The Atheist Obsession with Insulting Christians

[TheRocketSurgeon]

---

Technically, it doesn't prove that at all, one way or the other, because you're both stating the facts in a misleading/skewed way.

Hey, hanging "technically" at the front of a sentence in the same manner that one dangles a carrot out in front of a horse will not make your lame, malnourished mule of an accusation any more fit to haul the argument wagon over to Validation County.

Our morality has improved in almost every measurable way, over the course of history. Still needs work in many areas, but we now almost universally recognize the abhorrence of the practice of slavery, for instance.

Yes, and the Catholic Church defended slavery, they used the Bible to endorse the practice of slavery because the Bible endorses the practice of slavery. Things tend to progress in a more positive direction once we stop taking advice from primitive death worshipers.  I don't see whatever point it is you're trying to make here.
 

Most Christians tend to view our morals as "flawed" and ever-short of an imaginary ideal of perfection, [b]and so they too tend to overlook the measurable improvements in the way humans are learning to treat one another, overall.[/b]
I'm not talking about individual Christians, I'm talking about CHRISTIANITY, the fascist doctrine, the so-called infallible divine mandate that is directly responsible for countless atrocities on every continent. Institutionalized Christianity has justified unspeakable actions by invoking God's will, and it continues to do so to this day.

Some others argue that Christianity, as the basis of Western Civilization, was the foundation for that improvement; others cite the Renaissance and Enlightenment as secular triumphs over the blind dogmatism of the Dark Ages, even changing the values subtly among the religious.

And which of those two arguments actually seems plausible to you? The Church was a force for political stability in Europe, it's doctrine encouraged expansion and conquest, these are effective traits, Christianity is undoubtedly a major contributor to the dominance the west has exerted over the last few centuries. Christianity was and is still an institution of fascist theocracy, it condemns inquiry and progress, that is the true nature of the doctrine, and the journey to this modern age of reason and discovery was impeded by fascist superstitions at every opportunity.

---

But it doesn't demonstrate, as you suggested, that Christianity is not a solid foundation, since he was incorrect in asserting that our morals have not improved (they have, and demonstrably so), and since they have it means that we must consider whether Christianity in western civilization was a contributing factor to this improvement. But either way, the argument cannot hinge on the idea that we haven't improved, because we clearly have. So technically, the argument is moot. 

Arguing that the Catholic church defended slavery ignores that the Abolitionist movement was in large part led by progressive-minded churchgoers, as well. The point of mentioning slavery was as a clear example that our ideas of morality have improved since the Bronze Age. Another example might be that we no longer consider women to be effective chattel, or that we can't stone children for disobedience, or kill apostates. And again, I happen to agree with you that every one of these things are concepts found in the Bible that are fascist and horrifying, and that our progress is measured in how far we've gotten past those ideas-- but they also serve as a historical recording of how far we have come, as a society. Yet that society is 75-80% Christian (at least, here in the USA), so we cannot simply pretend that it's irrelevant as a contributing factor to progress.

I agree with you that those who stick to a literalist reading of the beliefs of Bronze Age blood-god-worshiping desert tribesmen are dangerous, hostile to progress, and that " the journey to this modern age of reason and discovery was impeded by fascist superstitions at every opportunity" from that element. But it also overlooks the contributions of supremely-religious persons, who nevertheless sought to expand the understanding of the Creation, as they saw it, e.g. Kepler and Newton. But because I do consider the "true" version of Christianity to be hostile to challenges to its dogma, and our progress to be measured partly in terms of how far we have moved away from the tribalistic, violent immorality enshrined in the Bible, I'm strongly in the second camp, believing that we can attribute the overwhelming majority of the success in our improved moral thinking almost entirely to the secular elements of the Renaissance and Enlightenment philosophies.

I loathe almost everything Christianity stands for, in its unadulterated form, and agree that it has massively hampered progress, likely far more than it or its followers have added to progress. But the point you originally tried to make, that we have not improved, therefore Christianity is not a good basis for building a societal moral doctrine, is invalid because we clearly have improved. If one accepts the premise that our moral doctrines are indeed based on Christianity (I do not!) and that they have not improved, then one can have that argument... but since our moral doctrines have improved, the argument is technically moot. I suppose you could adopt those two premises for the purpose of an argument, but why?