A Challenge For Xians From Mr Hitchens

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

 

 

Now, since it has been established that you would willingly commit atrocities in the name of christianity, are you willing to admit that such atrocities have occurred?

Yes or no, End3?

 

Hold on there partner. My willingness to shoot some douchebag who beheads people is against what I believe as a Christian. I really wouldn't have the knowledge to know if my actions were just if I chose that option. Two, give me an atrocity to choose from and I will form an relative opinion.

 

 

Wow.  Your problems go deeper than obfuscating on an internet forum.

 

No, I'm sure this discussion is a philosophical one that has been previously contemplated. My take at the moment is that it's a matter of scale.

 

That's not an answer.  The question was very straightforward and so far you have not even come close to answering it.

[Orbit]

 

Are you willing to admit that atrocities have been committed in the name of christianity?

Yes in a sense

 

In a sense? Can't you just say yes or no?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Are you willing to admit that atrocities have been committed in the name of christianity?

Yes in a sense

 

Sense you insist on answering with a vague proviso, I begin to wonder if you're not just toying with me.

 

In what sense have atrocities been committed in the name of christianity.

[mymistake]

 

Are you willing to admit that atrocities have been committed in the name of christianity?

Yes in a sense

 

 

 

This is like trying to teach somebody with a crippling phobia of spiders to touch a plastic spider replica.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Touch the spider, end. You know you want to.

[Guest end3]

 

 

Are you willing to admit that atrocities have been committed in the name of christianity?

Yes in a sense

 

Sense you insist on answering with a vague proviso, I begin to wonder if you're not just toying with me.

 

In what sense have atrocities been committed in the name of christianity.

 

I think those acts that are done with evil intent are atrocious. Those acts that deemed atrocious in order to preserve decency, I don't think so. Examples would be war or the death penalty....imo of course.

 

So because we are human, certainly there have been atrocious acts.

[Orbit]

 

I think those acts that are done with evil intent are atrocious. Those acts that deemed atrocious in order to preserve decency, I don't think so. Examples would be war or the death penalty....imo of course.

 

So because we are human, certainly there have been atrocious acts.

 

End, the Spanish Inquisition, which tortured and burned people for being in "league with Satan", had the best of motives; they were saving their souls. There was no evil intent. Are these acts not atrocities?

[midniterider]

Please don't forget that my belief system is essentially pass/fail. One sin is no greater or less than another.....hence categorizing something as good or evil.

 

If we are rating good and evil, I assume we would have to look at the origin of "humanist" and evaluate.

 

I'm not stealing a candy bar from your store. :-)

[midniterider]

 

 

Are you willing to admit that atrocities have been committed in the name of christianity?

Yes in a sense

 

In a sense? Can't you just say yes or no?

 

 

It's 'yes or no' , 'pass or fail' .... until God is on trial...then it starts to get a little fuzzy... lol  ... quick! Get the lawyers!

[midniterider]

 

I think those acts that are done with evil intent are atrocious. Those acts that deemed atrocious in order to preserve decency, I don't think so. Examples would be war or the death penalty....imo of course.

 

So because we are human, certainly there have been atrocious acts.

 

 

Hitler wanted the master race. He had good intentions. Get rid of those Jews. Well, the Jews didnt agree. :-)

 

Some countries have the best of intentions to ethnically cleanse the 'inferior' race...or 'purge the infidels' or the 'wrong colored people' crossing the border.

 

Every aggressor has his justification (let's bomb Pearl Harbor...we got our reasons) . And so does the defender (we'll nuke those fuckers back, it will..uh, umm , save lives in the long run!). One person's honest good intentions can be another person's definition of evil.

 

"Give me an atrocity to choose from and I will form an relative opinion." Does a relative opinion mean you can understand why someone thinks God is wrong to kill a race of people as well as why you believe God was justified? In coming up with a relative opinion would you take into consideration what each side of the equation felt was good and felt was bad about what occurred? Can you jump into the other guy's shoes for a moment and feel his anger and pain? A small moment? 

 

I know I'd like tell everyone that spews anti-Obama crap to fuck off...but they are right sometimes. Is God wrong sometimes? (Probably never, eh?) ha :-) Anyway, enjoy.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

Are you willing to admit that atrocities have been committed in the name of christianity?

Yes in a sense

 

Sense you insist on answering with a vague proviso, I begin to wonder if you're not just toying with me.

 

In what sense have atrocities been committed in the name of christianity.

 

I think those acts that are done with evil intent are atrocious. Those acts that deemed atrocious in order to preserve decency, I don't think so. Examples would be war or the death penalty....imo of course.

 

So because we are human, certainly there have been atrocious acts.

 

So, would it be fair to say that you agree that atrocities have been committed in the name of christianity with evil intent?

[Guest end3]

So, would it be fair to say that you agree that atrocities have been committed in the name of christianity with evil intent?

Yes.

 

I would please like to ask you a question now. Are the acts of bombing ISIS last evening atrocities?

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

So, would it be fair to say that you agree that atrocities have been committed in the name of christianity with evil intent?

Yes.

 

I would please like to ask you a question now. Are the acts of bombing ISIS last evening atrocities?

 

Will leave  TRP to answer this, but end, you might find it helpful to define "atrocity":

 

atrocity (əˈtrɒsɪtɪ)

n, pl -ties

1. behaviour or an action that is wicked or ruthless

2. the fact or quality of being atrocious

3. (usually plural) acts of extreme cruelty, esp against prisoners or civilians inwartime

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atrocity

 

[iSIS members are neither prisoners nor civilians]

[mymistake]

 

So, would it be fair to say that you agree that atrocities have been committed in the name of christianity with evil intent?

Yes.

 

I would please like to ask you a question now. Are the acts of bombing ISIS last evening atrocities?

 

 

 

In my opinion no.

 

 

See how quickly and directly I answered?  I don't wiggle or hedge.  I don't make you repeat your question six times.  I don't make you wait four days.  The US bombing ISIS is an act of war.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

So, would it be fair to say that you agree that atrocities have been committed in the name of christianity with evil intent?

Yes.

 

I would please like to ask you a question now. Are the acts of bombing ISIS last evening atrocities?

 

Yes.  In my view, all acts of war are atrocities.  Sometimes they are necessary; most of the time, they are not. 

 

With that said, however, the coalition is not bombing ISIS in the name of any particular religion; certainly not in the name of christianity.

 

Now, we have, at long last, arrived at the point at which you acknowledge that atrocities have been committed in the name of christianity with evil intent.  From this point you can finally respond to the OP by naming at least one such atrocity. 

 

Will you do it?

[Guest end3]

 

 

So, would it be fair to say that you agree that atrocities have been committed in the name of christianity with evil intent?

Yes.

 

I would please like to ask you a question now. Are the acts of bombing ISIS last evening atrocities?

 

Yes.  In my view, all acts of war are atrocities.  Sometimes they are necessary; most of the time, they are not. 

 

With that said, however, the coalition is not bombing ISIS in the name of any particular religion; certainly not in the name of christianity.

 

Now, we have, at long last, arrived at the point at which you acknowledge that atrocities have been committed in the name of christianity with evil intent.  From this point you can finally respond to the OP by naming at least one such atrocity. 

 

Will you do it?

 

That was never my intent. Matter of fact, you have just made my point by declaring those without religion are capable of atrocities even with their meandering intuitive good-doing.

 

Add +1 to my frustration level.

[Guest end3]

 

 

So, would it be fair to say that you agree that atrocities have been committed in the name of christianity with evil intent?

Yes.

 

I would please like to ask you a question now. Are the acts of bombing ISIS last evening atrocities?

 

 

 

In my opinion no.

 

 

See how quickly and directly I answered?  I don't wiggle or hedge.  I don't make you repeat your question six times.  I don't make you wait four days.  The US bombing ISIS is an act of war.

 

Would you please elaborate in detail why you don't think this fall in to atrocious behavior?

[Orbit]

 

 

 

So, would it be fair to say that you agree that atrocities have been committed in the name of christianity with evil intent?

Yes.

 

I would please like to ask you a question now. Are the acts of bombing ISIS last evening atrocities?

 

Yes.  In my view, all acts of war are atrocities.  Sometimes they are necessary; most of the time, they are not. 

 

With that said, however, the coalition is not bombing ISIS in the name of any particular religion; certainly not in the name of christianity.

 

Now, we have, at long last, arrived at the point at which you acknowledge that atrocities have been committed in the name of christianity with evil intent.  From this point you can finally respond to the OP by naming at least one such atrocity. 

 

Will you do it?

 

That was never my intent. Matter of fact, you have just made my point by declaring those without religion are capable of atrocities even with their meandering intuitive good-doing.

 

Add +1 to my frustration level.

 

You are missing the point, which is that atrocities are committed in the name of religion, specifically because of religion. Atrocities are not carried out in the name of atheism.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

So, would it be fair to say that you agree that atrocities have been committed in the name of christianity with evil intent?

Yes.

 

I would please like to ask you a question now. Are the acts of bombing ISIS last evening atrocities?

 

Yes.  In my view, all acts of war are atrocities.  Sometimes they are necessary; most of the time, they are not. 

 

With that said, however, the coalition is not bombing ISIS in the name of any particular religion; certainly not in the name of christianity.

 

Now, we have, at long last, arrived at the point at which you acknowledge that atrocities have been committed in the name of christianity with evil intent.  From this point you can finally respond to the OP by naming at least one such atrocity. 

 

Will you do it?

 

That was never my intent. Matter of fact, you have just made my point by declaring those without religion are capable of atrocities even with their meandering intuitive good-doing.

 

Add +1 to my frustration level.

 

You are missing the point, which is that atrocities are committed in the name of religion, specifically because of religion. Atrocities are not carried out in the name of atheism.

 

No, I didn't miss anything O.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

So, would it be fair to say that you agree that atrocities have been committed in the name of christianity with evil intent?

Yes.

 

I would please like to ask you a question now. Are the acts of bombing ISIS last evening atrocities?

 

 

 

In my opinion no.

 

 

See how quickly and directly I answered?  I don't wiggle or hedge.  I don't make you repeat your question six times.  I don't make you wait four days.  The US bombing ISIS is an act of war.

 

Would you please elaborate in detail why you don't think this fall in to atrocious behavior?

 

 

 

Due to the nature and behavior of ISIS reducing ISIS power will overall reduce human suffering.  Keep in mind that I am against US involvement in Syria for political reasons.  I am not happy about bombing ISIS.  However I do not consider it an atrocity.

 

 

(Again, a nice quick response.  I don't have to hedge my answers because I am not afraid that God is watching and getting pissed.)

[mymistake]

 

 

 

 

 

So, would it be fair to say that you agree that atrocities have been committed in the name of christianity with evil intent?

Yes.

 

I would please like to ask you a question now. Are the acts of bombing ISIS last evening atrocities?

 

Yes.  In my view, all acts of war are atrocities.  Sometimes they are necessary; most of the time, they are not. 

 

With that said, however, the coalition is not bombing ISIS in the name of any particular religion; certainly not in the name of christianity.

 

Now, we have, at long last, arrived at the point at which you acknowledge that atrocities have been committed in the name of christianity with evil intent.  From this point you can finally respond to the OP by naming at least one such atrocity. 

 

Will you do it?

 

That was never my intent. Matter of fact, you have just made my point by declaring those without religion are capable of atrocities even with their meandering intuitive good-doing.

 

Add +1 to my frustration level.

 

You are missing the point, which is that atrocities are committed in the name of religion, specifically because of religion. Atrocities are not carried out in the name of atheism.

 

No, I didn't miss anything O.

 

 

 

 

But you still have not answered the question.  I think you are afraid to name an atrocity done in the name of Christianity.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

So, would it be fair to say that you agree that atrocities have been committed in the name of christianity with evil intent?

Yes.

 

I would please like to ask you a question now. Are the acts of bombing ISIS last evening atrocities?

 

Yes.  In my view, all acts of war are atrocities.  Sometimes they are necessary; most of the time, they are not. 

 

With that said, however, the coalition is not bombing ISIS in the name of any particular religion; certainly not in the name of christianity.

 

Now, we have, at long last, arrived at the point at which you acknowledge that atrocities have been committed in the name of christianity with evil intent.  From this point you can finally respond to the OP by naming at least one such atrocity. 

 

Will you do it?

 

That was never my intent. Matter of fact, you have just made my point by declaring those without religion are capable of atrocities even with their meandering intuitive good-doing.

 

Add +1 to my frustration level.

 

That is very revealing.

 

I think you are forgetting what your point was.  Allow me to remind you: you made the claim that humanists also commit atrocities.  The fact that bombing ISIS is not being done in the name of religion does not support this claim.  You're simply trying to slide the claim that "those without religion are capable of atrocities" in place of the claim you originally made. 

 

So, no, I didn't just make your point.

 

Secondly, are you unaware of which countries are taking part in the airstrikes?  Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia?  I'm pretty sure they have religion in those countries.  I'm also fairly certain that the actual people participating in the airstrikes are probably religious.  So, even if your point had been that "those without religion are capable of atrocities", you've still failed to support it.

 

So, since you revealed that answering the OP was never your intent, and you failed to support either of the claims you've tried to make, what's left for you to do in this thread?

[Guest end3]

I think you are forgetting what your point was.  Allow me to remind you: you made the claim that humanists also commit atrocities.  The fact that bombing ISIS is not being done in the name of religion does not support this claim.  You're simply trying to slide the claim that "those without religion are capable of atrocities" in place of the claim you originally made. 

 

So, no, I didn't just make your point.

 

Secondly, are you unaware of which countries are taking part in the airstrikes?  Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia?  I'm pretty sure they have religion in those countries.  I'm also fairly certain that the actual people participating in the airstrikes are probably religious.  So, even if your point had been that "those without religion are capable of atrocities", you've still failed to support it.

 

So, since you revealed that answering the OP was never your intent, and you failed to support either of the claims you've tried to make, what's left for you to do in this thread?

I was strictly working off of your "atrocity" opinion. Please don't add to my "intent". Please go re-read my initial post regarding Mr. H. It was generic, not specifically aiming at humanism. I later USED humanism as an example. You're beating a dead horse sir.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

So, would it be fair to say that you agree that atrocities have been committed in the name of christianity with evil intent?

Yes.

 

I would please like to ask you a question now. Are the acts of bombing ISIS last evening atrocities?

 

 

 

 

In my opinion no.

 

 

See how quickly and directly I answered?  I don't wiggle or hedge.  I don't make you repeat your question six times.  I don't make you wait four days.  The US bombing ISIS is an act of war.

 

Would you please elaborate in detail why you don't think this fall in to atrocious behavior?

 

 

 

Due to the nature and behavior of ISIS reducing ISIS power will overall reduce human suffering.  Keep in mind that I am against US involvement in Syria for political reasons.  I am not happy about bombing ISIS.  However I do not consider it an atrocity.

 

 

(Again, a nice quick response.  I don't have to hedge my answers because I am not afraid that God is watching and getting pissed.)

 

So you have a particular belief that condones blowing these people into pieces and this is different HOW?

[mymistake]

 

 

 

(Again, a nice quick response.  I don't have to hedge my answers because I am not afraid that God is watching and getting pissed.)

 

So you have a particular belief that condones blowing these people into pieces and this is different HOW?

 

 

Reading fail?  Dude, if you can't read then there is nothing I can write that will fix the problem.

 

 

Edit:

Oh wait, this is just a tactic for you.  You want to get the conversation away from your phobia.  Can you name an atrocity that was commited in the name of Christianity?  Can you name an atrocity that was commited in the name of humanism?  No games please.