In the past, certainly not. Christianity was responsible for one of the darkest times in history, and the the warping/destruction of knowledge that existed at the time to propagate the power of their religion.

Nowadays, I could see a decent argument being made for Christianity being a force for good when you look at the people like the new Pope who are pushing for the Church leaders to help out with the poor and less fortunate. However there are still plenty of situations where people discriminate against others in the name of Christianity, forgetting that the main purpose of their religion is to spread the message of God, not to pass God's judgment on people.

I thought the other debate was a well-argued tie. I judge this one clearly a victory for Crazy Anglican (although I am, as a participant in this event, doubtlessly biased).

jmo, are you referring to the Middle Ages? I think the historical consensus is both that the "Dark Ages" never really were that "dark," and the problems of late antiquity and the early Middle Ages have little to do with Christianity. You might be referring to something else. I'd be interested in your further thoughts.

When I read these debates, I often consider what I would have said were I in the debaters' places. I can say with certainty that I would have avoided the tone and line of argumentation obiwanobiwan's opening statement. I feel that it is needlessly hostile and it considers only the worst instances of divinely-inspired acts. I would take the stance instead that not only was the Inquisition bad, but also that the presence of the do-good priests/parishioners/whatever constitutes an active harm to society.

On the other hand, were I in place of Crazy Anglican, I would have gone down a similar line of reasoning. One thing I might note is that he needn't go after obiwanobiwan's previous forum statements to build his case. It comes off as reactive when he is on the affirmative side. I also would have considered three things when positing that Christianity has been a force for good: artworks, the preservation of knowledge, and its enduring interpretations of morality. Note that obiwanobiwan and Crazy Anglican appear to have a very similar moral outlook, and I think it has its origins in Christian thought.

I have more things to say, but I haven't the time. I'll return later to flesh out my thoughts.

Yikes, what a train wreck.

I was thoroughly displeased with CA's repeated use of ad hominem attacks in the debate. Throughout the debate he attacked Obi's motives, even called him "poisoned", and in general his tone was not at all what I expected from these debates. I also thought that CA complaining about the scriptural line of argument was gutted by his insistence that any Christian evil-doers were not "real Christians". Well, on what basis can one make that determination if not scripture? Also, the "saving people from hell" as an example of Christian being a force of good was rather astounding. There would be no hell without Christianity inventing it...

On the + side for CA, he successfully cornered Obi after Obi made the mistake of admitting he hadn't read the bible while simultaneously insisting on a scriptural line of argument. He also caught Obi on his over-reliance on Hitchens, who engaged in a number of dubious quotations. CA also did a good job of making a utilitarian-esq actuarial case for why Christianity is more good than bad, based on # of people killed by Christians vs good works. It's a kind of strange bead-counting exercise coming from a theist, but nonetheless I'm partial to such logic. The social network point was also a sound one. And I thought CA's willingness to defend the extermination of the Amalekites was courageous and he successfully disarmed that line in my view.

Obi has a number of problems. First his insistence on a scriptural line of argument while admitting that he hadn't read the scripture was a real deflator. I thought mentioning the fact that 90% of Christians hadn't read the bible in the end hurt the argument. If you're going to trace back Christian atrocities to the Bible, saying most people haven't read it sort of undermines your point. On the other hand, it also negates CA's claim that those who engage in atrocities aren't "true Christians". It appears that 90% of Christians are unfamiliar on a basic level of what Christianity entails. I didn't really see the punch-line when it came to the lengthy discussion of how Christianity is a 'command' based ethical system. That doesn't really negate whether or not it is a force for good. Commands can result in good consequences. Obi seemed to repeat lists of atrocities without really addressing the sort of actuarial/bead counting argument that CA was making. I thought Obi's repeated use of Hitchens quotes was a bit of a cop-out, particularly copying debate links. The purpose of this wasn't to see other people debate the question. Finally, Obi had a tendency to drift into topics not germane to the question at hand, particularly when he got wrapped into a discussion about whether religion was necessary for other-regarding behavior.

On the + side for Obi, he at least kept focused on discussing Christianity rather than the foibles of his opponent, and did not attack CA as a person.

*three additional things

I was generally referring to the inquisition, as well as the origins of Christianity and the forced integration of paganism into the Christian community. The destruction of books, and other works of art during the inquisition was a large part of what I was referring too, but then you have other more isolated incidents like the witch trials in Europe and the Salem region. There have been enough historical events tarnishing the name of Christianity that I cannot honestly call it a force for good despite some of the good it has done.

However, I have not read the complete set of arguments used by both members, so Crazy Anglican very easily could have made better and more logical arguments. I will try and read through the entire debate this weekend and let you know who I thought was the winner.

obiwan really missed the point here. Instead of focusing on the topic at hand, he took the r/atheism approach and just cherrypicked slices of the Bible without taking a step back and looking at the big picture, which was the crux of the matter. CA made some excellent points, particularly regarding the highlighting of Jesus' words above all others in the Bible, which I even have to acknowledge is an excellent point.

I have two issues with CA's arguments. First, he never really gets around to defining the word "saved" as it pertains to his usage; for example, when he mentions the pro-life doctor that had a hand in saving nearly 1000 lives at a pregnancy resource center. When those lives were "saved", was death directly prevented, or was quality of life improved? Did the center perform 1000 life saving operations, or provide antibiotics that avoided complications from an STD? It is an important distinction to make, since earlier in his opening statement, he makes the claim that only 8 individuals have lost their lives in the abortion debate in the past three decades. Doubtless that it is a great statistic, but does that include the number of abortion seekers, rape victims, or unwanted children that may have had their quality of life diminished by a lack of abortion access? "Saved" is a very broad term, but "deaths" are very clear cut, and I think CA's presentation of these numbers were heavily biased and should be considered as such, rather than being a tacit implication of fact.

My second issue, and this may be nitpicking, is the lack of a basis of comparison for the good deeds done in the name of Christ. Organizations such as Habitat for Humanity are tremendous assets to the global community, and nobody would argue that the world would be better off without them, but it is disingenuous that charity exists only because of Christianity. The Red Crescent (the Muslim world's Red Cross) also serves millions in need, but is not founded on Christian principles. The Water Project digs wells in Africa without the need to also spread the gospel. Ceteris paribus, its fairly safe to say that charity would exist without Christianity, so to imply that Christianity is the sole driving force behind global charitable organizations is slightly disingenuous.

@Putin, that's a very interesting point, that many active Christians have not read the bible. I am curious, does anyone know if this is considered to "reduce" ones status as a Christian? My understanding is that the word of God is passed and interpreted by the higher members of the church. It is not the responsibility of the common man or woman to interpret the Bible, which is why their knowledge of it is limited to what their Church leaders pass onto them. In that sense, failing to read the bible does not hurt the argument that many church atrocities can be traced back to the bible. Since it is the bible that is the stem of all Christian belief, no matter how that belief was passed on to the individual members. Does that seem a valid point or is my understanding of Christians responsibility when it comes to knowing religious text flawed?

Yes yes that seems a valid point. Even though Protestants nominally abide by "sola scriptura", it seems like they still get their biblically inspired moral information transmitted by religious professionals.

Okay, reading through this I feel like Obi missed out on the main arguments and instead focused on fringe issues or half issues without actually providing enough support that Christianity is not a force for good. While I agree with Obi, that it is not a force for good historically, Crazy Anglican won this debate.

Am I the only one who can easier understand arguments when they are brought in a raging, troll-ish way than wrapped in so many next to pointless words?

Is it possible you are confusing understanding and entertainment, steephie?

No, not really. The fact is that if I focus on this thread for a couple of minutes I basically only know about a person or two if they are Christian.

In your average thread, you can't really read for a couple of minutes without knowing many arguments. Then you just have to rank them a bit and you have a good idea of what the usual arguments of both sides are.

Looked like a KO to CA to me, while the first was perhaps a win on points to semck83. Are there any more to come?

It'll be interesting to see if any of the theist observers can objectively analyze these discussions. So far I've seen no effort at all.

Putin, I'm pretty anti-theist and I still think obiwan seriously missed the mark here.

That's what he's saying, he meant will anyone theist offer criticism of Crazy Anglican's argument or the first debate which wasn't so one sided.

@Jmo: You wrote, <<My understanding is that the word of God is passed and interpreted by the higher members of the church. It is not the responsibility of the common man or woman to interpret the Bible, which is why their knowledge of it is limited to what their Church leaders pass onto them.>>

Man, what century are you reading?? That battle was pretty much fought in the 1500s. Here's an excerpt from our favorite source, Wikipedia:
"Luther taught that salvation and subsequently eternity in heaven is not earned by good deeds but is received only as a free gift of God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ as redeemer from sin and subsequently eternity in Hell. His theology challenged the authority of the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church by teaching that the Bible is the only source of divinely revealed knowledge from God[2] and opposed sacerdotalism by considering all baptized Christians to be a holy priesthood.[3] Those who identify with these, and all of Luther's wider teachings, were called Lutherans even though Luther insisted on Christian as the only acceptable name for individuals who professed Christ.
His translation of the Bible into the vernacular (instead of Latin) made it more accessible, which had a tremendous impact on the church and on German culture. It fostered the development of a standard version of the German language, added several principles to the art of translation,[4] and influenced the writing of an English translation, the King James Bible.[5] His hymns influenced the development of singing in churches.[6] His marriage to Katharina von Bora set a model for the practice of clerical marriage, allowing Protestant priests to marry.[7]"

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

And how does that reconcile itself with the fact that the majority of Christians haven't read the Bible and instead rely on their preachers?

This point was already addressed Mujus. Thanks for sourcing wikipedia, anyway.

@Mujus, my understanding is that people in the church are taught to rely more on the Church leaders interpretation of the Bible then on their own readings. Isn't that why kids are sent to Bible school or why Mass is held? So that people can learn from the people who have already been taught a specific interpretation of the Bible? Please correct me if I'm not correct in that. But from my studies, friends, and the few times I've gone to mass that is the impression I've gotten. That Christians rely more on higher members in the Church for understanding religious text then they do on their own readings.

You mentioned in the wikipedia post that people are encouraged to sing in Church hymens but there's a huge difference between memorization and comprehension. Same with having it translated, sure it was translated, but was that only for the leaders of mass who only read German, or was it so that *all* church members would read and make their own interpretations? Like I said my understanding was that it was the former, but I would like to be corrected if that isn't accurate.

Whether or not a given "Christian" faith uses oral tradition and education or individual reading is pretty much a matter of denomination. Catholics, I believe, rely mostly on their priests for their spiritual education. Where as Baptists are solidly in the "read hoi Bible daily and pray before for understanding" camp with weekly Bible studies. Us Lutherans tend to a daily reading plus weekly readings in service and an optional Bible study usually focused on a group (men's study, singles study, yound adult study, etf.)

@ mendax: <<And how does that reconcile itself with the fact that the majority of Christians haven't read the Bible and instead rely on their preachers?>>

Source please.

I'm torn on this question. I think at its core, Christianity's required belief that without God you are nothing is horribly damaging to the human psyche, and it stands in irreconcilable opposition to my most fundamental beliefs. I do not see humanity as inherently flawed or in need of fixing, and I cannot reconcile that with a belief system that holds that to be true.

But at the same time, I know entirely too many people who claim that their Christian faith keeps them grounded and secure, and being all too familiar with the negative effects of a dearth of both (as anyone who's ever seriously pondered these core philosophical considerations has felt), I can't possibly see how that faith can be considered negative. I think I could make the argument that perhaps they ascribe their inner strength to their religion in error, but I'm not in their heads and I'm not able to see their thought processes; and it would be the height of arrogance to suppose such a thing without that. If millions of people can give credit to their Christian faith for their ability to lead secure, happy lives, then I cannot say that it is a force for evil.

I suppose I don't hold either side to be correct. It's what you do with it, not what it is, that defines whether it is a force for good or not. I think Christianity is a deeply flawed instrument that, in good hands, is still capable of making beautiful music.

In whatever context you look at religion the for camp are believers and the againsts are non-believers, you can argue the toss all you want but what does either hope to prove, that they are right ?? Religion is sometimes a faith because that is exactly what you need to believe in something you can't prove.
Having faith or belief in something is a great and wondrous thing whether it be a deity, a partner, a team, a political philosophy, Justin Bieber .... because it makes us feel good and there is nothing wrong with feeling good.
I think what can be irritating is the pious and sanctimonious attitude that some religious types have, an arrogant attitude that non-believers need saving from themselves, if the God-botherers got on with what they are doing and left the rest of us in peace the world would be a better place, and an end to all wars based on religion would be a big help also.

Jmo, you are correct that there are churches that are spiritually dead where God's word is not taught and studied. But even within those churches there are some who know Jesus and put their trust in him and have willfully chosen to follow him. I know this from my own experience, but here is a quote from Revelation Chapter 3 that shows that this was going on from the beginning of Christianity:

3:1 “Write this letter to the angel[a] of the church in Sardis. This is the message from the one who has the sevenfold Spirit[b] of God and the seven stars:

“I know all the things you do, and that you have a reputation for being alive—but you are dead. 2 Wake up! Strengthen what little remains, for even what is left is almost dead. I find that your actions do not meet the requirements of my God. 3 Go back to what you heard and believed at first; hold to it firmly. Repent and turn to me again. If you don’t wake up, I will come to you suddenly, as unexpected as a thief.

4 “Yet there are some in the church in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes with evil. They will walk with me in white, for they are worthy. 5 All who are victorious will be clothed in white. I will never erase their names from the Book of Life, but I will announce before my Father and his angels that they are mine.

6 “Anyone with ears to hear must listen to the Spirit and understand what he is saying to the churches."

Even in the Old Testament, there were times of revival and times of falling away. Nehemiah Chapters 8-10 tell of the rediscovery of the scriptures when the people of Israel returned from exile in Babylon:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=nehemiah%208-10&version=NLT.

However, there are also Christian churches of many denominations where God's word is taught and is the standard by which other teachings are measured. If you would like to visit one or more of those, PM me where you live and I will try to find some that you can choose from to visit.

Here's is Wiki's explanation of Luther's sola scriptura doctrine: "Sola Scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, it demands that only those doctrines be admitted or confessed that are found directly within Scripture or are drawn indirectly from it by valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning. Sola Scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God."

Jmo, there is a spiritual battle being waged both inside and outside of churches. But if a church teaches anything other than the way to reconciliation to God is by Jesus' sacrifice on the cross as told in the Bible, then it is in error.

@Mujus - many thanks for making my point perfectly. arrogant & pious individuals are a right turn-off

Christianity, and all contemporary religion, is a force of great evil. It's not just a tool that is misused, it is fundamentally and at its core, evil. People tiptoe around religion and mollycoddle it because they think to do otherwise is being disrespectful, and because it is so tied to infallible things like "culture" that we can't say anything about it. Plus the religious have this delightful habit of feigning "oppression" whenever somebody dares criticize them.

Anyway to the substance of the point - why is religion, and specifically Christianity, evil?

Reason #1 - The answers it gives to the puzzles of life are deemed infallible without investigation. It does not accept new information and will not correct itself. All new information is retrofitted to fit the narrative already given. Efforts at internal correction are inevitably met with violence because of its deemed "infallibility". The only way religion gets around its litany of obvious errors is to hide behind the poor way in which its commanding documents were written.

#2 - Related to point #1; it is a giant obstruction to enlightenment and greater understanding about the physical world. It has been since time immemorial. All information contrary to the sacred infallible dogma is physically repressed. History is awash with the errors of natural theology. It is also awash with martyrs who unnecessarily had to fight the infallible ones in order to discover the truth. This opposition to understanding continues on to the present day, with Christians everywhere blocking the teaching of Darwinian evolution and attacking Darwinian scientists, to such a point that the subject is barely taught in classrooms today. Meanwhile they conspire to inject junk "science" intelligent design theory, claiming it has equal validity. It is this very phenomenon that inspired the New Atheist movement that inspires so much teeth gnashing about he theistic community. Similarly, they strive to censor literature and art that doesn't conform to their dogma. Look at any story of why this or that book has ever been banned in the United States and inevitably it is because it ran afoul with the holy rollers.

#3 - Not only is it a giant obstruction to understanding the physical world, it is a giant obstruction to social progress. It is a fact that virtually all the churches lined up in support of slavery while it was an issue in American history, while the freethinkers, dissenters, and atheists supported the cause of abolition. The theists can only point to a handful of nominally Christian dissenters as "Christian heroes" who fought for abolition, but one only has to read the speeches of those who fought these battles to know who was on which side. This opposition to progress continues on to the present day. Poll after poll shows that opposition to gay marriage is in direct proportion to religious conviction. Church leaders throughout the country organized constitutional amendment referendums to ban same sex marriage across the country. Christians conspire to help pass draconian legislation in developing countries which make "homosexuality" a capital offense. They make it harder for women to get contraception. They routinely harass and intimidate people for getting check-ups and pap smears at clinics. They take photos of license plates and post people's personal information on websites. They harass relatives of people who go to clinics at their workplaces. This isn't some isolated "Fred Phelps" routine, it is done throughout the country by various church groups. Furthermore, they spread misinformation and lies with their "Crisis Pregnancy Centers", where women are inundated with propaganda and subject to a litany of scare tactics. Organizations like Operation Rescue, which enjoy wide support in the Christian community, have no qualms about terrorizing medical workers who have the courage to help people who need medical treatment. Even to the point of encouraging assassination, as in the case of Dr. Tiller, an event for which they refuse to apologize and take responsibility for. Again, this isn't some isolated act of terror, clinics are being forced to shut down because of these tactics. Some states barely have any functioning clinics, and those they have are under siege. When they're not doing this, they're conspiring to shut down Planned Parenthood, which overwhelmingly serves underprivileged communities with things like cancer screenings. The infallibles do not give a damn about the social cost of their antics. All they care about is being infallible.

#4 - Related to point #3 - Christians hide behind their church walls and preach political messages that they have no business preaching, all while claiming tax exemption status. It is they who are responsible for most of the misinformation and venomous propaganda regarding President Obama that we've had to endure over the past several years. Meanwhile they whine and cry about "persecution" whenever lawmakers have the audacity to say that they cannot impose their views on people just because they monopolize hospitals and other workplaces. Similarly they hide behind their religiosity as they rack up huge profits and pay executives huge bonuses in the healthcare industry, all while claiming to be "non-profits". Nobody knows how much money the Catholic or Mormon Church have because they can't be outdated, but suffice to say Christianity is a big business with long-reaching political tentacles and no accountability whatsoever.

#5 - The scripture from which they take their inspiration, is vile and wicked. It condones slavery, rape, murder, and unimaginable violence. It openly declares that the Messiah was sent to the world to divide families against each other, and to spread violence. It openly declares its intention to conquer the planet for Christianity. This command is made plain by the fact that the earliest Christians sought political power throughout Rome, and waged armed insurrection against Roman authorities. It is also made plain by the fact of the Messiah's crucifixion, a crime reserved for insurrection, and the fact that the Messiah consorted with known terrorists.

#6 - As for the supposed charitable work done by Christian organizations, scratch beneath the surface and it's all a big lie. One of the biggest and widely hailed "saints", Mother Theresa, was very wealthy but invested none of the money in helping the sick, instead focusing on deathbed conversions. She openly consorted with Haitian dictators and S & L scam artists. Much of the missionary "charitable work" is of a similar corrupt character. Billions of dollars are stolen around the world through missionary organizations. Reports by organizations like Transparency International are sober reminders of how replete corruption is in the missionary community. Reports of missionary work in India detail about how poor and sick people are coerced into conversion with promises of 'free of charge' medical treatment, food, or the promise of jobs. The exploitation of the poor and vulnerable by missionaries is truly one of the more despicable crimes of Christianity, and ironically the very one that is used to hail Christianity's supposed virtue.

The fact of the matter is polls show that non-believers are more willing to help others than believers, which speaks to the fraud of the Christian ethos. We'd all be better off, on every imaginable front, without it.

What the fuck happened to discussing the success or failure of the *arguments* presented in the debate. The subject itself is not what we are supposed to discuss here.