Is truth worth it?

Re: Is truth worth it?
You made the claim now back it up with facts: "Christianity has generally made civilization better". If you cannot back up your claim with facts, your claim is exempt of merit.

Sloooooooow down
Jeese I've just come here and already your attacking me with all your strength.

And numerous Christian charity groups have been set up. Before you ask me to name one - Tear Fund

If you perceive questioning your highly dubious claim that "Christianity has generally made civilization better" as a so-called "attack" then you have much to learn.

As to your claim that Christian charity groups support your assertion that "Christianity has generally made civilization better"; what evidence do you have to conclude that if there was no Christianity, there would be no charity groups or less charity groups?

Why would there not simply be more Buddhist charity groups for example?

Why would there not simply be more non-secular charity groups for example?

Why would there not simply be more non-religious
charity groups for example?

Further, what evidence do you have to conclude that witch burnings, religious wars, bigotry, pogroms, anti-Semitism, forced ignorance, homophobia, etc. all in the name of Christianity are mediated by Christian charity groups to such an extent that "Christianity has generally made civilization better"?

You've got a point there.

I do think charity groups have a potential to be a net benefit.

You know, it's not possible to give proof and examples to back up everything you say.

Enough of this, you're obviously far more experienced in debate. Do you mind going back to Evolution? How?

It would be accurate to say your claim that "Christianity has generally made civilization better" is without substance. My debate skills are not the relevant point.

Bleerie hell!!

aperson,

I agree with Chumly that belief in God is generally pernicious if it is seems sometimes locally beneficial. The "proof" or otherwise of a deity per se would largely be irrelevent since humans seem to have a need to believe in "something" to give their lives purpose, whether that something is a celebrity or aliens or the local team. The problem for society is in essence those socio-pathic religions/beliefs that see "a next world" as taking priority over this one. Nazism based on "the spirituality of the warrior" would not seem to be effected by the existence of a deity.

I am speaking of Christianity, not other religions and cults

As everyone knows I am a Buddhist, and no friend to the Abrahamic religions. Apersons association of "truth" with Christianity is more open to question than his/her assertion that Christianity as "generally made civilization better". Chumly asked Aperson to provide instances where Christianity made things "better" (another value term dependant upon the viewer).

Here is an example that Aperson might have cited:

Prior to the introduction of Christianity its generally believed that the Druids magic was dependent upon human sacrifice. We may not know for certain that the lives of the Irish people was improved by the introduction of Christianity, but it was Christianity that eventually tamed the fury of the Vikings. The importance of Christianity to establishing the foundations of Anglo-American values has been cited by numerous historians. Name one? Winston Churchill.

One might argue that the world might have been better off had the humanistic values that grew out of the history of Christianity in Europe. If the there had been no Christian Europe, would feudalism would have been a stable social system for a thousand years? Would invention been as important to the Renaissance if it had not come after the Plague had dealt an overbearing Church a heavy blow? Would we have developed our ideas about religious tolerance if the wars of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation had not torn Europe apart in such a bloody fashion? Slavery disappeared in Europe and America, at least in part because the institution never set well with most Christians. In other parts of the world today, in the 21st century slavery still exists. Was it a good thing that the British, in their righteous Victorian and Christian bigotry banned the practice of wives being burned on their husbands funeral pyres in India?

Christianity along with its sister, Islam, and Mother Judaism are neither as "bad" as their opponents would have them, nor are the as "good" as their followers claim. Religion has its rightful and important part to play in human societies. It can help or hinder "progress", and it frequently defines what is "progress", "stagnation", or "destruction".

BTW, welcome to A2K Aperson. You might want to cut your teeth on a thread that is less contentious than "Religion", or "Politics". The site has about the same number of fanatics, and crazies as society in general. You find here thoughtful and open-minded people who will treat you with respect and civility, in about the same numbers has you will bump into on Mainstreet. We have folks whose intelligence is good enough to turn on a computer and peck out the semblance of English, and those who could make a living writing scholarly books on exotic topics. Stick around. Explore and find your feet in one of the best such sites on the internet. Oh yes, take the time to read the earlier postings before jumping in. You may find that your question/comment has already been dealt with in a complete manner. You will find, I think, both entertainment and education in "hearing" the views of the community.

Christian influence didn't do any good to the Americas. The Native culteres here lived in peace and had many quite developed cultures. Christinaity may have made life better for the europeans, but not nessisarily the world.

Asherman,

well I hope there are a lot more highly intelligent people than I bump into on the street.

Asherman,

And I'm not in fact, Christain. Nor am I atheist. I'm still deciding. That's part of the reason I came here - to view the worlds opinions.

Aperson,

I'm afraid you will be disappointed if you expect to meet more "intelligent" folks here than you will encounter on the streets of almost any village, town or city in the world. One can only hope, and cherish those you are lucky enough to find.

I'd like to suggest that you look further afield than the Abrahamic faiths which have pretty much wiped out other religions in the Americas, Europe and Southwest Asia. Buddhism, Taoism, and the Jains all offer an alternative to the Abrahamic religions.

Diest TKO,

Actually the aboriginal inhabitants of the Americas were not all that peaceful, nor idealistic as Rousseau, and others, have imagined. The Aztec Empire was built on massive human sacrifice, slavery and outright oppression of neighboring tribes. Life amongst the nomadic Plains tribes was often feast or famine. Women in some matriarchal tribes owned the property and were important policy makers, but in most tribes they were virtual slaves. Life was brutal and often very, very short. Infant mortality was high, and few lived to an advanced age.

It is true that the native peoples were reduced from 8 million or so prior to the arrival of the Spanish, to less than a million in the early 20th century. It is not, however, correct to imply that the die-off was an intentional policy of the Europeans. Most Indians died from disease that their immune systems were incapable of fighting. Relatively mild European childhood diseases, were often lethal in the Americas. Indians were regarded as not quite human, and followers of pagan religions that had to be stamped out ... to the greater glory of the King and Church. Those sort of paternalistic and chauvinistic attitudes are thankfully long buried. The question of European culpability for the reduction in native population is not all that simple.

There is no way to know with any firm degree of objectivity if Christianity has generally made civilization better or worse nor by how much, unless you have a control. This would entail something to the effect of two parallel worlds, one in which Christianity flourished as it does now, and one in which Christianity did not and hence other events took place.

IOW without this subjective alternative history, (the best we can do is a speculative thought experiment) conclusions about the net effects of Christianity in any absolute sense are unsustainable.

In fact my argument can be taken further to say that given the random nature of historical events, even if the control world turned out to be worse without Christianity, it would not be a definitive indicator that in our world, in this case, we could define the net effects of Christianity as being positive.

However if we expand/alter the premise to ask whether all the actions taken in the name of the Abrahamic religions have a net benefit at this point in today's world, and hence eschew historical implications, I suggest the evidence is relatively clear that the net is a strong negative.

Asherman,

Yes I have thought beyond Christianity, to Buddhism, but my family is Christian, all the schools I went to were Christian, I live in a Christian city in a Christian country, I sang in a number of Christian church choirs for a period of 13 years, and everyone I know is either Christian or Atheist.

Historical events are rarely random. Everything is connected, but it is ultimately impossible to untangle the skein to any particular causality with a high probablility of being correct.

The bottom line is that there are usually both "good" and "ill" effects for every decision, every act that is made by an individual, or a nation. That suffering can result from the best of intentions is almost a truism. It is unfair to apply the common morality of today to those who lived in an earlier time under conditions far from our own.