislation to abolish religion, are you?

No. We both know you would do it in a heartbeat if you could. You aren't fooling anyone.

And, again, feel free to fuck off.

 

[ding]

P.S. I am still taking you to school. The school of logic.
I see. Did you have to check back at the home office for that? Never mind. How has that strategy been working for you? Let's say that all efforts fail to fix religion. Let's say it doesn't get any better than it is right now. What then? Would you abolish religion then?

It's working out pretty well. Atheism is the fastest growing theological position in the US, while Christianity is actually losing ground. No laws necessary. Just exposing religion for what it is.

Let's move on to your objectivity or lack of.

Do I understand you correctly that you blame religion for doing evil and give zero credit to religion for doing good. Please feel free to put that in your own words.

Tired of getting your ass kicked on your irrational accusation that I want to pass legislation to abolish religion, are you?

No. We both know you would do it in a heartbeat if you could. You aren't fooling anyone.

LOL! Fuck you. Yes, that is my go to response to anyone who arbitrarily calls me a liar. So, fuck you.

No thanks, I'm not gay. Do you believe your strategy to abolish or control religion is consistent with that of militant atheists?

 

[Czernobog]

P.S. I am still taking you to school. The school of logic.

See, this is the shortsightedness of religious zealots, like yourself. They think the only way to be rid of what they perceive to be unhealthy influences is to legislate them out of existence. How'd that work out with homosexuality?

We atheists have learned a secret that you have yet to learn. It is not necessary to criminalize unhealthy behaviour. Mockery works just fine. As one exposes all of the flaws, and damage inherent to magical thinking, rational people just choose to stop subjecting themselves to it.

See, my goal isn't to "abolish" religion. I just want to limit the ability of religious zealots to inflict their influence on the non-religious.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I see. Did you have to check back at the home office for that? Never mind. How has that strategy been working for you? Let's say that all efforts fail to fix religion. Let's say it doesn't get any better than it is right now. What then? Would you abolish religion then?

It's working out pretty well. Atheism is the fastest growing theological position in the US, while Christianity is actually losing ground. No laws necessary. Just exposing religion for what it is.

Let's move on to your objectivity or lack of.

Do I understand you correctly that you blame religion for doing evil and give zero credit to religion for doing good. Please feel free to put that in your own words.

Well, one can hardly blame an idea, any more than one can blame any inanimate object. "Blaming religion" are your words, not mine. Now, I do recognise that religion has been the motivation behind nearly every atrocity committed by man. As to the second part of your question, I have yet to have any positive effects for humanity demonstrated to me. Now, have I seen individuals who credit religion for their behaviours? Sure. But, on a global, or cultural level, like the Inquisition, or the Witch burnings (most of whom, incidentally, weren't witches in any sense of the word)? No. I have not had any influences at that level shown to me. If you would like to be the first, I am still waiting for someone to do so. Bear in mind, I mean ;positive effects of Christianity, because of Christianity, not advances made by scientists who just happened to be Christian. For instance, yes, Copernicus was a Christian, and he determined that our solar system was heliocentric. he was also thrown into prison by The Church for espousing such heresy. So, as you see, even though a Christian happened to discover that amazing reality, Christianity was certainly not responsible for the discovery; Christianity, in fact, punished it.

So, yes, I am completely open to any positive cultural influences that you wish to impress me with. Somehow i doubt you will...

Wow... that was a total back pedal on your part. Are you turning pussy on me?

You asked a question, I answered it, and asked one in return - for the third time. And you have, again, chosen not to answer. Who's the pussy here?

 

[Czernobog]

It's working out pretty well. Atheism is the fastest growing theological position in the US, while Christianity is actually losing ground. No laws necessary. Just exposing religion for what it is.

Let's move on to your objectivity or lack of.

Do I understand you correctly that you blame religion for doing evil and give zero credit to religion for doing good. Please feel free to put that in your own words.

Tired of getting your ass kicked on your irrational accusation that I want to pass legislation to abolish religion, are you?

No. We both know you would do it in a heartbeat if you could. You aren't fooling anyone.

LOL! Fuck you. Yes, that is my go to response to anyone who arbitrarily calls me a liar. So, fuck you.

No thanks, I'm not gay. Do you believe your strategy to abolish or control religion is consistent with that of militant atheists?

Nope. Because there's no such thing as "Militant Atheists". There are just atheists.

 

[ding]

P.S. I am still taking you to school. The school of logic.
I see. Did you have to check back at the home office for that? Never mind. How has that strategy been working for you? Let's say that all efforts fail to fix religion. Let's say it doesn't get any better than it is right now. What then? Would you abolish religion then?

It's working out pretty well. Atheism is the fastest growing theological position in the US, while Christianity is actually losing ground. No laws necessary. Just exposing religion for what it is.

Let's move on to your objectivity or lack of.

Do I understand you correctly that you blame religion for doing evil and give zero credit to religion for doing good. Please feel free to put that in your own words.

Well, one can hardly blame an idea, any more than one can blame any inanimate object. "Blaming religion" are your words, not mine. Now, I do recognise that religion has been the motivation behind nearly every atrocity committed by man. As to the second part of your question, I have yet to have any positive effects for humanity demonstrated to me. Now, have I seen individuals who credit religion for their behaviours? Sure. But, on a global, or cultural level, like the Inquisition, or the Witch burnings (most of whom, incidentally, weren't witches in any sense of the word)? No. I have not had any influences at that level shown to me. If you would like to be the first, I am still waiting for someone to do so. Bear in mind, I mean ;positive effects of Christianity, because of Christianity, not advances made by scientists who just happened to be Christian. For instance, yes, Copernicus was a Christian, and he determined that our solar system was heliocentric. he was also thrown into prison by The Church for espousing such heresy. So, as you see, even though a Christian happened to discover that amazing reality, Christianity was certainly not responsible for the discovery; Christianity, in fact, punished it.

So, yes, I am completely open to any positive cultural influences that you wish to impress me with. Somehow i doubt you will...

Wow... that was a total back pedal on your part. Are you turning pussy on me?

You asked a question, I answered it, and asked one in return - for the third time. And you have, again, chosen not to answer. Who's the pussy here?

I have answered that question. Western Civilization was built on Christian values. All of the good done by its adherents is due to the morals and virtues taught through Christianity. Just as its adherents have done evil they have also done good. By any objective measure the good done by this society has far outweighed the bad.

The fact that you only see the bad that we have done and not the good is why you are not objective. Me proving it to you will not make you objective. You have to see things for yourself in an objective manner to be objective. Besides what you are really seeking is a conflict an argument. That's what you do.

You have already written the words in our discussions which define you as a militant atheist. I am asking you if you believe that you are a militant atheist or not? Well? Are you?

 

[ding]

Let's move on to your objectivity or lack of.

Do I understand you correctly that you blame religion for doing evil and give zero credit to religion for doing good. Please feel free to put that in your own words.

Tired of getting your ass kicked on your irrational accusation that I want to pass legislation to abolish religion, are you?

No. We both know you would do it in a heartbeat if you could. You aren't fooling anyone.

LOL! Fuck you. Yes, that is my go to response to anyone who arbitrarily calls me a liar. So, fuck you.

No thanks, I'm not gay. Do you believe your strategy to abolish or control religion is consistent with that of militant atheists?

Nope. Because there's no such thing as "Militant Atheists". There are just atheists.

Are you stating that you don't know what a militant atheist is? Are you telling me that you have never heard of atheists who define themselves that way? So if I show you their definition of what a militant atheist is and you meet that definition, will you admit that you are a militant atheist then?

 

[Czernobog]

It's working out pretty well. Atheism is the fastest growing theological position in the US, while Christianity is actually losing ground. No laws necessary. Just exposing religion for what it is.

Let's move on to your objectivity or lack of.

Do I understand you correctly that you blame religion for doing evil and give zero credit to religion for doing good. Please feel free to put that in your own words.

Well, one can hardly blame an idea, any more than one can blame any inanimate object. "Blaming religion" are your words, not mine. Now, I do recognise that religion has been the motivation behind nearly every atrocity committed by man. As to the second part of your question, I have yet to have any positive effects for humanity demonstrated to me. Now, have I seen individuals who credit religion for their behaviours? Sure. But, on a global, or cultural level, like the Inquisition, or the Witch burnings (most of whom, incidentally, weren't witches in any sense of the word)? No. I have not had any influences at that level shown to me. If you would like to be the first, I am still waiting for someone to do so. Bear in mind, I mean ;positive effects of Christianity, because of Christianity, not advances made by scientists who just happened to be Christian. For instance, yes, Copernicus was a Christian, and he determined that our solar system was heliocentric. he was also thrown into prison by The Church for espousing such heresy. So, as you see, even though a Christian happened to discover that amazing reality, Christianity was certainly not responsible for the discovery; Christianity, in fact, punished it.

So, yes, I am completely open to any positive cultural influences that you wish to impress me with. Somehow i doubt you will...

Wow... that was a total back pedal on your part. Are you turning pussy on me?

You asked a question, I answered it, and asked one in return - for the third time. And you have, again, chosen not to answer. Who's the pussy here?

I have answered that question. Western Civilization was built on Christian values. All of the good done by its adherents is due to the morals and virtues taught through Christianity. Just as its adherents have done evil they have also done good. By any objective measure the good done by this society has far outweighed the bad.

The fact that you only see the bad that we have done and not the good is why you are not objective. Me proving it to you will not make you objective. You have to see things for yourself in an objective manner to be objective. Besides what you are really seeking is a conflict an argument. That's what you do.

You have already written the words in our discussions which define you as a militant atheist. I am asking you if you believe that you are a militant atheist or not? Well? Are you?

That's an awfully vague response. What good, and which morals, and virtues are you referring to, specifically? I mean, I was able to indicate specific examples of harm being done. You can't list one benefit, and how it was brought about by Christianity? Really?

 

[Czernobog]

Tired of getting your ass kicked on your irrational accusation that I want to pass legislation to abolish religion, are you?

No. We both know you would do it in a heartbeat if you could. You aren't fooling anyone.

LOL! Fuck you. Yes, that is my go to response to anyone who arbitrarily calls me a liar. So, fuck you.

No thanks, I'm not gay. Do you believe your strategy to abolish or control religion is consistent with that of militant atheists?

Nope. Because there's no such thing as "Militant Atheists". There are just atheists.

Are you stating that you don't know what a militant atheist is? Are you telling me that you have never heard of atheists who define themselves that way? So if I show you their definition of what a militant atheist is and you meet that definition, will you admit that you are a militant atheist then?

So long as that definition comes from an actual known atheist. Sure. That means you need to cite the source for your "definition", just so we're clear.

 

[ding]

No. We both know you would do it in a heartbeat if you could. You aren't fooling anyone.

LOL! Fuck you. Yes, that is my go to response to anyone who arbitrarily calls me a liar. So, fuck you.

No thanks, I'm not gay. Do you believe your strategy to abolish or control religion is consistent with that of militant atheists?

Nope. Because there's no such thing as "Militant Atheists". There are just atheists.

Are you stating that you don't know what a militant atheist is? Are you telling me that you have never heard of atheists who define themselves that way? So if I show you their definition of what a militant atheist is and you meet that definition, will you admit that you are a militant atheist then?

So long as that definition comes from an actual known atheist. Sure. That means you need to cite the source for your "definition", just so we're clear.

Do you hold religion to be harmful?

 

[ding]

Let's move on to your objectivity or lack of.

Do I understand you correctly that you blame religion for doing evil and give zero credit to religion for doing good. Please feel free to put that in your own words.

Well, one can hardly blame an idea, any more than one can blame any inanimate object. "Blaming religion" are your words, not mine. Now, I do recognise that religion has been the motivation behind nearly every atrocity committed by man. As to the second part of your question, I have yet to have any positive effects for humanity demonstrated to me. Now, have I seen individuals who credit religion for their behaviours? Sure. But, on a global, or cultural level, like the Inquisition, or the Witch burnings (most of whom, incidentally, weren't witches in any sense of the word)? No. I have not had any influences at that level shown to me. If you would like to be the first, I am still waiting for someone to do so. Bear in mind, I mean ;positive effects of Christianity, because of Christianity, not advances made by scientists who just happened to be Christian. For instance, yes, Copernicus was a Christian, and he determined that our solar system was heliocentric. he was also thrown into prison by The Church for espousing such heresy. So, as you see, even though a Christian happened to discover that amazing reality, Christianity was certainly not responsible for the discovery; Christianity, in fact, punished it.

So, yes, I am completely open to any positive cultural influences that you wish to impress me with. Somehow i doubt you will...

Wow... that was a total back pedal on your part. Are you turning pussy on me?

You asked a question, I answered it, and asked one in return - for the third time. And you have, again, chosen not to answer. Who's the pussy here?

I have answered that question. Western Civilization was built on Christian values. All of the good done by its adherents is due to the morals and virtues taught through Christianity. Just as its adherents have done evil they have also done good. By any objective measure the good done by this society has far outweighed the bad.

The fact that you only see the bad that we have done and not the good is why you are not objective. Me proving it to you will not make you objective. You have to see things for yourself in an objective manner to be objective. Besides what you are really seeking is a conflict an argument. That's what you do.

You have already written the words in our discussions which define you as a militant atheist. I am asking you if you believe that you are a militant atheist or not? Well? Are you?

That's an awfully vague response. What good, and which morals, and virtues are you referring to, specifically? I mean, I was able to indicate specific examples of harm being done. You can't list one benefit, and how it was brought about by Christianity? Really?

The entirety of Western Civilization. The good and the bad. Has the good outweighed the bad?

It seems that you are wanting me to make you be objective. I'm not arguing for or against religion here. I am arguing that you are not objective in your analysis. So far, you have proven that by not being able to identify anything that is good that has come from religion.

 

[Czernobog]

Well, one can hardly blame an idea, any more than one can blame any inanimate object. "Blaming religion" are your words, not mine. Now, I do recognise that religion has been the motivation behind nearly every atrocity committed by man. As to the second part of your question, I have yet to have any positive effects for humanity demonstrated to me. Now, have I seen individuals who credit religion for their behaviours? Sure. But, on a global, or cultural level, like the Inquisition, or the Witch burnings (most of whom, incidentally, weren't witches in any sense of the word)? No. I have not had any influences at that level shown to me. If you would like to be the first, I am still waiting for someone to do so. Bear in mind, I mean ;positive effects of Christianity, because of Christianity, not advances made by scientists who just happened to be Christian. For instance, yes, Copernicus was a Christian, and he determined that our solar system was heliocentric. he was also thrown into prison by The Church for espousing such heresy. So, as you see, even though a Christian happened to discover that amazing reality, Christianity was certainly not responsible for the discovery; Christianity, in fact, punished it.

So, yes, I am completely open to any positive cultural influences that you wish to impress me with. Somehow i doubt you will...

Wow... that was a total back pedal on your part. Are you turning pussy on me?

You asked a question, I answered it, and asked one in return - for the third time. And you have, again, chosen not to answer. Who's the pussy here?

I have answered that question. Western Civilization was built on Christian values. All of the good done by its adherents is due to the morals and virtues taught through Christianity. Just as its adherents have done evil they have also done good. By any objective measure the good done by this society has far outweighed the bad.

The fact that you only see the bad that we have done and not the good is why you are not objective. Me proving it to you will not make you objective. You have to see things for yourself in an objective manner to be objective. Besides what you are really seeking is a conflict an argument. That's what you do.

You have already written the words in our discussions which define you as a militant atheist. I am asking you if you believe that you are a militant atheist or not? Well? Are you?

That's an awfully vague response. What good, and which morals, and virtues are you referring to, specifically?

Do you hold religion to be harmful?

No. I hold religious adherents to be harmful. However, i do recognise religion as an unhealthy influence. Just as I recognise Communism to be an unhealthy ideology, however, I hold Stalin solely responsible for the political enemies that he killed, or imprisoned. People do what people do. However belief systems, whether theological, or ideological, influence the way people think, and behave. It's the recognition that every action has a motive, and an influence.

 

[Czernobog]

Well, one can hardly blame an idea, any more than one can blame any inanimate object. "Blaming religion" are your words, not mine. Now, I do recognise that religion has been the motivation behind nearly every atrocity committed by man. As to the second part of your question, I have yet to have any positive effects for humanity demonstrated to me. Now, have I seen individuals who credit religion for their behaviours? Sure. But, on a global, or cultural level, like the Inquisition, or the Witch burnings (most of whom, incidentally, weren't witches in any sense of the word)? No. I have not had any influences at that level shown to me. If you would like to be the first, I am still waiting for someone to do so. Bear in mind, I mean ;positive effects of Christianity, because of Christianity, not advances made by scientists who just happened to be Christian. For instance, yes, Copernicus was a Christian, and he determined that our solar system was heliocentric. he was also thrown into prison by The Church for espousing such heresy. So, as you see, even though a Christian happened to discover that amazing reality, Christianity was certainly not responsible for the discovery; Christianity, in fact, punished it.

So, yes, I am completely open to any positive cultural influences that you wish to impress me with. Somehow i doubt you will...

Wow... that was a total back pedal on your part. Are you turning pussy on me?

You asked a question, I answered it, and asked one in return - for the third time. And you have, again, chosen not to answer. Who's the pussy here?

I have answered that question. Western Civilization was built on Christian values. All of the good done by its adherents is due to the morals and virtues taught through Christianity. Just as its adherents have done evil they have also done good. By any objective measure the good done by this society has far outweighed the bad.

The fact that you only see the bad that we have done and not the good is why you are not objective. Me proving it to you will not make you objective. You have to see things for yourself in an objective manner to be objective. Besides what you are really seeking is a conflict an argument. That's what you do.

You have already written the words in our discussions which define you as a militant atheist. I am asking you if you believe that you are a militant atheist or not? Well? Are you?

That's an awfully vague response. What good, and which morals, and virtues are you referring to, specifically? I mean, I was able to indicate specific examples of harm being done. You can't list one benefit, and how it was brought about by Christianity? Really?

The entirety of Western Civilization. The good and the bad. Has the good outweighed the bad?

so, Christianity is responsible for the entirety of Western Civilisation? That is your claim? The discovery of the heliocentric universe? Christianity made that possible? How?

You see, it's not that i am not willing to give Christianity "the credit" for the "good it has done"; it's that you want to credit Christianity for things that Christianity either had nothing to do with, or, worse, actively tried to suppress.

 

[ding]

Wow... that was a total back pedal on your part. Are you turning pussy on me?

You asked a question, I answered it, and asked one in return - for the third time. And you have, again, chosen not to answer. Who's the pussy here?

I have answered that question. Western Civilization was built on Christian values. All of the good done by its adherents is due to the morals and virtues taught through Christianity. Just as its adherents have done evil they have also done good. By any objective measure the good done by this society has far outweighed the bad.

The fact that you only see the bad that we have done and not the good is why you are not objective. Me proving it to you will not make you objective. You have to see things for yourself in an objective manner to be objective. Besides what you are really seeking is a conflict an argument. That's what you do.

You have already written the words in our discussions which define you as a militant atheist. I am asking you if you believe that you are a militant atheist or not? Well? Are you?

That's an awfully vague response. What good, and which morals, and virtues are you referring to, specifically?

Do you hold religion to be harmful?

No. I hold religious adherents to be harmful. However, i do recognise religion as an unhealthy influence. Just as I recognise Communism to be an unhealthy ideology, however, I hold Stalin solely responsible for the political enemies that he killed, or imprisoned. People do what people do. However belief systems, whether theological, or ideological, influence the way people think, and behave. It's the recognition that every action has a motive, and an influence.

So then you don't see anything good that has come from religion or its adherents of religion, but you do see lots of bad that has come from religion and its adherents of religion. Religion is not an entity that can do good or evil. That is done by those who practice and follow that religion.

 

[ding]

Wow... that was a total back pedal on your part. Are you turning pussy on me?

You asked a question, I answered it, and asked one in return - for the third time. And you have, again, chosen not to answer. Who's the pussy here?

I have answered that question. Western Civilization was built on Christian values. All of the good done by its adherents is due to the morals and virtues taught through Christianity. Just as its adherents have done evil they have also done good. By any objective measure the good done by this society has far outweighed the bad.

The fact that you only see the bad that we have done and not the good is why you are not objective. Me proving it to you will not make you objective. You have to see things for yourself in an objective manner to be objective. Besides what you are really seeking is a conflict an argument. That's what you do.

You have already written the words in our discussions which define you as a militant atheist. I am asking you if you believe that you are a militant atheist or not? Well? Are you?

That's an awfully vague response. What good, and which morals, and virtues are you referring to, specifically? I mean, I was able to indicate specific examples of harm being done. You can't list one benefit, and how it was brought about by Christianity? Really?

The entirety of Western Civilization. The good and the bad. Has the good outweighed the bad?

so, Christianity is re3sponsible for the entirety of Western Civilisation? That is your claim? The discovery of the heliocentric universe? Christianity made that possible? How?

Look, you have no problem identifying people who practice a religion as doing evil, why doesn't that apply to those that do good. Like I said before, religion is not on trial here. You objectivity is. You don't seem to be very objective about this.

 

[ding]

Wow... that was a total back pedal on your part. Are you turning pussy on me?

You asked a question, I answered it, and asked one in return - for the third time. And you have, again, chosen not to answer. Who's the pussy here?

I have answered that question. Western Civilization was built on Christian values. All of the good done by its adherents is due to the morals and virtues taught through Christianity. Just as its adherents have done evil they have also done good. By any objective measure the good done by this society has far outweighed the bad.

The fact that you only see the bad that we have done and not the good is why you are not objective. Me proving it to you will not make you objective. You have to see things for yourself in an objective manner to be objective. Besides what you are really seeking is a conflict an argument. That's what you do.

You have already written the words in our discussions which define you as a militant atheist. I am asking you if you believe that you are a militant atheist or not? Well? Are you?

That's an awfully vague response. What good, and which morals, and virtues are you referring to, specifically? I mean, I was able to indicate specific examples of harm being done. You can't list one benefit, and how it was brought about by Christianity? Really?

The entirety of Western Civilization. The good and the bad. Has the good outweighed the bad?

so, Christianity is responsible for the entirety of Western Civilisation? That is your claim? The discovery of the heliocentric universe? Christianity made that possible? How?

You see, it's not that i am not willing to give Christianity "the credit" for the "good it has done"; it's that you want to credit Christianity for things that Christianity either had nothing to do with, or, worse, actively tried to suppress.

"The role of Christianity in civilization has been intricately intertwined with the history and formation of Western society. Throughout its long history, the Christian Church has been a major source of social services like schooling and medical care; inspiration for art, culture and philosophy; and influential player in politics and religion. In various ways it has sought to affect Western attitudes to vice and virtue in diverse fields. It has, over many centuries, promulgated the teachings of Jesus within the Western world as well as throughout other third-world nations. Festivals like Easter and Christmas are marked as public holidays; the Gregorian Calendar has been adopted internationally as the civil calendar; and the calendar itself is measured from the date of Jesus's birth.

The cultural influence of the Church has been vast. Church scholars preserved literacy in Western Europe following the Fall of the Western Roman Empire.[1] During the Middle Ages, the Church rose to replace the Roman Empire as the unifying force in Europe. The cathedrals of that age remain among the most iconic feats of architecture produced by Western civilization. Many of Europe's universities were also founded by the church at that time. Many historians state that universities and cathedral schools were a continuation of the interest in learning promoted by monasteries.[2] The university is generally regarded as an institution that has its origin in the Medieval Christian setting.[3][4] The Reformation brought an end to religious unity in the West, but the Renaissance masterpieces produced by Catholic artists like Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and Raphael at that time remain among the most celebrated works of art ever produced. Similarly, Christian sacred music by composers like Pachelbel, Vivaldi, Bach, Handel, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert and Verdi is among the most admired classical music in the Western canon.

The Bible and Christian theology have also strongly influenced Western philosophers and political activists. The teachings of Jesus, such as the Parable of the Good Samaritan, are among the important sources for modern notions of Human Rights and the welfare measures commonly provided by governments in the West. Long held Christian teachings on sexuality and marriage and family life have also been both influential and (in recent times) controversial. Christianity played a role in ending practices such as human sacrifice, slavery,[5] infanticide and polygamy.[6] Christianity in general affected the status of women by condemning infanticide (female infants were more likely to be killed), divorce, incest, polygamy, birth control, abortion and marital infidelity.[7] While official Church teaching[8] considers women and men to be complementary (equal and different), some modern "advocates of ordination of women and other feminists" argue that teachings attributed to St. Paul and those of the Fathers of the Church and Scholastic theologians advanced the notion of a divinely ordained female inferiority.[9] Nevertheless, women have played prominent roles in Western history through as part of the church, particularly in education and healthcare, but also as influential theologians and mystics.

Some of the things that Christianity is commonly criticized for include the oppression of women, condemnation of homosexuality, colonialism, and various other violence. Christian ideas have been used both to support and to end slavery as an institution. The criticism of Christianity has come from the various religious and non-religious groups around the world, some of whom were themselves Christians."

Role of Christianity in civilization - Wikipedia

 

[Czernobog]

You asked a question, I answered it, and asked one in return - for the third time. And you have, again, chosen not to answer. Who's the pussy here?

I have answered that question. Western Civilization was built on Christian values. All of the good done by its adherents is due to the morals and virtues taught through Christianity. Just as its adherents have done evil they have also done good. By any objective measure the good done by this society has far outweighed the bad.

The fact that you only see the bad that we have done and not the good is why you are not objective. Me proving it to you will not make you objective. You have to see things for yourself in an objective manner to be objective. Besides what you are really seeking is a conflict an argument. That's what you do.

You have already written the words in our discussions which define you as a militant atheist. I am asking you if you believe that you are a militant atheist or not? Well? Are you?

That's an awfully vague response. What good, and which morals, and virtues are you referring to, specifically?

Do you hold religion to be harmful?

No. I hold religious adherents to be harmful. However, i do recognise religion as an unhealthy influence. Just as I recognise Communism to be an unhealthy ideology, however, I hold Stalin solely responsible for the political enemies that he killed, or imprisoned. People do what people do. However belief systems, whether theological, or ideological, influence the way people think, and behave. It's the recognition that every action has a motive, and an influence.

So then you don't see anything good that has come from religion or its adherents of religion, but you do see lots of bad that has come from religion and its adherents of religion. Religion is not an entity that can do good or evil. That is done by those who practice and follow that religion.

You are, again, misrepresenting my position. I never claimed that religion was an entity, capable of motivation. It is a belief system, which can, and does, influence the mindset of its adherents. That mindset, in turn, determines how those adherents will act.

Are you seriously telling me that your religion has no influence on your actions, or choices? Really???

 

[ding]

I have answered that question. Western Civilization was built on Christian values. All of the good done by its adherents is due to the morals and virtues taught through Christianity. Just as its adherents have done evil they have also done good. By any objective measure the good done by this society has far outweighed the bad.

The fact that you only see the bad that we have done and not the good is why you are not objective. Me proving it to you will not make you objective. You have to see things for yourself in an objective manner to be objective. Besides what you are really seeking is a conflict an argument. That's what you do.

You have already written the words in our discussions which define you as a militant atheist. I am asking you if you believe that you are a militant atheist or not? Well? Are you?

That's an awfully vague response. What good, and which morals, and virtues are you referring to, specifically?

Do you hold religion to be harmful?

No. I hold religious adherents to be harmful. However, i do recognise religion as an unhealthy influence. Just as I recognise Communism to be an unhealthy ideology, however, I hold Stalin solely responsible for the political enemies that he killed, or imprisoned. People do what people do. However belief systems, whether theological, or ideological, influence the way people think, and behave. It's the recognition that every action has a motive, and an influence.

So then you don't see anything good that has come from religion or its adherents of religion, but you do see lots of bad that has come from religion and its adherents of religion. Religion is not an entity that can do good or evil. That is done by those who practice and follow that religion.

You are, again, misrepresenting my position. I never claimed that religion was an entity, capable of motivation. It is a belief system, which can, and does, influence the mindset of its adherents. That mindset, in turn, determines how those adherents will act.

Are you seriously telling me that your religion has no influence on your actions, or choices? Really???

Of course my faith influences me. Are you seriously saying that you don't find religion to be harmful? A simple yes or no will do.