What deism has done for the world

[Tonus]

But to say that these wicked men and women, were somehow acting in accordance with Christ's teachings and are representative of a Christian is simply dishonest.

It does call into question the transformative power of the Bible and of Christianity. People who spend their lives surrounded by followers of Christ and by his teachings are unable or unwilling to stop from committing a truly horrific act. And there are many cases where both congregation members and church hierarchy either ignored what was happening or dealt with it by moving the offenders from one area to another, where they were able to continue to harm innocent children.

You can't just say "well they were not really Christians" and dismiss the problem that easily. These are not always just isolated cases; people are harming children either by direct action or by deliberate inaction. When you include the ones who facilitated the abuse, there are many more crimes involved by many more people who will almost certainly remain in the church.

[Esquilax]

What a surprise, Disciplus' position boils down to cherry picking and the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Anyone didn't see that coming?

[Crossless2.0]

What a surprise, Disciplus' position boils down to cherry picking and the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Anyone didn't see that coming?

Yeah, color me surprised.

I'm still wondering what happened to this, posted by Disciplus on Feb. 26:

"DeistPaladin I perceive you, more so than anyone else here that I have talked with, have the ability to present your arguments clearly and concisely. I also think you make some points that are worthy of a thoughtful response.

Is there a way that we can have a formal debate here on this forum just between you and I for all to view? If so I would like to extend a cordial invitation to you to debate on whether or not the four gospels constitute a reliable biography of Jesus of Nazareth. Think over the matter and let me know what you think.

Thank you for considering this."

Oh, right -- DeistPaladin preemptively (and masterfully) laid waste to the "debate" before it could even get going.

[discipulus]

But to say that these wicked men and women, were somehow acting in accordance with Christ's teachings and are representative of a Christian is simply dishonest.

It does call into question the transformative power of the Bible and of Christianity. People who spend their lives surrounded by followers of Christ and by his teachings are unable or unwilling to stop from committing a truly horrific act. And there are many cases where both congregation members and church hierarchy either ignored what was happening or dealt with it by moving the offenders from one area to another, where they were able to continue to harm innocent children.

You can't just say "well they were not really Christians" and dismiss the problem that easily. These are not always just isolated cases; people are harming children either by direct action or by deliberate inaction. When you include the ones who facilitated the abuse, there are many more crimes involved by many more people who will almost certainly remain in the church.

I never have stated that these perpetrators were not really Christians. So that is really a strawman.

What I said was that these actions of a few people (few in relation to the total number of Christians existing in the world today) are not to be consider as either representative of or exemplifications of them that adhere to the central tenets of Christianity.

What you are saying is akin to a Christian arguing that the actions of many notorious men and women who have been atheists are representative of and exemplifications of atheists in general. This is fallacious.

If Christianity taught that men and women should molest young children under their charge and then conceal the acts, then you would have a point.

As it stands, these acts are positive testimony to the depravity of man, not the lack of transformative power of God. For God's transforming power is manifested in them that are willing to be transformed by it.

---

What a surprise, Disciplus' position boils down to cherry picking and the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Anyone didn't see that coming?

Some atheists are keen on charging others with committing fallacies. But since I never said that these perpetrators were not really Christians, then the charge is demonstrably without merit.

With regards to one's salvation, I cannot judge. I know not what has transpired within their heart and souls.

I can judge them by their works however, for their works are clearly perceived by all. The simple truth is that they were not acting in accordance with the teachings of Him whose name they desire to be called by.

If this renders your argument void, then you need to come up with something better.

---

What a surprise, Disciplus' position boils down to cherry picking and the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Anyone didn't see that coming?

Yeah, color me surprised.

I'm still wondering what happened to this, posted by Disciplus on Feb. 26:

"DeistPaladin I perceive you, more so than anyone else here that I have talked with, have the ability to present your arguments clearly and concisely. I also think you make some points that are worthy of a thoughtful response.

Is there a way that we can have a formal debate here on this forum just between you and I for all to view? If so I would like to extend a cordial invitation to you to debate on whether or not the four gospels constitute a reliable biography of Jesus of Nazareth. Think over the matter and let me know what you think.

Thank you for considering this."

Oh, right -- DeistPaladin preemptively (and masterfully) laid waste to the "debate" before it could even get going.

Where did this laying waste take place?

As far as I can tell, he still has not even addressed the debate topic I have proposed upwards of ten times already.

The more I interact with you all, the more my convictions are reaffirmed. Many of you are angry and bitter and rely not on rational argument, but cynicism, sarcasm and a host of other ineffectual methods which reveal your utter lack of justification for your views.

I am still waiting for someone here to demonstrate to me the contributions of atheism to the children of the world's nations. All the while I am asking this, Christians at this very moment throughout the world are giving their time effort money and even their lives in the service of the helpless.

You ask for evidence but do not accept its conclusions.

Why?

[Whateverist]

Well the Catholic church for one has done much to spark a sexual awakening amongst its children. Sadly that is not a good thing.

If indeed you are an intellectual and enlightened and wish to be seen as the bastion of rational thought then surely you should know that you are not to judge a philosophy by its abuse?

So you think the Catholic church is its philosophy, not the men and women who participate in it? I don't agree.

[DarkHorse]

Are you saying it's only Christians who contribute to bettering the lives of children or humanity in general? You don't need to be a christian or have religion to do good in the world. I have known atheists who are more caring than these so called christ followers.

[Cato]

We could compare Camp Quest with Jesus Camp in an attempt to ascertain a qualitative difference between secular and religious treatment of children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Camp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Quest

[discipulus]

Are you saying it's only Christians who contribute to bettering the lives of children or humanity in general? You don't need to be a christian or have religion to do good in the world. I have known atheists who are more caring than these so called christ followers.

Not at all. Nor have I stated anywhere here that you have to be a christian or be religious to do "good" in the world.

What you say in the latter portion is not controversial either. I grant that some atheists do live more exemplary lives than some religious people.

What I have stated very plainly is that actions speak louder than words. One form of evidence for the Christian claims can be found in the indisputable fact that Christians have done more in the service of children since its founding than any other adherents of any other worldview, be it secular or religious. This is not up for debate. The facts are there for anyone to see.

[Esquilax]

Some atheists are keen on charging others with committing fallacies. But since I never said that these perpetrators were not really Christians, then the charge is demonstrably without merit.

Not really christian, "not representative of a christian," tomato, tomato.

I've noticed this a lot, with you; you want to take advantage of the effects of fallacious arguments, while avoiding being called out on it by not using the exact words of the fallacy. You say that they aren't representative of christians, which is the no true scotsman fallacy because suddenly the definition of what classifies as a christian has contracted to exclude this particular set of bad things, but you want to skip out on being called on it by talking about representations, rather than people.

Sorry, but a second hand fallacy is still a fallacy. Referencing it indirectly doesn't mean you get to reap the rewards without the consequences.

With regards to one's salvation, I cannot judge. I know not what has transpired within their heart and souls.

I can judge them by their works however, for their works are clearly perceived by all. The simple truth is that they were not acting in accordance with the teachings of Him whose name they desire to be called by.

Which is an interesting conclusion to come to, given how many times god was cool with his chosen people taking preteen virgins home with them from war and marrying them.

Or are god's chosen people not representative of what god is okay with, anymore?

Where did this laying waste take place?

As far as I can tell, he still has not even addressed the debate topic I have proposed upwards of ten times already.

Do you not think we can go back and see what actually transpired? You stated one debate topic, and then switched it out to this bullshit about children to make it more difficult to argue for.

And then, when you're shown contrary evidence to the point you want to dishonestly argue for, you wave it off as "not representative." Well shit, dude: how the fuck is anyone supposed to argue against your position if your definition of christianity with regards to children is "only the good things."

This is such a pitiable way to debate, and it's so common among christians when we get these "is X religious observance good or bad?" where you cull out any possibility that the bad things be counted among christian actions before you start.

The more I interact with you all, the more my convictions are reaffirmed. Many of you are angry and bitter and rely not on rational argument, but cynicism, sarcasm and a host of other ineffectual methods which reveal your utter lack of justification for your views.

Oh, fuck off, junkslut. We're angry and cynical in reaction to you, you pompous blowhard, and your inability to actually engage in honest conversation without dodging around each and every issue while redefining everything you do deign to debate so that it's locked into only what you want to believe.

I am still waiting for someone here to demonstrate to me the contributions of atheism to the children of the world's nations. All the while I am asking this, Christians at this very moment throughout the world are giving their time effort money and even their lives in the service of the helpless.

You ask for evidence but do not accept its conclusions.

Why?

Do you think we don't know why you formulated your question like this, too? It's pretty obvious: your religion has an immense apparatus capable of charitable acts, whereas "atheism," such as it can be called a unified group, does not. You (switched in) a debate topic heavily favoring your side just in terms of sheer numbers, without regard to quality.

But I'll tell you this: atheists do perform charity works, and they do it without proselytizing, they do it without any desire to get in good with god, and moreover, they do it without any of the weird religious baggage that harms the very people they claim to help. There's no religiously motivated anti-abortion/contraception talk with atheists, that leave already taxed parents unable to care for their additional/first time children. There's no anti-condom message in AIDS ridden Africa to intensify the crisis there, that you get from the Catholics. There's no bogus faith healings that lead to children's deaths. There's no burning children as witches, or beating them because they might be gay, or harmful exorcisms, or children turned out of homes for differing beliefs... did you know that fundamentalist religion is correlated with child abuse? Spare the rod, and all that.

Those are all harms of children found exclusively in your religion, and those are all thing atheism is fighting against, even just by being skeptical of religious claims, where not actively campaigning against it.

That contribution enough for you?

[discipulus]

We could compare Camp Quest with Jesus Camp in an attempt to ascertain a qualitative difference between secular and religious treatment of children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Camp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Quest

Comparing "indoctrination" camps is not what I mean when I speak of the effects and contributions of Christianity to the children of the world's nations.

Both camps for all intents in purposes were founded to cater to people who were already affiliated with their respective worldviews.

Nor am I concerned with what Christianity has done in the way of its attempts at evangelization.

To give an example of what I mean I refer you to the following:

Save the Children.

This large relief agency was founded by Eglantyne Jebb who also campaigned for social reform in this area. The Declaration of the Rights of the Child was adopted by the League of Nations as well. She also pioneered the Child Sponsorship program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eglantyne_Jebb

This is the kind of evidence I am talking about. I am talking about men and women who refuse to talk about the problems of humanity and actually did something about them and lived in accordance with what Christ taught i.e. that we should love one another and take care of the orphan and the widow and the helpless.