Non-Christians. Why do you care so much about Christians and Christianity?

[Lyndon]

Countless atheists in Russia and China supported genocide, two can play at this game.

 

[Kenny]

Countless Christians over the centuries have not only supported slavery, but have cited the Bible in support of it. Do you deny this?

That has already been addressed. But more than countless have been against slavery.

Do you deny that millions more than those enslaves by misguided Christians have been murdered by atheist Stalin, Lenin and Mao?

You've got a streak of being wrong going; why stop now?

Cherry Picking

(also known as: ignoring inconvenient data, suppressed evidence, fallacy of incomplete evidence, argument by selective observation, argument by half-truth, card stacking, fallacy of exclusion, ignoring the counter evidence, one-sided assessment, slanting, one-sidedness)

Description: When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument.

So, when you deal with the Law of Moses (Jewish Law), which does not embody Christianity per se, at the exclusion of the the stronger evidence of the faith of Abraham and the Law of Liberty that is in Christ Jesus (Christianity) - it's cherry picking.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Same old lame arguments; "as a Christian you are responsible for everything ever done by Christians throughout history", "As a Muslim you are responsible for every for every terrorist attack done by purported Muslims", but as an atheist "you are not responsible for anything any other atheist did, as atheists are all different, unlike Christians or Muslims which are all the same."

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam give rules that when broken demand the offending party be killed. They all say if someone worships another god to kill them. It's not saying all Christians or all Muslims are responsible, it's the position that those who do commit such atrocities have no shortage of religious passages to justify their wickedness.
Atheists have no dogma, no books, nothing more than a lack of belief in any sort of god/deity concept. And, no, there has never been any mass murdering to further an atheist agenda. When Christians and Muslims kill, it's pretty much always to further a religious agenda. When an atheist kills, they have no atheist agenda motivating them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Countless atheists in Russia and China supported genocide, two can play at this game.

The Aztecs slaughtered thousands in the name of religion. The Christian Crusades and Inquisition were conducted in the name of religion. Jihad is done in the name of religion. Those Russians and Chinese were not killing in the name of atheism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Countless atheists in Russia and China supported genocide, two can play at this game.

Psst: you're playing a different game.

Game #1: consider things that someone agrees with and show how they've caused negative things (e.g. linking "the Bible is true and good" to Bible-inspired violence).

Game #2: trying to invoke guilt by association just because the same broad label happens to apply to two people with very different views.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That has already been addressed. But more than countless have been against slavery.

I'd love to see your math behind that claim.

Do you deny that millions more than those enslaves by misguided Christians have been murdered by atheist Stalin, Lenin and Mao?

I deny that any murders by Stalin, Lenin, or Mao (who doesn't seem to have been an atheist, BTW) have anything to do with what I believe.

Cherry Picking

(also known as: ignoring inconvenient data, suppressed evidence, fallacy of incomplete evidence, argument by selective observation, argument by half-truth, card stacking, fallacy of exclusion, ignoring the counter evidence, one-sided assessment, slanting, one-sidedness)

Description: When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument.

So, when you deal with the Law of Moses (Jewish Law), which does not embody Christianity per se, at the exclusion of the the stronger evidence of the faith of Abraham and the Law of Liberty that is in Christ Jesus (Christianity) - it's cherry picking.

When whole Christian demoniations were founded on support for slavery, it's very hard to take you seriously when you try to claim that Christianity doesn't support slavery at all.

If you want to argue with slavery-supporting Christians about why they ought not to support slavery, be my guest. It doesn't change the fact that for nearly 2,000 years, it was VERY common for Christians to support slavery and to point to the Bible for their reasons why.

... and you support that same Bible they cited in their support for slavery.

 

[Kenny]

I'd love to see your math behind that claim.

Since I don't like double standards, I haven't seen your math.

I deny that any murders by Stalin, Lenin, or Mao (who doesn't seem to have been an atheist, BTW) have anything to do with what I believe.

So you agree that atheists killed more people than Christians held slaves, BTW, which has nothing to do with what I believe).

When whole Christian demoniations were founded on support for slavery, it's very hard to take you seriously when you try to claim that Christianity doesn't support slavery at all.

When the north fought to free slaves from the south, it is very hard to take you seriously when you say more Christians created slavery and endorsed slavery. Especially since the north had two to three times the size of the army than the south.

I quote: "The figures show more completely than any text the disparity between the armies. The Federals at the start of 1862 had a two-to-one advantage which steadily mounted until the end of 1864 when the Union advantage in numbers present was over three to one."

Size Of The Union And Confederate Armies

If you want to argue with slavery-supporting Christians about why they ought not to support slavery, be my guest.

Please give me a current name, address (or email) and/or telephone number to argue with that slavery-supporting Christian.

It doesn't change the fact that for nearly 2,000 years, it was VERY common for Christians to support slavery and to point to the Bible for their reasons why.

... and you support that same Bible they cited in their support for slavery.

I already said that they did but that there were more that quoted the Bible saying you shouldn't have slavery. Lenin used the Communist Manifesto. To not hold a double standard, for decades it was VERY common for atheists to support the murder of millions and point to their bible The Manifesto as to why.



If you want to continue to go round and round and round ad nauseam, feel free to do so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Since I don't like double standards, I haven't seen your math.

I didn't make any claim about relative sizes of the pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions of Christianity or which one was larger. I only pointed out that the pro-slavery faction of Christianity was significant for most of the history of Christianity, and that it cited Christian beliefs and scriptures in support of its pro-slavery position.

So you agree that atheists killed more people than Christians held slaves,

Nope. To save us all time, please don't invent positions that you think I hold.

BTW, which has nothing to do with what I believe).

That remains to be seen, IMO.

When the north fought to free slaves from the south, it is very hard to take you seriously when you say more Christians created slavery and endorsed slavery.

I never argued that no Christians opposed slavery. There have been Christians on both sides of the issue: some Christians inflicted horrible harm and suffering on whole populations of people in the name of their faith, while other Christians tried to undo the harm of their "brothers and sisters in faith"... also in the name of their faith. The net result has been that the relief from the Christians fighting against that harm fell far, far short of what would have been needed to completely relieve that harm.

Please give me a current name, address (or email) and/or telephone number to argue with that slavery-supporting Christian.

Why?

I already said that they did but that there were more that quoted the Bible saying you shouldn't have slavery.

I never claimed that the Bible has a consistent message. The fact that some passages can be cited when condemning slavery doesn't mean that the passages supporting slavery don't exist.

If you really wanted your religion to be unambiguously anti-slavery, you'd reject the pro-slavery parts of the Bible. Do you?

Lenin used the Communist Manifesto. To not hold a double standard, for decades it was VERY common for atheists to support to murder of millions and point to their bible The Manifesto as to why.

But here's the thing: I've never accept the Communist Manifesto. I don't consider it an authority, or reliable, or to be a standard for goodness. Can you say the same for the Bible?

 

[Kenny]

I didn't make any claim about relative sizes of the pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions of Christianity or which one was larger. I only pointed out that the pro-slavery faction of Christianity was significant for most of the history of Christianity, and that it cited Christian beliefs and scriptures in support of its pro-slavery position.

I simply made the claim that there are more against it than for it. And I basically showed that what people did with scriptures is as much a factor as is the Communist Manifest to atheism.

I never argued that no Christians opposed slavery. There have been Christians on both sides of the issue: some Christians inflicted horrible harm and suffering on whole populations of people in the name of their faith, while other Christians tried to undo the harm of their "brothers and sisters in faith"... also in the name of their faith. The net result has been that the relief from the Christians fighting against that harm fell far, far short of what would have been needed to completely relieve that harm.

I never argued that there hasn't been Christians that supported slavery. But your measurement of "falling short of what would have been needed" is purely a biased opinion with no support for facts and figures.

Why?

Because you said I should argue with them if I wanted to. Since I don't know Christian who supports slavery, your statement insinuated that you did.

I never claimed that the Bible has a consistent message. The fact that some passages can be cited when condemning slavery doesn't mean that the passages supporting slavery don't exist.

Yes, I understand that you didn't acknowledge the difference between the Law for Jews and the Law of Liberty by the faith of Abraham.

If you really wanted your religion to be unambiguously anti-slavery, you'd reject the pro-slavery parts of the Bible. Do you?

It is unambiguously anti-slavery. Where do you think the abolitionists got their position from? Now, if you want to massage the scriptures at the expense of those that don't hold your position and forget how to read a FULL document within context, culture, history and understanding... that's your problem and not mine.

But here's the thing: I've never accept the Communist Manifesto. I don't consider it an authority, or reliable, or to be a standard for goodness. Can you say the same for the Bible?

As you said (to not have a double standard) "I don't care about your internal doctrinal differences"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I simply made the claim that there are more against it than for it.

... but not so against it that it didn't perpetuate for centuries.

And I basically showed that what people did with scriptures is as much a factor as is the Communist Manifest to atheism.

You didn't do that, actually.

I never argued that there hasn't been Christians that supported slavery. But your measurement of "falling short of what would have been needed" is purely a biased opinion with no support for facts and figures.

I didn't think that it would be controversial to point out that the world is still suffering the after-effects of the Atlantic slave trade, especially to someone who claims to know a person who runs an orphanage in Haiti.

Because you said I should argue with them if I wanted to. Since I don't know Christian who supports slavery, your statement insinuated that you did.

I was speaking rhetorically, but a search of this forum will give you several threads where Christians defend slavery.

Yes, I understand that you didn't acknowledge the difference between the Law for Jews and the Law of Liberty by the faith of Abraham.

I'm pointing out that whatever position you hold on this issue, it isn't universally held by all Christians, as evidenced by the history of Christian slavery.

It is unambiguously anti-slavery. Where do you think the abolitionists got their position from?

Not from Leviticus 25:44-46, that's for sure.

Now, if you want to massage the scriptures at the expense of those that don't hold your position and forget how to read a FULL document within context, culture, history and understanding... that's your problem and not mine.

So you think that the Bible has a consistent message? Strange to assume that a collection of writings by dozens of authors over centuries would be perfectly consistent, but I'm open to hearing why you think so.

As you said (to not have a double standard) "I don't care about your internal doctrinal differences"

You support the Bible: an often-vague, often-contradictory book that supports a range of positions. Multiple interpretations are inevitable with a book like that, so supporting it means supporting the basis of all those multiple interpretations, even the ones that go against the interpretation you would pick.

You could avoid this problem by editing the Bible so that it clearly says what you think it ought to say. You haven't done this; you still support the form of the book that includes all of its praise for slavery, xenophobia, misogyny, and all sorts of other horrible things. It's ridiculous to tell people to read and follow this book, but then criticize them for not interpreting it the specific way you have.

This situation isn't analogous to the Communist Manifesto and atheism, since most atheists don't purport to follow or support the Communist Manifesto. It has as much relevance to my atheism as the Eddas or the Bhagavad Gita have to your theism.

You support the Bible; therefore, the horrible behaviour of people who follow the Bible reflect on your beliefs.

I don't support the Communist Manifesto; therefore, the evils of communist regimes don't reflect on my beliefs.

Do you understand yet?

 

[Kenny]

I'm just a proponent of not having two different measuring sticks.

... but not so against it that it didn't perpetuate for centuries.

Actually for millenniums. Before Christianity and even today

You didn't do that, actually.

Don't want to get into no you didn't, yes I did, no you didn't.

/QUOTE]
I didn't think that it would be controversial to point out that the world is still suffering the after-effects of the Atlantic slave trade, especially to someone who claims to know a person who runs an orphanage in Haiti.
[/QUOTE]
Except your haven't connect the dots that it is from the Atlantic slave. It is from voodoo (the main religion) and the hurricanes, earthquakes and the overall robbing of the poor by the political rich (having lived in Venezuela, it permeates throughout the culture too)

I was speaking rhetorically, but a search of this forum will give you several threads where Christians defend slavery.

I haven't seen it.

I'm pointing out that whatever position you hold on this issue, it isn't universally held by all Christians, as evidenced by the history of Christian slavery.

Equal measuring sticks = it isn't universally held by all atheists as evidenced by the GREATEST murder of millions in atheistic history.

Not from Leviticus 25:44-46, that's for sure.

I'm a child of Abraham and not under the Law. (You also may talk to a Rabbi who will tell you that slavery under those days are not the same as slavery in today's understanding... but you will have to talk to them about that)

So you think that the Bible has a consistent message? Strange to assume that a collection of writings by dozens of authors over centuries would be perfectly consistent, but I'm open to hearing why you think so.

God's will and desire is found "in the beginning" -- reiterated by Jesus and confirmed at the end. Everything in between is God's attempt to prevent man from destroying itself. Not sure how open "I'm open" really means.

You support the Bible: an often-vague, often-contradictory book that supports a range of positions. Multiple interpretations are inevitable with a book like that, so supporting it means supporting the basis of all those multiple interpretations, even the ones that go against the interpretation you would pick.

It used to be vague to me... I don't find it vague anymore.

You could avoid this problem by editing the Bible so that it clearly says what you think it ought to say. You haven't done this; you still support the form of the book that includes all of its praise for slavery, xenophobia, misogyny, and all sorts of other horrible things. It's ridiculous to tell people to read and follow this book, but then criticize them for not interpreting it the specific way you have.

Yes, you can interpret it that way if you want... but I interpret it in the light of love since God is love. If you interpret in the light of love, out goes slavery, xenophobia, misogyny, and all sorts of other horrible things.

As far as debating how one interprets it, that is what debate is about.

[/QUOTE]
This situation isn't analogous to the Communist Manifesto and atheism, since most atheists don't purport to follow or support the Communist Manifesto. It has as much relevance to my atheism as the Eddas or the Bhagavad Gita have to your theism.
[/QUOTE]
That's fine... Christians don't purport to follow or support your interpretation of the Bible in reference to slaver either.

You support the Bible; therefore, the horrible behaviour of people who follow the Bible reflect on your beliefs.

You support atheism, therefore the horrible behavior of atheists who murdered the GREATEST amounts of people in history reflects on your beliefs.

I don't support the Communist Manifesto; therefore, the evils of communist regimes don't reflect on my beliefs.

I don't support slavery and the evils of slavery don't reflect on my beliefs.

Do you understand yet?

YUP!

 

[TheMusicTheory]

Once again Christians come into a thread and treat Atheism as a religion because they can't think outside the context of a religion. They can't grasp the absence of religious thought.

There is biblical support for slavery.

There is no Atheism "holy book" or set of written rules. It is simply the absence of belief in a deity. Thus it isn't an institution and people can self-identify as Atheist while holding completely separate views on everything else.

You cannot be Christian and then disown any part of the bible you don't happen to like or agree with. You own the whole book.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

So much so that you spend hours here debating and arguing with them post after post after post.

(And yes, I realize that I do it myself and that people might expect my answer, but rather than possibly influencing the answers of others I'm going to wait with mine. )

.

Current List of some Texas House Bills up for debate:

Legislation 2017 | Equality Texas

Wanna play a counting game to determine how many are based on religious pandering? Somewhere around 24 this year . . .

Not proud to be a Texan sometimes.

 

[Shad]

Since I don't like double standards, I haven't seen your math.

That is not a double-standard. It was a request for your math. Now if you requested their math but was denied while they still demanded your math that would be a double-standard.

I already said that they did but that there were more that quoted the Bible saying you shouldn't have slavery. Lenin used the Communist Manifesto. To not hold a double standard, for decades it was VERY common for atheists to support the murder of millions and point to their bible The Manifesto as to why.

Just highlighting the word you seem not to read nor understand even when you type it. Your assertion is laughable as you confuse a political system with atheism. The Red Scare tactics worked wonders on you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm just a proponent of not having two different measuring sticks.

Baloney.

Actually for millenniums. Before Christianity and even today

I was talking about the influence of Christianity: for the ~2000 years of Christian history, we've had a significant number of Christians owning slaves for about 85-90% of that time... i.e. everything but the last 200-300 years.

While there have been Christians on both sides of the issue, the net result through most of history is that Christianity caused more slavery in the world, not less.

Don't want to get into no you didn't, yes I did, no you didn't.

Then don't make false claims.

Except your haven't connect the dots that it is from the Atlantic slave. It is from voodoo (the main religion) and the hurricanes, earthquakes and the overall robbing of the poor by the political rich (having lived in Venezuela, it permeates throughout the culture too)

And you don't think that Venezuela was impacted by slavery, too?

I haven't seen it.

Equal measuring sticks = it isn't universally held by all atheists as evidenced by the GREATEST murder of millions in atheistic history.

Can you rephrase this so it's coherent?

I'm a child of Abraham and not under the Law. (You also may talk to a Rabbi who will tell you that slavery under those days are not the same as slavery in today's understanding... but you will have to talk to them about that)

So you think that Christians are exempt from the rules that would have made them treat their slaves "well"?

God's will and desire is found "in the beginning" -- reiterated by Jesus and confirmed at the end. Everything in between is God's attempt to prevent man from destroying itself. Not sure how open "I'm open" really means.

I mean that if you want to argue that the Bible isn't the hodge-podge of many different authors' ideas that it appears to be, you're welcome to make your case. Just be prepared to back it up.

It used to be vague to me... I don't find it vague anymore.

And other Christians have managed to get rid of that vagueness by interpreting the Bible in ways you disagree with.

Yes, you can interpret it that way if you want... but I interpret it in the light of love since God is love. If you interpret in the light of love, out goes slavery, xenophobia, misogyny, and all sorts of other horrible things.

If you really wanted a Bible that unequivocally supports the idea that God is a god of love, you would have edited out all the material that describes God as a god of jealousy, wrath, and as something to be feared. You didn't. Instead, you kept it all in there and proclaimed the whole thing as the word of God.

As far as debating how one interprets it, that is what debate is about.

No, it isnt. This debate isn't about what the "right" interpretation of the Bible should be; it's about noting that sincere Christians for more than a millenium have read the Bible and come away believing that God condones slavery.

That's fine... Christians don't purport to follow or support your interpretation of the Bible in reference to slaver either.

Except some do. Whole denominations (e.g. the Southern Baptists) were originally founded on religious support for slavery.

You support atheism, therefore the horrible behavior of atheists who murdered the GREATEST amounts of people in history reflects on your beliefs.

Nope. And it takes a fair bit of chauvinism on your part to assume that the differences in beliefs and values between all the different people who don't believe in any gods don't matter.

The fact that I don't accept your god doesn't define my belief system. Your religion isn't that important.

I don't support slavery and the evils of slavery don't reflect on my beliefs

Except you support scriptures that endorse slavery and hold them up as the word of God.

 

[Milton Platt]

good question!!!

And easily answered by me.

I care because of the constant attempts to inject religious ideology into public school classrooms and into government.

Also it would matter less to me if theists kept thier dogma between themselves. If there were no voiciferous theists, then there would be no vocal opposition.

 

[Nigel Hoath]

And easily answered by me.
I care because of the constant attempts to inject religious ideology into public school classrooms and into government.

Yup I can agree with that although to be fair I only react to Christians, or any other believer group, when they either offend me, try to promote their views at my front gate (invade my space), or when they promote what I perceive as a danger to the human race and the world in general.

But to be fair most Christians are fairly benign compared to other contenders.

 

[Vancouversailor]

Christians have a propensity for controlling other people, believing their way is the only right one, and in the process doing much damage to others. Example: Ex-President George W, Bush jr. who claims to be a born again Christian told the world that an angel had woken him up at night and ordered him to attack Iraq. Well we know how that went. Over 100,000 dead civilians, no Weapons of Mass Destruction and he and Cheney making personal fortunes on the war. So is it a wonder that we agnostics or atheists are bothered by jerks like the genocidal ex-president "Christian" mentioned above??? In a just world Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld would have been facing the modern day equivalent of a Nuremburg trial for crimes against humanity. But because they can hide behind a wall of Christian hypocrites in the US that will never happen.

 

[Shlomoh]

So much so that you spend hours here debating and arguing with them post after post after post.

As a nontheist, I say God bless and keep them far away from me​

.

 

[Theist]

I actually do not spend that much time arguing with Christians. I have better ways to spend my time. I argue with them when they try to tell me that their religion is the only way, and that everyone who is not a Christian, who believes in their dogma, is going to Hell. I find that an arrogant claim, and something they can not possibly know. No one knows what happens after death. I argue with them when they attack science and public education because I want to live in a society where science is respected and people are educated. Not every religion is like that. As a Roman polytheist I believe that it matters more what you DO than what you BELIEVE.