New Levels of Low

[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.

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:

---

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.

Agreed. It's not the exact same wording.
But the general idea is that if you are going to have a wide scope of what constitutes Christian "bad stuff" you have to admit an equally wide scope for Christianity to take credit for good works.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I think the goalposts have been shifted here.

The original question posted back on page 29/30:


Context below:




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.

Agreed. It's not the exact same wording.
But the general idea is that if you are going to have a wide scope of what constitutes Christian "bad stuff" you have to admit an equally wide scope for Christianity to take credit for good works.

^^

I agree. Scope needs to be defined (I guess that's what folk were doing prior to my comment anyway).

[Lion IRC]

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"?

Do you want to debate the above in a one-on-one formal setting or not?
If you have "cold hard facts" bring 'em.

You won't win a debate by merely accusing me of being dishonest.
You gotta prove its with FACTS AND EVIDENCE AND LOGIC.

[Mystical]

Yep and he just threw the whole scope out the window. I'm asking him to reign it in.

[Lion IRC]

Missluckie26,
Please make your next post a clear statement of whether or not you wish to proceed with the debate and if you do wish to proceed please stipulate what your prerequisite terms are for it to proceed.
I have given a few links to define what I will be using as my reference/datum for who can and can't claim to be a Christian.
We can of course disagree during the debate, but AT LEAST we will agree on what Lion IRC is claiming as his necessary/sufficient criteria for Team Christianity.

[Mystical]

Oh Lion.. You still don't understand? We aren't debating who is and isn't a Christian, we're debating the effects of said religion. Just the fact that someone quotes it as reasoning for their actions is enough to attribute it to Christianity.
I'm not going to hop into a debate with you when you don't even know the perimeters of the debate itself. This is why I'm asking you for clarification. Fact is, you set out a topic a day ago, and are now shutting down avenues of discussion by adding on more qualifiers to it after the debate has been agreed upon under different terms. Which is plain out, dishonest.

[Bad Writer]

@ 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.....???

When did what I say turn into a discussion about my feelings? I guess we'll just count that towards your growing tally of dishonest remarks, or, rather, your stinky, rotting fruit.

[Faith No More]

If you're going to argue about whether Christianity does more harm or good, you can't weed out all of the people you have deemed not to be true Christians. When people believe they are acting under the authority and values of Christianity, regardless of whether you agree that they are or not, that falls under the scope of harm done by Christianity. Christianity as a whole is responsible for how its message is transmitted, and if someone misinterprets that message, Christianity is still responsible for the actions that result from that due to the lack of clarity of the message. In other words, you can't simply ignore the harm someone does in the name of Christianity even though you don't agree that person truly understood the Christian message.

[freedomfromforum]

If you're going to argue about whether Christianity does more harm or good, you can't weed out all of the people you have deemed not to be true Christians. When people believe they are acting under the authority and values of Christianity, regardless of whether you agree that they are or not, that falls under the scope of harm done by Christianity. Christianity as a whole is responsible for how its message is transmitted, and if someone misinterprets that message, Christianity is still responsible for the actions that result from that due to the lack of clarity of the message. In other words, you can't simply ignore the harm someone does in the name of Christianity even though you don't agree that person truly understood the Christian message.

BINGO!!!

[Lion IRC]

Oh Lion.. You still don't understand? We aren't debating who is and isn't a Christian, we're debating the effects of said religion. Just the fact that someone quotes it as reasoning for their actions is enough to attribute it to Christianity.
I'm not going to hop into a debate with you when you don't even know the perimeters of the debate itself. This is why I'm asking you for clarification. Fact is, you set out a topic a day ago, and are now shutting down avenues of discussion by adding on more qualifiers to it after the debate has been agreed upon under different terms. Which is plain out, dishonest.

The topic is set. I'm ready to go.

It's actually you who is trying to have the debate before its even started and making demands that I qualify things for you lest you bail-out.
I have (quite reasonably) provided you an advance indication of how I am going to frame my argument with respect to what constitutes Christianity/Christians.

Naturally, I expect you wil be objecting to me claiming credit for "good stuff" done by people who you may argue, would have done the same thing even if they were Hindus, Jews, Muslims, etc. And obviously, I assume you are going to try to make a case that certain "bad stuff" can only be because the person was nominally/allegedly a 'Christian' obediently acting exactly according to the basic tenets of Christianity. You are welcome to argue that Nazism and the holocaust makes Jesus and Christians happy and joyous and that therefore Christianity is bad for humanity. I, on the other hand, am going to argue AGAINST that proposition.

And I have graciously given you advance warning that any "bad stuff" you attempt to raise will be closely inspected to see how closely it matches the theological distinctives which form the basic ideals of Christianity and which give us a bench mark to compare whether Hitler was walking the walk or just talking the talk as politicians so often do. (Did you know JFK went to great lengths to assure voters he would never let his Christian religion interfere with his job as a politician?)