New Levels of Low

[Lion IRC]

Nobody need worry, this moderator won't be swayed either way from his duties. He can be bought, however; I recommend sexual favours, though money might work just as well.

*gulp*
I don't have any bitcoin to bribe you and I really don't wanna contemplate the alternative, so I guess I'm going to have to fight it out all on my own.

Will you set up the official debate thread and intro the topic/format/Mod rules?
If it rains tomorrow I can start pretty much straight away.

[Mystical]

Nope, we need to hash out what you consider Christian. Like Hitler. And Mormons. And JWs.


How am I to enter a debate with you when you can just pull the True Christian card whenever you like? No.

[Lion IRC]

OK
I think the test of what constitutes Christianity is the fruits not the empty words.
Hitler may have claimed to be Christian in the early days of the third reich but towards the end, he is on record as saying one can not be a German and a Christian.
Did I mention that there are atheists hiding in the clergy 'claiming' to be Christian pastors?

In the debate, I intend to focus on the tree being known by its fruits. That's what I assume you will be doing in the opposite direction.

---

Yep. Self-professing Christians fight each other in wars.
But they can't BOTH be right. More obviously they are BOTH asking/claiming that God is on their side.
And they probably are NOT fighting for a vital principle of Christianity. Right?

[Cyberman]

Just let me know when you're both happy to proceed.

[Bad Writer]

@ Lion: Your fruit smells pretty rotten. Are you sure you're a Christian? No empty words? No hypocrisy?

[Lion IRC]

@ Lion: Your fruit smells pretty rotten. Are you sure you're a Christian? No empty words? No hypocrisy?

If I say stuff you don't like, then yes maybe it does smell rotten to you.
But if what I say is empty and pointless to you, then you have nothing to complain about.

Which is it?

Lion IRC says stuff which makes you feel better and happy to be an atheist.

Or the stuff I write makes you feel bad because.....???

[Mystical]

This is ridiculous, Lion. If there is biblical precedence for acts perpetrated by Christians in its' name, then it should be attributed to its rightful owner: Christianity. Difference in interpretation of said Bible and religion is all attributed to the same cause. Without the Bible to interpret in the first place, there would be none of the issues the Bible posits in its' doctrine. Note I'm not saying there still wouldn't be issues, I'm saying that all the issues attributed to Biblical Doctrine whether they're positive or negative belong right there in the evidentiary support.

[Lion IRC]

Hey, that's part and parcel to the scope of the debate.

You have to persuade people to the view that all the "bad stuff" comes necessarily from the existence of "True Christianity" and that Christians can't take any credit for the good stuff because good stuff happens anyway no matter what people think. And that bad stuff, when it's happens, CAN easily be attributed to Christianity because bad stuff DOESN'T EVER HAPPEN UNLESS Christians are around.

That is what we are debating.

You might think its and open and shut case.

...but you have someone who disagrees.

---

If you want to re-frame the debate topic or the scope/definitions speak up!
Chat to your fellow atheists. See if they have any suggestions for an alternatively worded debate proposition.

I think it is important that we have a benchmark for reference to say what reasonably qualifies as the fruits of Christianity. Otherwise, someone posts a newspaper headline about a serial killer claiming Jesus made them do it.

You can CLAIM that Christian clergy commit pedophile crimes but in the debate, I am going to quote from Colossians and Matthew with a counter-argument that Jesus says pedophiles deserve millstones around their necks.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Hey, that's part and parcel to the scope of the debate.

You have to persuade people to the view that all the "bad stuff" comes necessarily from the existence of "True Christianity" and that Christians can't take any credit for the good stuff because good stuff happens anyway no matter what people think. And that bad stuff, when it's happens, CAN easily be attributed to Christianity because bad stuff DOESN'T EVER HAPPEN UNLESS Christians are around.

That is what we are debating.

You might think its and open and shut case.

...but you have someone who disagrees.

I think the goalposts have been shifted here.

The original question posted back on page 29/30:

Wanna have a formal debate on the topic - Christianity has done more good/harm for humanity?

Context below:

---

Yes. Start a thread if you have the balls to.

Would you like to have a 1-on-1 formal debate with me?
YAY


WAIT. Lets first check to see if there is air in the tires and fuel in the tank.

The formal debate motion; That Christianity has done more good for humanity than harm.

Affirmative/Negative : Lion IRC (Affirmative)

Participants - Lion IRC vs Who? Just you?

Scope - Christianity/Christians as defined by Nicene theological distinctives etc. A debate contending the overall net good (or harm) to human society over the last 2000 years resulting from the presence of and adherence to biblical Christianity. The contestants will attempt to persuade the audience that their notion of good/harm consists in the position each side takes respectively.

Format - Heres my suggestion;
*Introduction of no more than 500 words each
* 3 main debate posts of up to 1500 words each excluding diagrams, tables, images, etc. (Videos specifically excluded from debate)
* 5 question Q&A interrogatory prior to concluding remarks :
* Conclusion of no more than 500 words each
* 3 day post turnaround (72 hours to submission deadline) from their opponent's last post. No time extensions shall be allowed without the agreement of both contestants.
* Debate Mod to review and approve submitted posts within 24 hours of their submission.

Rules - No abusive ad hominem remarks. No retrospective editing of posts. Automatic forfeit of the debate if a post deadline is not met.
Any other AF.org house rules as deemed enforceable by the Debate Mod.

Moderator(s) - Dont care. If the rules are clearly laid out and agreed to in advance, it doesnt matter who Mods the debate.

Post debate Poll?
Example poll.

*Lion IRC won the debate, but I still disagree with his viewpoint
*Lion IRC won the debate and I continue to agree with his viewpoint
*Lion IRC won the debate and convinced me to alter my viewpoint on the issue
*Missluckie26 won the debate, but I still disagree with his/her viewpoint
*Missluckie26 won the debate and I continue to agree with his/her viewpoint
*Missluckie26 won the debate and convinced me to alter my viewpoint on the issue
*I cannot decide who won the debate

---

The question that Xtianity has done more harm than good is decidedly different from the question [posed through an insinuation of the claim that missluckie must prove that] "bad stuff...DOESN'T EVER HAPPEN UNLESS Christians are around."

The former is a worthy task (and an achievable one, IMHO). The latter is impossible and nonsensical.

[Mystical]

You may disagree all you want, but there's biblical support for the atrocities committed now and in the past. It's called interpretation--or in your case, de-ni-al. You didn't just move the goalposts with your "true christians have only good fruit" bullshit, you threw them out of the stadium altogether.

If you can't be honest with yourself, how can you have an honest debate? Answer is, you can't. And I'd have no reason to debate you whatsoever because you can't face the cold hard facts.

"suffer not a witch to live". Your bible said that. People died because of it. It happened.

Or do you consider that "good fruit"?