frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





WHY DO ATHEISTS & LIBERALS WORSHIP THE GRECO-ROMAN PHILOSOPHERS & ISLAM BUT NOT CHRIST?

Debate Information



According to the ancient Roman historian, Tacitus, Nero used Christians as human torches for public displays   

Painting: The Torches of Nero, by Henryk Siemiradzki (1878)

History of the Roman "Super Bowl" 

All three can boast a fascinating and colorful history, worthy of a box-office hit.  The Greco-Romans gave us a rich tapestry of science, philosophy, history and literature, some borrowed from earlier cultures in The Middle East. They also gave us the two concepts of democracy and structured government.  Their panoply of colorful Gods in mythology makes great reading, while we respect their philosophers, whom atheists love to cite in support of their arguments when attacking Christianity.  

These two anti-Christian Empires celebrated their victories of war - the bloodier the better - with the goriest and most brutal of public parades, parading their prisoners' bodies and severed heads impaled on stakes, with others dragged alive in the dirt behind speeding chariots.  As well their Christian prisoners provided public entertainment in the arena of the Colosseum, armed with but a spear or sword in their defence against wild animals turned upon them at the nod of an Emperor.  Then there's the Golden Age of Islam, another colorful but equally brutal history, which swept across Northern Africa and Eastern Europe, taking slaves and slaughtering the rest in a blood bath, halted only by the valour of those at the Gates of Vienna.

Atheists feign an abhorrence of such blood letting and brutality, whenever relentlessly rebuking Christianity for its infamous Inquisitions, burnings at the stake, while vilifying the Christian Crusades which protected the Holy Land and the Judeo-Christian populace from the brutality of Islam.  The double standards of atheism and Liberalism could not be more apparent, more steeped in hypocrisy, as it worships at the faux altar of virtue signalling.
We_are_accountableHowardChance1Blastcat
The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
«1345



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    So, which was the more brutal?  The usurpers of the Christian doctrine in the Church of Rome, committing their atrocities in its name, or the Christian Crusaders who followed Richard The Lionheart of England or the pagans of the Roman Empire or the Middle Eastern Islamics?  Why can't atheists discuss the Christian philosophy, absent mention of atrocities, the same way they discuss the Greco-Roman philosophies and great thinkers of Islam, absent the mention of atrocities?  Does their bigotry toward Christianity get in the way of their ability to discuss the Christian philosophy with the same fairness and equity?  I think it does.
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1712 Pts   -  
    PLEASE STOP SHOUTING. USING SHOUTY CAPS IN YOUR DEBATE TITLES IS NOT VERY HELPFUL.
    smoothieAmericanFurryBoy
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 -   That's a complete furphy.  Many TITLES to many things are capitalized in headings, headlines, articles, scholarly papers, dissertations, lessons and chapters of books.  Debate the topic and quit whining.
    xlJ_dolphin_473
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @Grafix There are so many things wrong with this, and I know if I just tell you you won't listen anyways, so here is a bunch of leading questions:

    1: How exactly would you define worship in terms which would equally apply to all religions and ideas?

    2: Was Nero definitely influenced to do the things he did on the grounds of Philosophy?

    3: Were there any atrocities which were committed in the name of religion, and what separates them from those of the Greeks, Romans, and Islam?
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    the point is, that people no longer believe in Apollo or thor. yet at one time, people believed in such gods just as much as Christians believe in the god of the bible. it is quite possible that sometime in the future, people will decide that the bible is nothing more than a historical set of books, just as we look upon the old greek gods.@Grafix
    ZeusAres42piloteer
  • AlofRIAlofRI 1484 Pts   -  
    I have NO idea where you get YOUR ideas. As an atheist I don't worship ANYTHING. (Well, maybe my wife, is that allowed??) Evangelicals are getting sickerer and sickerer! 
    We_are_accountablePlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    @Grafix

    As an atheist, I do worship Greco Roman philosophy because it is in fact philosophy. As far as Islamic teaching, it is not at all philosophy, it is Abrahamic religious “teaching”, therefore it does not warrant being worshipped in manner.
    AlofRIPlaffelvohfen
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    I believe that most people do only consider the Bible a historical text and nothing more
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    Ah yes, the famous Islam worshipping Atheists. *rolls eyes*.

    I've never been much into the Greek philosophers myself. The only one I could really get behind was Diogenes and that's mostly just because he pretty much entirely just lived in a barrel and talked to people.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • We_are_accountableWe_are_accountable 1147 Pts   -  
    @Grafix

    You don't have to go any further than abortion to show the barbarity of non Christians. When a people sacrifice their own young for convenience, nothing more needs to be said.

    When non Christians say they are pro life, but vote for radical pro abortion Democrats, they are phonies.
    Grafix
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @Happy_Killbot - Great start, Happy K.  You have distilled the arguments by the use of questions, the vehicle of clarity of understanding.  You wrote ...
    There are so many things wrong with this, and I know if I just tell you you won't listen anyways, so here is a bunch of leading questions:
    1: How exactly would you define worship in terms which would equally apply to all religions and ideas?
    2: Was Nero definitely influenced to do the things he did on the grounds of Philosophy?
    3: Were there any atrocities which were committed in the name of religion, and what separates them from those of the Greeks, Romans, and Islam?
    1.  I agree that atheists and Liberals don't literally drop on bended knee in worship of these Empires.  I use the word "worship" only in the literary sense, in the same way that we might say Greenies worship at the altar of the environment and likewise that atheists worship at the altar of the pagans and their history, without any connotation of actual worship, given that would be an oxymoron, because we all know that atheists worship no God, the very definition of atheism.  Subsequently, it is a given that I am using the word "worship" as a literary device only.

    2.  Your question denoting that Nero's intentions when torching Christians had nothing to do with philosophy, distils the premise of the topic.  I agree it did have nothing to do with philosophy.  It was simply a manifestation of how the Roman ethos engaged in an egregious self-gratification of the most base human instincts.

    The issue is that Atheists laud and applaud the Greco-Roman system of government and philosophical attributes, as we all do, but for atheists it is a distinctly discriminatory admiration, demonstrated in the fact that they shove under the mat the barbarous nature of these ancient pagan cultures. They do the same with the barbarous nature to this day of the Islamic culture.   Conversely, when discussing the Christian culture, atheists wax lyrical on the barbarous history, in small part, of the Christian culture, completely omitting the great scholars which the early Christian Church produced and their equally excellent and invaluable contributions to the sciences, to literature, art, history, politics, sociology, philosophy and philanthropy.  Atheists seem to be completely ignorant of it, or if not ignorant of it, then pretend it doesn't exist in our history at all.

    3.  My OP mentions those atrocities committed by the Church of Rome, alluding to the Spanish Inquisition, the burning of heretics at the stake, etc.  I am not attempting to set Christianity's history apart from or above that of the history of the Greco-Roman age or the Golden Age of Islam.  I am seeking to point out that it is the Atheists who separate Christian history unjustly and wrongfully. They recognize the great contributions of certain ancient cultures, while ignoring their barbaric atrocities without condemnation, yet ignore the great contributions of the early Christian culture, to only condemn it for its atrocities of the past.  Although there are certainly several atrocities in Christianity's history, the culture was not and never has been a barbaric one per se, yet that is all atheists talk about, let alone acknowledge the greatest achievement of the Judeo-Christian ethos, that it is responsible for the civilization of the world and for the conception of our very own Western culture. 

    It is this patently ignorant and brazenly biased view held by atheism towards Christianity's history which this topic seeks to understand and discuss.
    .
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @maxx - Refer to my post below yours and above this one in reply to @Happy_Killbot, wherein I stated in Item 1. that  ....
    I agree that atheists and Liberals don't literally drop on bended knee in worship of these Empires.  I use the word "worship" only in the literary sense, in the same way that we might say Greenies worship at the altar of the environment and likewise that atheists worship at the altar of the pagans and their history, without any connotation of actual worship, given that would be an oxymoron, because we all know that atheists worship no God, the very definition of atheism.  Subsequently, it is a given that I am using the word "worship" as a literary device only.
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @Grafix There are only going to more questions after this:

    1. Is it disingenuous or intentionally misleading to use a literary device when asking the question in the title?
    2. If Nero was not doing what he did for the purpose of the philosophy which many atheists and Liberals study, then why bring it up as a point?
    3. If Christianity failed to maintain civility and moral reverence, which lead to atrocities on par with those committed by the Roman empire, then how can anyone claim it has any moral utility at all?
    4. What role did Greco-Roman influence have on Western culture?
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @AlofRI - Refer to my post below yours and above this one in reply to @Happy_Killbot, wherein I stated in Item 1. that ....
    I agree that atheists and Liberals don't literally drop on bended knee in worship of these Empires.  I use the word "worship" only in the literary sense, in the same way that we might say Greenies worship at the altar of the environment and likewise that atheists worship at the altar of the pagans and their history, without any connotation of actual worship, given that would be an oxymoron, because we all know that atheists worship no God, the very definition of atheism.  Subsequently, it is a given that I am using the word "worship" as a literary device only.
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5969 Pts   -  
    Islam, Christianity and Rome/Greece all had their share of brutality. Just read about the fate of Socrates in allegedly civilised Athens... Who is denying that?

    The fact that these entities had so much brutality associated with them does not mean all of their representatives partook in them though. Aristoteles' philosophy had little to do with people doing conquest to acquire new slaves. There were some amazing Christian and Muslim philosophers too. Did not prevent beheadings and crusades, however.
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @Happy_Killbot - You wrote ...
    1. Is it disingenuous or intentionally misleading to use a literary device when asking the question in the title?
    2. If Nero was not doing what he did for the purpose of the philosophy which many atheists and Liberals study, then why bring it up as a point?
    3. If Christianity failed to maintain civility and moral reverence, which lead to atrocities on par with those committed by the Roman empire, then how can anyone claim it has any moral utility at all?
    4. What role did Greco-Roman influence have on Western culture?
    1.  Who claims that to be so?  You?

    2.  Because atheists bring up the atrocities of Christianity to condemn it, yet shove the atrocities of the ancient Roman, Greek and Islamic civilizations under the mat never condemning them for theirs.  It is to demonstrate the double standard and hypocrisy of atheism and to question it and understand it.

    3.  I agree that on the face of it, when leading Christian prelates engage in atrocities that immediately belies their own  Christianity and their commitment to the Christian doctrines.  Obviously their Christianity must be questioned.  I agree, but it is another stretch to pretend their actions are representative of the Christian doctrines, Christ's very own doctrines.  They clearly are not.

    4.  I state that in my OP.  The major influence was that we borrowed the concepts of democracy  and our structure of government from the Greco-Romans  - a bicameral legislature.  Their scholars also brought to us great knowledge, some of which they obtained from Middle Eastern cultures, as well as the knowledge and wisdom of their own Greco-Roman scholars and philosophers.  Just a tiny example is the Pythagorean Theorem, among many others.


    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @Grafix

    1. Would you consider it to be disingenuous to use literary devices in a title, i.e. "My sports team murdered your team" from a semantic sense, is it disingenuous to say thing like this if it leads to confusion?
    2. If we are talking about the philosophies, then do we really hold a double standard if those philosophies were not responsible for those atrocities? Are the things not disconected as you suggested above?
    3. How can you test who is and is not a real Christian, if those who committed the atrocities in the name of Christianity were doing so on the authority of the Church? Is it possible that those who are not committing the atrocities are the ones who are not real Christians?
    4. If Greco-Roman culture and philosophies heavily influenced western ideas, then could it be argued that they were of equal or greater importance for the formation western culture and in particular the US?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar - You wrote ....
    Islam, Christianity and Rome/Greece all had their share of brutality. Just read about the fate of Socrates in allegedly civilised Athens... Who is denying that?

    I agree. What I don't agree with is how atheists single out Christianity, citing the brutal and barbarous deeds of flawed men to condemn it, instead of looking at the nature of Christianity itself. You also wrote ...

    The fact that these entities had so much brutality associated with them does not mean all of their representatives partook in them though. Aristoteles' philosophy had little to do with people doing conquest to acquire new slaves. There were some amazing Christian and Muslim philosophers too. Did not prevent beheadings and crusades, however.

    I agree, so why do the majority of atheists not judge Christianity by the same standard?  Instead we see a persistent pattern of atheists conflating the wicked deeds of men with Christianity.  It makes no sense.  

    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @piloteer - You wrote ...
    As an atheist, I do worship Greco Roman philosophy because it is in fact philosophy. As far as Islamic teaching, it is not at all philosophy, it is Abrahamic religious “teaching”, therefore it does not warrant being worshipped in manner.

    Your first sentence - I too have sincere admiration for the Greco-Roman philosophers' philosophies. 

    Your second sentence - I agree again.  Islam is not a philosophy, but was incentivized for the purpose of conquest.  The pretence of adopting the Hebraic teachings served only one purpose, to obtain a following to wage war in the name of a "religion", so to believe there was any genuine regard for Abrahamic teachings is erroneous. The Islamics are the very Nemesis of both Judaism and Christianity, beheading them daily to this day.  The grand total of Christians slaughtered at the hand of Islam, across the centuries, are numbered in the billions, yet Islamics are less maligned by our Liberal and atheist kinsmen than we Christians are by our own Western kinsmen. 

    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @Happy_Killbot - You wrote ...
    1. Would you consider it to be disingenuous to use literary devices in a title, i.e. "My sports team murdered your team" from a semantic sense, is it disingenuous to say thing like this if it leads to confusion?
    2. If we are talking about the philosophies, then do we really hold a double standard if those philosophies were not responsible for those atrocities? Are the things not disconected as you suggested above?
    3. How can you test who is and is not a real Christian, if those who committed the atrocities in the name of Christianity were doing so on the authority of the Church? Is it possible that those who are not committing the atrocities are the ones who are not real Christians?
    4. If Greco-Roman culture and philosophies heavily influenced western ideas, then could it be argued that they were of equal or greater importance for the formation western culture and in particular the US?
    1.  There are word-styles, definitions and other connotations in meaning, which make most words simply inappropriate for use as a literary device.  Writers understand the intuition of it very well.  Most people do as well, as you just demonstrated that you do.

    2.  That's irrelevant.  We are not holding the philosopher responsible for anything.  I am holding atheists and Liberals responsible for double standards and hypocrisy in the way they portray their arguments and discussion content, concerning past atrocities.

    3.  There are very egregious actions which need no "testing" because they blatantly violate the Law, the Christian God's law of the Ten Commandments. If the authority of the Church conflicts with the Christian doctrine then Christians are not obliged to carry it out.  There is only one set of laws, not two.  If that occurs then the authority of the Church is not upholding God's law and to remain faithful to our faith we must repudiate  in our hearts the actions of those who repudiate Church law and resist the temptation to "go along with it".  I think you are confusing making a spiritual judgement as opposed to a material judgement.

    We are not to make spiritual judgements against sinners, because we are all sinners and who are we to know another's spiritual relationship with God?

    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @Grafix

    1. You haven't answered the question though, is it disingenuous, or for that matter appropriate to use literary devises such as figurative language or euphemisms in a debate setting where semantic meaning is important and can lead to confusion?
    2. So, if atheists and liberals hold the philosophies of Greco-Roman culture in high regard, does it matter at all that these cultures committed atrocities given that they are not what they really care about?
    3. If the law in the bible is used to justify those atrocities, such as slavery in the US south and the Crusades then isn't it those who oppose that who are going against the bible and "not the real Christians" then? Could it not be argued, that those who kill in the name of God have a better relationship with it that you do?
    What you don't seem to acknowledge is that the bible straight up says that many things we consider perfectly normal today are condemned by the bible, such as eating pork or re-marrying after a divorce.
    AlofRIPlaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • AlofRIAlofRI 1484 Pts   -  
    Greco-Roman (and other), "philosophers" are highly educated OR people who think with an open mind. They come up with theories and statements that stimulate further thought by those who listen to their words.

    Those who listen to the teachings of a religion, for the most part, don't want people listening with an open mind, because THEY are teaching what they want you to BELIEVE! DO NOT re-think these words! DO NOT come up with other theories! THEY will be considered blasphemy!

    I never heard of a Greco-Roman (or other), "philosopher" who didn't allow or accept other opinions. They didn't expect to be "worshipped". They didn't expect their words to be considered "the words of God". 

    I, as an atheist liberal do not "worship" either … and I don't know any who DO. We listen to their intelligent, believable, thought provoking words, and think about them. That is NOT "worship".
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5969 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @Grafix

    Are you talking about atheists, or are you talking about the majority of atheists? Those are very different things.

    I do not know why other atheists or non-atheists have the positions they do, but I do connect Christianity to the atrocities it spawned. Monotheistic religion is a very convenient tool for tyrants to use to subdue the population by scaring it with the alleged wrath of the alleged supreme being in case it does not play along. It is no coincidence that in regions where religion has been especially prominent - Europe and the Arabic world - so many atrocities occurred regularly throughout over a thousand years.
    In Ancient Greece and Rome religion was, first, polytheistic, second, fairly separated from the government, and third, open to criticism. They still existed a very long time ago, when standards were different and people in general were quite a bit meaner to each other - but they were a huge upgrade over religion-dominated societies.

    It has been a common pattern in history: societies partaking in ideological idealism, be it religion, socialism, fascism or other similar entity, had unspeakable atrocities committed in them and were at the pit of human civilization, while societies employing a more rational and pragmatic approach (mainly Hellenic nations around the Mediterranean sea approximately from 500 BC to 400 AD, Europe and North America of the Enlightenment era, and some East-Asian countries of post-WW2 era) thrived. "Thrived" relative to most other territories of that time, not in the absolute sense - obviously Ancient Greece was a much worse place to be than even modern China by virtually any reasonable metric, but modern China, in turn, is a terrible place to be as far as modern world goes.

    The recipe for success seems to be a combination of separation of ideology from government, and free markets. Everything else that has been tried so far has failed miserably.
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @Happy_Killbot - You wrote ...
    1. You haven't answered the question though, is it disingenuous, or for that matter appropriate to use literary devises such as figurative language or euphemisms in a debate setting where semantic meaning is important and can lead to confusion?
    2. So, if atheists and liberals hold the philosophies of Greco-Roman culture in high regard, does it matter at all that these cultures committed atrocities given that they are not what they really care about?
    3. If the law in the bible is used to justify those atrocities, such as slavery in the US south and the Crusades then isn't it those who oppose that who are going against the bible and "not the real Christians" then? Could it not be argued, that those who kill in the name of God have a better relationship with it that you do?
    4. What you don't seem to acknowledge is that the bible straight up says that many things we consider perfectly normal today are condemned by the bible, such as eating pork or re-marrying after a divorce.
    1. Oh for heavens sake.  You would argue how to put a champagne caulk back in the bottle.  Disingenuous is too silly a descriptor.  It's not even relevant.  No it wouldn't be, if you need it spelt out.  There is nothing "disingenuous" in using the word "worship" as a metaphor to express excessive adulation, excessive adherence to a point of view or excessive popularity given to a practise.  It is NORMAL English.metaphor.

    2.  I've already addressed that.  No it doesn't matter.  Quit trying to switch the focus of the argument from yourself to the Romans.  The focus is on YOU and the Liberal attitude towards  both the Greco-Roman culture and Christianity not the other way around.  The focus is on Liberals  and how they  portray it compared with how they portray Christianity.  Please stay on topic.

    3.  .We are talking about Christianity here.  When you can quote from the four Gospels anything which Christ, the founder of Christianity, may have said which in any way indicates all that you prattle on about, including condoning slavery, the debauchery, licentiousness and degeneracy of the Greco-Roman culture and today's LIberal culture, let me know.  Not a single Republican owned a slave.  Only Democrats did.  Yes, Christianity has a duty and an obligation to protect its holy relics, its historical and holy sites of its faith from destruction by  the criminals of Islam.  Why would Christ condemn the mission of the Crusaders?  As if He would.  You're clueless.

    4.  Phaw!  Don't plant your Satanic beliefs in my head.  Again Christ is the founder of Christianity.  The Old Testament is Hebraic.  Many things YOU may consider today are perfectly "normal", Christianity does not accept.  Thanks for confirmation of that point which I made in another topic title.  You didn't see that coming did you, Einstein?  The leftie Satanic brigade keeps legislating much which Christianity abhors, and which is precisely why I say that a Liberal vote is an anti-Christian vote.  
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @Grafix

    1. Do you think that anyone who reads what you wrote will know that it is supposed to be a metaphor, or will people read it and then think that you mean it literally? Said another way, is the use of literary devices sometimes confusing or misleading?
    2. So Christianity committed many atrocities throughout history. Is it in any way strange that so many people would completely denounce Christianity then because of those atrocities, and uphold the thinking of ancient philosophers, provided they were not responsible for the atrocities committed by those cultures?
    3. If I provided evidence that Republicans did own slaves, Christ did condone slavery, and the crusades were not waged to protect holy relics, would you change your stance on these matters?
    4. Would you rather live in a liberal democracy or a Christian theocracy?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @Happy_Killbot - You wrote ...
    1.  Do you think that anyone who reads what you wrote will know that it is supposed to be a metaphor, or will people read it and then think that you mean it literally? Said another way, is the use of literary devices sometimes confusing or misleading?
    1. If people are ignorant of the common practise of the usage of literary devices in this way, then I cannot be held accountable for that ignorance.  It is their loss, not mine.  Literary devices are used by the literate, not the illiterate and uneducated.  The topic title assumes that level of educated wit.  So shoot me.  You also wrote ...
    2.  So Christianity committed many atrocities throughout history. Is it in any way strange that so many people would completely denounce Christianity then because of those atrocities, and uphold the thinking of ancient philosophers, provided they were not responsible for the atrocities committed by those cultures?
    2.  No. Wrong.  Christianity committed not a single atrocity.  Yet again you repeat the lie, although corrected on that time and time again.  It demonstrates just how inculcated the atheistic lie is embedded in the anti-Christian brain.  Christianity is a philosophy.  It cannot commit anything.  Those who defy its teachings, defy its moral precepts, defying its principles and disciplines to commit atrocities are not adhering to Christianity at all, even if they falsely invoke its name to excuse their atrocities.  They are charlatans, deceivers and liars and their actions are anything but in accord with the philosophy of Christianity.  Why can't you grasp that?.

    Similarly, the philosophies dating back to the Greco-Romans or The Golden Age of Islam were not responsible for the atrocities and barbarism of those cultures, either.  Why is it then, that you are willing to accept that standard for the Greco-Roman and Islamic philosophies, but unwilling to extend that same  acceptance to the philosophy of Christianity?  That's my very point and is the title of this topic.  You fail to answer it.  You also wrote:
    3.  If I provided evidence that Republicans did own slaves, Christ did condone slavery, and the crusades were not waged to protect holy relics, would you change your stance on these matters?
    3.  Such would require that you change the historical record and revise history. If i were to accept the hypothetical, which you falsely claim is fact, then I would be compelled to become irrational as follows:
    •  (a)  Be compelled to believe that Christianity is not the philosophy which Christ taught nor the philosophy as the record states it to be and hold the irrational belief that Christ was a , that history is a lie and                 Christianity was not really founded by Christ, that even its very name is a lie.  These are precisely the reasons I reject atheism because it engages all of these falsehoods;
    •  (b)  Be Compelled to irrationally believe that a philosophy is capable of physical actions, such as beheadings. slaughter, impalings, rape, burnings at the stake, brutal and barbarous acts, as you contend it is.
    4.  Would you rather live in a liberal democracy or a Christian theocracy?
    4.   Neither.  That question showcases your totalitarian mentality for all to see.  I choose to fight for and to preserve what we already have, rather than to give in to Liberal bullying which seeks to impose upon the whole of America the first option, a Liberal "democracy".  If it were a Liberal "democracy" then it cannot be a democracy, just as if it were a Republican or a Conservative "democracy" then it cannot be a democracy.  The descriptor itself is an oxymoron.  The word "democracy" means subject to the will of the people and not subject to an "either or" philosophy, one or the other, including neither a Liberal nor a Republican nor a Conservative, nor Christian anything.

    Conclusion: We already have a Republic with a democratic system of elections by voter franchise, which provides for its citizens to exercise their right to accept or reject any political platform advanced by any political Party.  That right allows the people to vote against the politic of any Liberal, Socialist, Libertarian, Communist, Conservative or other Party, each of which must act in accord with the will of the people, because the governing Party is the servant of the people.  Its policies must reflect that will, some of which may embrace Liberalism, Conservatism, Socialism and Libertarianism.  If they embrace Communism, they are no longer democratic policies.  You asked that question due to your flawed reasoning and a flawed understanding of what "democracy" means, for the very reason that the Liberal Democrat Party has sold out to Marxist protocols, which are not democratic.

    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    Grafix said:
    @piloteer - You wrote ...
    As an atheist, I do worship Greco Roman philosophy because it is in fact philosophy. As far as Islamic teaching, it is not at all philosophy, it is Abrahamic religious “teaching”, therefore it does not warrant being worshipped in manner.

    Your first sentence - I too have sincere admiration for the Greco-Roman philosophers' philosophies. 

    Your second sentence - I agree again.  Islam is not a philosophy, but was incentivized for the purpose of conquest.  The pretence of adopting the Hebraic teachings served only one purpose, to obtain a following to wage war in the name of a "religion", so to believe there was any genuine regard for Abrahamic teachings is erroneous. The Islamics are the very Nemesis of both Judaism and Christianity, beheading them daily to this day.  The grand total of Christians slaughtered at the hand of Islam, across the centuries, are numbered in the billions, yet Islamics are less maligned by our Liberal and atheist kinsmen than we Christians are by our own Western kinsmen. 

    If you are somehow at war with Islam, that doesn't concern me in the least. I am not here to sympathize with or be expected to protect Christians or any member of any mythology.   
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @piloteer -  Your response to this conversation  ...

    @piloteer said:  As an atheist, I do worship Greco Roman philosophy because it is in fact philosophy. As far as Islamic teaching, it is not at all philosophy, it is Abrahamic religious “teaching”, therefore it does not warrant being worshipped in manner.

    @grafix said: Your first sentence - I too have sincere admiration for the Greco-Roman philosophers' philosophies. 

    Your second sentence - I agree again.  Islam is not a philosophy, but was incentivized for the purpose of conquest.  The pretence of adopting the Hebraic teachings served only one purpose, to obtain a following to wage war in the name of a "religion", so to believe there was any genuine regard for Abrahamic teachings is erroneous. The Islamics are the very Nemesis of both Judaism and Christianity, beheading them daily to this day.  The grand total of Christians slaughtered at the hand of Islam, across the centuries, are numbered in the billions, yet Islamics are less maligned by our Liberal and atheist kinsmen than we Christians are by our own Western kinsmen. 

    @piloteer said: If you are somehow at war with Islam, that doesn't concern me in the least. I am not here to sympathize with or be expected to protect Christians or any member of any mythology.   
    Islam has been at war with Christianity every since its inception for centuries.  Where have you been?  I would expect an American citizen to know that, but the ignorance of atheists never ceases to amaze.  You yourself said Islam is not a philosophy.  I agreed with that and then took that straight back to the topic, i.e., knowing that is the case, knowing that Islam was formed as an excuse for war and conquest, knowing that it lops off Christian heads, knowing that Christianity, unlike Islam, is a peaceful philosophy, then why would a non-Islamic Westerner, prefer to worship at the altar of Islam than at the altar of Christ?  It makes no sense.

    You still fail to address this obvious anomaly and contradiction in thinking.  I say bigotry explains this anomalous and illogical attitude. Prove me wrong, then.
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @MayCaesar - Read my last reply on this page to Happy K above.  It rebuts your arguments as well, because you travel under the same misconceptions.
    .
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1712 Pts   -  
    Grafix said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 -   That's a complete furphy.  Many TITLES to many things are capitalized in headings, headlines, articles, scholarly papers, dissertations, lessons and chapters of books.  Debate the topic and quit whining.
    @Grafix
    That does not make sense. Furphy means "a rumour or story, especially one that is untrue or absurd". I was making a polite obsecration, not a furphy. Now, about the topic: Pagans were generally more peaceful than monotheistic people. They accepted that people would worship different gods, and respected all those who did. The monotheistic theists, however, killed all those who worshipped different gods, which I'm sure we can all agree is not very peaceful. So, I would say that the pagans would have been more peaceful.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5969 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @Grafix

    It really does not. Look, ideologies do not commit atrocities; humans do. However, ideologies are often used to justify atrocities, or to organise people to commit atrocities. In this regard all mainstream religions have a very poor record. You could say that the religions themselves have nothing to do with it and that people pervert them in order to weaponize them... Perhaps. However, the fact that religions are so easy to pervert and weaponize speaks volumes about their nature. You cannot easily pervert and weaponize a good idea, such as, for example, a free market, can you? No, the idea has to have some very specific properties in order to be weaponizable.

    From studying various ideologies (religious and otherwise), I believe that the main property that makes them weaponizable is being rooted in fantasies. When something is rooted in solid logical foundation, you cannot easily misinterpret it without breaking that foundation and making it obvious that you are not talking about what you claim you are talking about. But when something is rooted in fantasies or pseudo-science, then it already has a broken logical foundation, and as such breaking it even further does not make much difference in the eyes of people.

    Socialism, Christianity, Islam, Fascism, etc. - all these things are based on ideas that are not supported by any evidence. They are idealisations of the world, they are how people strawman a lot of things in the world in order to make it look simpler than it is. It does not mean they have to lead to atrocities, but it does mean that they are very convenient tools to do so.

    Compare it to what the Greek philosophers talked about... They appreciated the inherent complexity of the world and refrained from making big claims they could not back up with strict logic. Their goal was to understand the world better, not to convert someone into their subjective views. Socrates even developed a famous questioning method which is applicable to any view, including ones he himself held. Criticising their own ideas was at the core of their world view.

    Is this the case with the "evil four", as I call them - socialism, Christianity, Islam and fascism? Hell no. Among the followers of these ideologies asking inconvenient questions is frowned upon. In many Christian and Islamic theocracies of the past people were executed for even daring to suggest that the holy books did not contain truth only; in socialist and fascist countries similarly questioning the dominant ideologies was always, at the very least, dangerous.
    In Ancient Greece questioning the official ideologies was what the whole philosophy was about. Were there still atrocities? Sure. But to connect those atrocities to the philosophers would be terribly wrong. There were some philosophers - for example, Plato - who believed that certain atrocities were justifiable and even necessary, but even they, again, kept an open mind and constantly debated these views with people, rather than trying to force them on them.

    Regarding religion itself, Ancient Greece and Rome were quite a bit more critical of it. While Christianity and Islam contain the idealised supreme beings that are always right, Roman and Greek gods constantly betrayed each other and humans; rather than being avatars of virtue, they were seen as, in turn, idealistic manifestations of various human traits, both good and bad ones. While people worshipped those gods and even sacrificed humans for them sometimes, the gods themselves were not seen as perfectly good beings; no, they were seen as perfect in very specific aspects, not necessarily positive ones.

    I can go on and on, but the crux of it is that Ancient Greece and Rome had very contrarian cultures, while Christian and Islamic countries have had very conformist cultures, and only relatively recently did some of them break out of it. People still refrain from making harsh statements about god in public in the US, for example, because of the stigma associated with it: the country is still heavily religious, and questioning this religion, again, is frowned upon.

    There is a reason the Founding Fathers had such admiration to Ancient Rome, as opposed to, say, European cultures of their time:  they themselves, while heavily religious, were heavily critical of established religious theories. Ancient Rome contained a lot of contrarian elements the American system was built on, something that monotheistic religion-based societies typically lack.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @Grafix

    If your head was "lopped off", I get the feeling nobody would know the difference. All Abrahamic religious teachings are not philosophy, they are "spiritual" teachings. As far as one Abrahamic sect being at war with another, it still does not concern me other than it is a great source of entertainment. I am not a member of "western culture", and there is no need for me to abide by some doctrine of "western society". The American ideal centers around individualism first and foremost. That is the doctrine I abide by.           
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 - You wrote ....
    That does not make sense. Furphy means "a rumour or story, especially one that is untrue or absurd". I was making a polite obsecration, not a furphy. I
    You misunderstand.  I wasn't defining your comment as the furphy.  I was defining the rumour or the story which you accepted as the furphy.  You then wrote ...
    Now, about the topic: Pagans were generally more peaceful than monotheistic people. They accepted that people would worship different gods, and respected all those who did. The monotheistic theists, however, killed all those who worshipped different gods, which I'm sure we can all agree is not very peaceful. So, I would say that the pagans would have been more peaceful.
    The era to which you allude, references the early Hebraic peoples, (Hebrews), particularly when they entered the land promised to them by God - The Promised Land - later named by the Romans as "Palestine".  At the time the Hebrews entered it, it was known as Canaan.  The Canaanites were sodomites and paedophiles - paedophilia legalised through arranged marriages with child brides - according to both historical and Biblical Texts, and the  reason God set His people at war against them, to wipe them out.  They practised Satanic rituals of sacrificing baby infants to their Gods in burning flames, burning them to death.  Are you defending that?

    God has historically throughout the historical record and as also accurately documented in the Biblical texts, demonstrated that He shows NO mercy towards such licentiousness and debauchery.  Nothing has changed, except that Christ civilized and changed the rules, provisioned that we Christians must now leave it up to God to judge these abominations.  We still abhor them, however, in a very peaceful manner and no longer physically wipe them out by the sword with armies.  They are even given equal rights by the State, so quit whining and perhaps review your world view of defending depravities, while attacking Christianity..

    I remind you, that Christianity was not even in existence during that era.  Also you persist with the same, same, same misconception which all Atheists peddle in their attacks upon Christianity.  Why they even need to attack it is telling.  Christianity is not a material entity.  It is a metaphysical philosophy.  How can it go out and slaughter people?  If I have said it once, I have said it a dozen times in this forum, those who would defy the moral principles, the Christian precepts taught by Christ, those who defy its doctrinal Canon of teachings are not acting according to the Christian moral code at all.  They defy it.  Quote a passage to me from the Christian Gospels, the teachings of Christ, where He advocates the slaughter of anyone?  He gave us the Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill".  L E T   T H A T   S I N K    I N .  Meanwhile, Islam is slaughtering Christians daily, to this day, with no need to go back eight thousand years, but you are silent against them.  Say nothing and look the other way.
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @Grafix

    @Grafix ;

    ****** Christianity is not a material entity.  It is a metaphysical philosophy.  How can it go out and slaughter people?  


    Yet  you state in your next sentence ......**** Meanwhile, Islam is slaughtering Christians daily, but you are silent.


    Do you ever check the you write? You contradict your own and don’t even know you’re doing it
    Blastcat
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1712 Pts   -  
    @Grafix
    I'm sorry, I don't understand how the use of shouty caps could be helpful in any way. Now, about the pagans. I agree with you that it is not the religion itself that kills people, it's the follower of the religion. Did you know that the Qur'an prohibits killing as well? The Christian god is not very forgiving, especially in the Old Testament. 
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @piloteer - You wrote ....
    All Abrahamic religious teachings are not philosophy, they are "spiritual" teachings.
    You are half right.  It is both.  If you knew anything about the Christian doctrinal Canon and its teachings you would already know that it is both.  It's Ten Commandments double as both laws and as philosophies, including much of the teachings outside of the stated precepts of its law.  One law is, for example, "Love they neighbour as thyself", which is the moral equivalence of the Confucian philosophy, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".  That is unarguable and we readily identify that phrase as a "philosophy" taught by that same Chinese philosopher; Kongfuze (K'ung Fu-tzu) 'Kong the master of Philosophy', known to us as Confucius.  I don't think you can fly the argument that Christianity is not a philosophy, therefore.  Confucius even had "disciples", just as Christ also did.  Then you bleatingly plead ....
    As far as one Abrahamic sect being at war with another, it still does not concern me other than it is a great source of entertainment. I am not a member of "western culture", and there is no need for me to abide by some doctrine of "western society". The American ideal centers around individualism first and foremost. That is the doctrine I abide by.   
     How little you understand the primary necessity in appropriate debate of objectivity, particularly when debating the philosophy of others.  I don't give a rat's arse what or who you are, as you clearly don't give a rat's arse about who or what I am, indifferent to my head lopping, needing to state you would not miss it.  We aren't debating your background, your politic or the culture you hail from.  We are debating the merits of various philosophies. 

    In that regard, I made the point that, although we are agreed that Islam is not a philosophy, I used the fact that the grand total of Christians slaughtered at the hand of Islam, across the centuries, is numbered in the billions, yet Islamics are less  maligned by our own American atheist Liberal kinsmen than we American Christians are. I was making the point that the philosophy of Atheism is not only anti-God but anti-Christian.  It supports the attacking of Christianity, too often citing atrocities going back centuries, which it loves to blame Christianity for, although they are all before Christianity existed, yet with no need to go back centuries, it's followers ignore and are silent about atrocities occurring under their very noses to this day - the slaughter and oppression of Christians daily by Islamic, North Korea and China governments.  The point being made was that I have no respect for such cowardly double-speak and hypocrisy in the philosophy of atheism, touted by its followers, but it seems my point was completely lost on you. 

    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @MayCaesar - This statement below contradicts the one which went before it, May.  Having just acknowledged that it is not the philosophy which is to blame, in the very next breath you state this ...
    .... the fact that religions are so easy to pervert and weaponize speaks volumes about their nature.  
    It's a contradiction in terms and an oxymoron.  The philosophy, (religious doctrine), never changes. I T   I S   S E T   I N   S T O N E   by God.  The fakery, abuse, chicanery, fabrication and subterfuge of flawed humans claiming TO ACT  in the name of a religion has no power to alter the philosophy or doctrines of that religion.  The religion repudiates them as they have repudiated it by their very own actions.  Then you claim ...
    You cannot easily pervert and weaponize a good idea, such as, for example, a free market, can you? No, the idea has to have some very specific properties in order to be weaponizable.
    Really?  Why do you suppose the GDP of every Western nation with free-market capitalism is flagging badly, compared with third-world nations like Asia and others?  It's because the free-market capitalist system has been hijacked, abused, used and warped into a crony-capitalist system.  Multi-national corporatism, (globalism), in its anti-competitive take-overs, mergers, acquisitions and amalgamations to squeeze out competition and to dominate markets, thereby controlling markets, trade and pricing, has destroyed free market capitalism, it unable to compete and operate.  Your claim is a complete falsehood made in ignorance.  Any  human construct can be corrupted, no matter its solid foundations, due to the inherent flaws of human nature.  To deny that is to deny our very flaws. Next, by pretending Christianity is a "fantasy", although it is based on material evidence, the strongest being its founder, Christ Himself, you then attempt to build this false argument ....
    When something is rooted in solid logical foundation, you cannot easily misinterpret it without breaking that foundation .... But when something is rooted in fantasies or pseudo-science, then it already has a broken logical foundation, and as such breaking it even further does not make much difference in the eyes of people.
    Pity you won't apply the judgements "rooted in fantasy" and "pseudo-science" to your fabled Big fat Bang, Evolution and Common Ancestor junk science, for which there is ZERO hard evidence, eh?  This argument is a covert way of saying, don't accept the Christian religious moral codes, because Christianity has no solid foundation, is based on a fantasy, (Christ is apparently a fantasy) and therefore it is easy to debase its moral codes, to alter them and be as immoral as we like, that the people won't care, given there is no need to value it, because it is all merely fantasy.  W R O N G.  

    The undeniable factual evidence of the truths of Christianity keep mounting, reinforcing its fact-based history with proofs being discovered in science and archaeology pouring in and demanding that we pay more attention to the Christian teachings than every before - precisely what Atheism hates and is railing against - evidence it can only deny, which it does until its last dying, deceptive breath.  That it cannot defeat Christianity which has endured now for over 2,000 years sticks in its craw.  Christianity's very endurance destroys this strawman argument from the get go.  Christianity IS  so enduring precisely BECAUSE  of its solid foundation in truths and fact-based evidence.  Then you prattle on further with ...
    Socialism, Christianity, Islam, Fascism, etc. - all these things are based on ideas that are not supported by any evidence. They are idealisations ..... It does not mean they have to lead to atrocities, but ... they are very convenient tools to do so.
    I agree. Socialism/Communism, (both dictate atheism as the State religion, LOL!), Islam and Fascism are all vehicles of Statist oppression, but you err in classing them as ideologies.  In truth they're not.  They are social and government constructs to enable a totalitarian control of the people by government.  They preach no "ideology" in the true definition of the word.  For example,  Socialism/Communism demands an Atheistic socialist collective, with everything turned over to the State.  Any higher moral idealism is punished due to the diktat  of Statist atheism.  All that's left is a mechanism of control.  The ideology part is a propagandist deception.  It has always failed the people, BECAUSE  the construct has no  ideology.  Socialism centralizes power in the hands of a few.  Historically power corrupts.  The few controlling the reins of power act as dictators and fascists.  Then you pretend that it is a viable argument to compare these constructs with the Greco-Roman philosophers.  Socialism, Islam & Fascism are not "philosophies".  They're political mechanisms.  The only one which is a philosophy and ideology is Christianity, subsequently your argument is a hotch-potch of false equivalents.  Nevertheless, you try to make comparisons, as follows ...
    Compare it, [the previously noted political mechanisms] to what the Greek philosophers talked about.  ...  Their goal was to understand the world better, not to convert someone into their subjective views. .... Criticising their own ideas was at the core of their world view.
    In this hopelessly confused diatribe, Christianity is the only system you mention which fits into the identities of philosophy and ideology and which can be compared with other philosophies, in spite of your desperate attempts to hitch it to political mechanisms.  It is not a political mechanism at all.  It is both a system of law and a philosophy, basing its laws on its reasoned philosophy, such as "Love thy neighbour as thyself", which is the moral equivalence of the Confucian philosophy, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".  Happy to call that a philosophy, but yet not the Christian equivalent a philosophy is a glaring hypocrisy.  Then you again try to blame the philosophy for the actions of those who actually repudiate it, by stating ...
    In many Christian and Islamic theocracies of the past people were executed for even daring to suggest that the holy books did not contain truth only.  
    This statement is mired in abject ignorance.  It joins Christianity at the hip with Islam, accusing it of atrocities which it has never committed.  I am not aware of any law, precept or doctrinal Canon in the philosophy of Christianity which requires the slaughter of anyone.  Christianity repudiates killing in its primary law, "Thou shalt not kill"  !!!!!!  Conversely, Islam not only schools its children in its Madrasas in Jihad, but actively engages in Jihad as a Canon of its doctrines written in its Koran, which is the slaughter, by beheading, of infidels - non-believers of Islam - yet you put these two religions side by side.  

                                                                                                                                                              T H E Y    A R E    D I R E C T     O P P O S I T E S   !!!

    Again, you switch horses midstream in another confused babble of incomprehensible argument with this ...
    But to connect those atrocities [Roman barbarisms] to the philosophers  [Plato and Ors] would be terribly wrong. ...  for example, Plato ... believed that certain atrocities were justifiable and even necessary, but even they, again, kept an open mind and constantly debated these views with people, rather than trying to force them on them.
    So let me get this straight. Although, Christianity, likewise a philosophy with primary laws of  "Thou shalt not kill" and "Love thy neighbour as thyself", and which does not condone any forceful conversion to it, unlike Islam, but leaves it open to choice, all key tenets of its philosophy - contrary to your outrageous claims - and which is not represented by any government, dictator, or army, NEVERTHELESS cannot be excused but Plato can be?  ... yet Plato's philosophy espoused "certain atrocities are justifiable".  Plato is fully excused, by you, because it would be so "terribly wrong to connect those atrocities"  to him.  The bigoted inability to extend the same equal and even-handed treatment to Christianity is patently clear.  Such attitudes are steeped in unbridled hatred of Christianity, couched in double-speak, vile hypocrisy and double standards.  Your text is an aberration, a repudiation of everything this nation stands for, let alone confused, incoherent waffle, brimming over with anti-Christian sentiment and bigotry in its fullest glory. 
     
    Again, you repeat the fatal flaw of chaining Christianity to Islam, claiming it, like Islam, does not tolerate criticism.   Really?  Christians are the most persecuted peoples in the world.  Where are the Christian armies marching against Christianity's enemies to slaughter its beheaders in retaliation?  Instead, we see Christianity meekly "turning the other cheek", as its founder instructed it to do.  Instead, we see Christian nations opening their borders - and the only nations doing so - to the very culture which is its slayers. Take a look for yourself, as graphically illustrated below ....  



    Then in the same breath you excuse  the failings of flawed humans, but yet again, only on the side of the pagans, with this ....
    Roman and Greek gods constantly betrayed each other and humans; rather than being avatars of virtue, they were seen as ... idealistic manifestations of various human traits, both good and bad ones. While people worshipped those gods and even sacrificed humans for them sometimes, the gods themselves were not seen as perfectly good beings; no, they were seen as perfect in very specific aspects, not necessarily positive ones.
    That is certainly factual, but your argument is slyly employing it to justify an immoral endorsement of the failings of humans, with no shame in doing so.  In other words, endorsing a philosophy based on overlooking and excusing the flaws of humans, in order to nullify the concept of striving for self-improvement and for higher ideals, directly in opposition to Christian ideology.  Yeah I get it. No lofty, noble idealism here, instead just choose the low road and do whatever to our heart's desire, because the Greco-Roman pagan Gods said it's OK.  Right, got it.  And what sort of moral standard does that foment in any society?  The very ones we saw wreak the collapse of the Roman Empire - licentiousness, debauchery, degeneracy, paedophilia, sodomy and incest, all practised in the Greco-Roman era.  Good one!  Moving right along, we then get ...
    People still refrain from making harsh statements about god in public in the US, for example, because of the stigma associated with it: the country is still heavily religious, and questioning this religion, again, is frowned upon.
    I see through the small "g" for God.  This is really what this big fat whine is all about.  Forget the fact you are free to question Christianity to your heart's desire, evidenced right here and clearly do so in choosing to be an atheist.  If that were not the inescapable truth, as opposed to your fallacious claim of being oppressed, then you would not be able to openly practise your atheism, let alone write a truckload of garbage like the above, would you?  Yes we are still primarily a nation which cleaves to the Christian concept, however vague our personal connection to the nation's Judeo-Christian roots may be and it has nothing to do with the U.S. government and everything to do with the culture of its people.  Don't like our culture?  Tuff Titty, babe.  It is the Will of its people, verily demonstrated by that very recognition of that as a stigma, which you rail against.  Quit trying to change it.

    Time to take a laxative and pop that self-appointed oracle right out the other end.  If you cannot fit in with American ideals, then maybe you migrated to the wrong nation.  A S S I M I L A T E  or  L E A V E. The freedom to whine against America's ideology, founded on the Western Judeo-Christian ethos, is a right which its very ideology grants to you and fiercely protects for your benefit,  but yet you rail against it, unable to appreciate it, in your ungrateful and stinking thinking. 

    Like the rest of your UNHOLY diatribe, your very last sentence is an aberration and a complete fabrication.  If you cannot write according to the truth, then don't write at all and spare us your bile.
    .
    Blastcat
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @Dee - Sigh, Dee. Maybe I should come over to your house once a week and school you in the art of comprehending plain English.  You wrote ...
    @Grafix ;

    [Grafix said:]  ****** Christianity is not a material entity.  It is a metaphysical philosophy.  How can it go out and slaughter people?  
    Correct.  I did write that.  Then you complained with this ...
    Yet  you state in your next sentence ......**** Meanwhile, Islam is slaughtering Christians daily, but you are silent.   
    Do you ever check the you write? You contradict your own and don’t even know you’re doing it
    What?  Where's the ?  Since when has a Christian person been a metaphysical philosophy? The word "metaphysical" means having no materialistic structure that can be seen, touched or felt.  It is non-physical.  We are very physical in our being.  Can be touched, seen and felt.

    Islam is not a philosophy, it is a political construct, a theocracy which has written into its law the practice of Jihad, which means to school its young in Madrasas in the practice of Jihad.  The practice of Jihad is to slaughter, by beheadings, those who are identified as Infidels.  That's us.  You and me.  We are Infidels, according to Islam, because we reject the Islamic so-called religion, are non-believers of the Islamic religion.  We are also not in our person a metaphysical philosophy, either, hence we can be slaughtered at the whim of Islamic Jihad.  Unlike a mataphysical philosophy, such as Christianity, we could pick up a gun and shoot a Jihadi, but we don't because our Christian philosophy, a metaphysical entity, holds to the law of, "Thou shalt not kill".  I don't see that metaphysical philosophy walking around in the flesh, do you?  i don't see it walking around holding a rifle, do you?  It can't because it is not a physical entity, apart from the fact that if it could, it would not, because its own philosophy forbids it..  Understand now?
    .
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @Grafix

    **** Sigh, Dee. Maybe I should come over to your house once a week and school you in the art of comprehending plain English. 

     Sigh , maybe you should man up and admit your blatant hypocrisy as in you claiming......... *

    *** Christianity is not a material entity. 

     Islam is not a material entity

     ****is a metaphysical philosophy.
     It is a metaphysical philosophy

     ****How can it go out and slaughter people?

     How can it go out and slaughter people?

     Islam as a subject that deals with "first causes and the principles of things".which makes it a metaphysical philosophy Your blatant double standards are hilarious , when cornered and called on your double standards you as usual attempt to your way out and do it very badly
    Blastcat
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    ***** Sigh, Dee. Maybe I should come over to your house once a week and school you in the art of comprehending plain English. You wrote ... Sigh , maybe you should man up and admit your blatant hypocrisy as in you claiming......... **** Christianity is not a material entity. Islam is not a material entity ****It is a metaphysical philosophy. It is a metaphysical philosophy ****How can it go out and slaughter people? How can it go out and slaughter people? Islam as a subject that deals with "first causes and the principles of things".which makes it a metaphysical philosophy Your blatant double standards are hilarious , when cornered and called on your double standards you as usual attempt to your way out and do it very badly
    Blastcat
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @Grafix

    The philosophy of American idealism does not align with your view of some sort of clarion call that I haven't heard that you feel somehow beckons me to come to the aid of all Christians world wide. We are a nation that allows us the freedom to pursue our own happiness. Because we have that freedom, that means we are free to not have to be called on to come to the aid of others outside of our nation whenever their safety is in danger. We are free to embrace the fact that if they cannot fight for and attain there own freedom of their own accord, then they probably don't deserve freedom to begin with.

     How can I get on with my pursuit of happiness if I'm expected to be "on call" to support others outside our country by financially supporting, or to be expected to be drafted whenever others freedom is "at stake"?  The merits of the philosophy of individualism can easily be demonstrated to be superior to your collectivist ideology. The idea that I must consider any others, let alone Christians before myself is not an American ideal. It is more akin to the ideals of communism and social justice which I do not invest any faith into. Your communist philosophy runs contrary to the true ideals of American individualism.  I'm pretty sure the government of China and North Korea are not Islamic, but that's neither here nor there because the ideals of individualism allot me the freedom to realize it's not my problem if they mistreat Christians. It is the problem of those Christians alone. If we are expected to be called upon to fight for the freedom of others who cannot attain it for themselves, we cannot consider ourselves to be free ourselves. 

    I do not owe you or any Christians an apology for the supposed oppression committed by Islam or any other groups for any reason. I do not align myself with any religious groups, I am a representative of myself alone. Your claim that Christianity is a philosophy because it is inspired by other philosophies does not convince me. I do not deny that Christianity, and other religions do possess many of the merits of great philosophical thinkers like Confucius, but that does not render those religions philosophical in and of themselves. 

    The philosophy of individualism also espouses the merits of peace. Aligning ourselves with other political, religious, cultural or racial groups is a purposeful alignment with collectivism and needless struggle. Part of accepting the merits of peace is a full understanding that alignment with the struggles of others is an alignment with war. To truly accept peace, we must have a realization of how we can become part of the problem when we capitulate to the "clarion call" of struggle. If you yourself head the call for the struggle of other Christians, that is your choice alone and does not concern me in any manner. I do not align myself with the struggles of others over my own pursuit of happiness, my embrace for individualism, and my acceptance of peaceful resolution.

     Your assertion that I am "anti-God" or "anti-Christian" does not move me or alarm me in any manner because I do not seek the approval of those who claim to be a proper representative of Christian values. The bible says that we all fall short of God's grace, including yourself, so you are in no way in higher standing than I when it comes to God's supposed love and forgiveness. It also means that an assertion by anybody of being a representative of God or Christianity is fallacious because according to the bible we are all representatives of human kind and no one person stands above others in that sense.  
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -  
    @Dee - Gee, Dee, I have to openly admit, I missed your point big time.  Can't believe how badly I missed it, either.    I do owe you an apology regarding the semantics.  You win hands down.  Certainly Islam, like Christianity is not a material entity, subsequently, I agree I have used the term incorrectly.  I should have written "Islamics are slaughtering Christians".  So shoot me.  

    Now that we've sorted that out, what precisely was you point, other than to nitpick in the most flagrant form of pettifogging that I have seen yet coming from you.  Well done and what a complete waste of time, because it still does not in any way shape or form alter my arguments, at all.  Like to now try to refute those?  But you won't.  You never do.  You just fill up these pages with the most useless waffle in a way that I have never before seen on any chat board, as prolific as yours.
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  
    The Liberal-Philosopher-Atheist-Islam all worship the same god, Satan. They are peas-in-a-pod because in this life constrained by Time mankind has but two-options concerning spirituality and eternal destiny:

    1) Trust in Jesus Christ-Yeshua as God who died to pay your sin-debt and find forgiveness of sin and life in Eternity - or -

    2) Reject Jesus Christ-Yeshua as God and live a life of futility, meaninglessness and die in sin and Hell.


    JGXdebatePROBlastcat
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    The below video is just another example of what you people need to witness with your own eyes - the official  opening ceremony of the Gotthard Tunnel in Switzerland


    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @Grafix The demon of the alps is clearly visible coming out of the tunnel in that video. Since they just dug a tunnel right through the mountain where it is said to reside, it only makes sense that a literal demon should come out of the hole.

    https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2016/06/07/opening-swiss-tunnel-may--isnt-satanic/

    Oh wait, that's just a guy in a costume. Never mind, guess the demon isn't real and we don't have to worry about anything.
    piloteer
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    @Grafix

    You really should learn not to continue forcing q-tips into your ears when you encounter resistance. 
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @Grafix

    ***** I should have written "Islamics are slaughtering Christians".  So shoot me.  

    Where are these “slaughters of Christians taking part “? Regards Jihad tell me how that’s happening all over the world?

    Also you constantly claim “well they’re not real Christians “ when Christians engage in despicable behaviour using the no true Scotsman fallacy time and time again , your own government under Bush talked about a “crusade” against certain countries you do know what a “crusade” is right? Proving yet again your appaling hypocrisy.

    Please don’t write back with a long winded copy and pasted novel in reply
    Blastcat
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @Grafix

    You know that old show from years ago Seasme Street?   The coookie monster in that was not a real monster , humans sometimes wear things called costumes that make them appear to be something they’re not , don’t worry you will cover it some day in kindergarten 
    Blastcat
  • GrafixGrafix 248 Pts   -   edited March 2020
    @Dee - You really can't be serious when you pretend such ignorance  ...
    @Grafix -  Where are these “slaughters of Christians taking part “? Regards Jihad tell me how that’s happening all over the world?







    Then you try this one on, showing a complete lack of comprehension of what is actually being said ...
    Also you constantly claim “well they’re not real Christians “ when Christians engage in despicable behaviour using the no true Scotsman fallacy time and time again , your own government under Bush talked about a “crusade” against certain countries you do know what a “crusade” is right? Proving yet again your appaling hypocrisy.

    I'll reply back however I see fit, bossy britches and if you are too lazy to read it, then more the ignorant fool ye be.  Quote back to me where I have said that "they are not really Christians".  I have no idea whether they are really true Christians or not.  That is between them and God.  Let no man judge another on the score of his state of sin or his relationship with God.  That is a teaching of Christ Himself.  I say that the individual actions which do not align with the teachings, the laws, the doctrinal precepts and moral codes of the Christian religion are not true reflections of Christianity.  They are not true reflections of the teachings.  They do not truly represent what Christ taught.  Condemn the actions, not the philosophy.  Condemn the actions, not the teachings.  Condemn the actions, not the religion.  

    The reason you are so ignorant, the reason I must repetitiously over and over type the same thing is because your brain has shut down to anything other than what you want to believe.  Your ears and eyes are closed tight.  It demonstrates not only an inability to see the world as it is, but an inability to listen, to process information and to think logically, aside from the bigotry you harbor, which is more than apparent.
    .



    Blastcat
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @Grafix

    Yet another hate filled rant from a guy who thinks people wearing costumes are “demons” and card and coin tricks are done by utilizing satanic forces enough said 
    Happy_KillbotBlastcat
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch