There is one thing that doesn't matter, and that is Jesus Christ

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > There is one thing that doesn't matter, and that is Jesus Christ

«‹›3 »

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

Oh wow look at me I'm so postmodern I don't believe in anything.

E:
Christians: ended slavery
Atheists: ???

Miltank fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Feb 6, 2015

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 14:41

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 03:50

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

Starving Autist posted:

Christians: for slavery before they were against it.

Every civilization in the history of the world has had slavery until pious Christians realized how poo poo it was.

E:^the wikipage you linked says otherwise brah

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 14:59

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

zeal posted:

Since you can't read, apparently:

"It was only in the early 16th century that the modern idea of the galley slave became commonplace. Galley fleets as well as the size of individual vessels increase in size, which required more rowers. The number of benches could not be increased without lengthening hulls beyond their structural limits, and more than three oars per bench was not practicable. The demand for more rowers also meant that the relatively limited number of skilled oarsmen could not keep up with the demand of large galley fleets. It became increasingly common to man galleys with convicts or slaves, which required a simpler method of rowing. The older method of employing professional rowers using the alla sensile method (one oar per man, with two to three sharing the same bench) was gradually phased out in favor of rowing a scaloccio, which required less skill.[154] A single large oar was used for each bench, with several rowers working it together and the number of oarsmen per oar rose from three up to five. In some very large command galleys, there could be as many as seven to an oar."

Do you have any conception of the conditions on an average Venetian merchant galley, owned and operated by good Christians? Hundreds of men kept in chains day night, sealed in the pestilential hull, whipped to keep rowing in the stew of their own offal until their bodies gave out and they were tossed over the side? Are you even capable of understanding what a monumental insult your self-congratulatory historical revisionism is to the millions of people who died screaming in the ships and sugar plantations and silver mines of the slave-owning Christian empires between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries? You gently caress? You trash? You ignorant child?

thousands of years of cultural inertia ground to a halt by God's elect.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 15:12

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

Rodatose posted:

ended monarchial serfdom

anabaptists tried to abolish private property back in the 16th century.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 15:14

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

CommieGIR posted:

I think that had more to do with them as human beings realizing how disgusting the practice was. That could've happened without their religion just as easily.

This is an entirely unfounded assertion. Cult of Zeus priests do not give a gently caress about the meek.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 15:17

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

VitalSigns posted:

...Shot the capitalists?

Yeah, ahiests created the USSR PDRC DPRK and other despotic hellstates good point.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 15:18

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

zeal posted:

That's a resounding 'No,' then. How sad, though hardly surprising.

First, slavery exists. It exists for millenia. Then, zealous Christians like John Brown (PBUH) rise up against established norms and fight to abolish it.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 15:22

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

VitalSigns posted:

I don't know that the DPRK can really be considered atheist considering their whole Eternal President Born On A Mountain With Singing Animals state cult.

The USSR was honestly bad enough on its own.

e: See also; plantation owners had no compassion for the weakest among them and therefore can't really be considered Christians.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 15:23

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

VitalSigns posted:

The people who committed the atrocities were bad people and therefore can't properly be considered atheists

the dprk thing was a no true scotsman, that was my point.

Starving Autist posted:

You can think that a religion is full of poo poo and actively makes the world a worse place to live without necessarily thinking its followers are all moustache-twirling comic book villains.

and yet, religion ended slavery.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 16:07

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

zeal posted:

Still no then. Cool. You're patting yourself on the back for your system of superstition taking over a thousand years to produce someone who thought: hmm, owning other human beings, as our own holy book says is justly allowed by God Himself, that might be wrong.

It took ten thousand years of Civilization before Christianity came along and ended slavery.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 16:09

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

OwlFancier posted:

I'm not sure you can attribute all the good things achieved in the world to religion because a lot of people are religious, unless you also attribute all of the bad things for the same reason.

Abolitionists were anti-slavery because of Christianity. Slaveholders were pro-slavery because money.

I am truly sorry that Christians didn't abolish slavery fast enough for all the Atheists itt.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 16:22

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

Using religion to justify cultural inertia is different from using religion to promote radical anti-establishment egalitarianism.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 16:25

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

Slavery without Christianity: keeps on going forever until Christianity stops it.
Slavery with Christianity: reactionaries try and warp scripture to support chattel slavery, it doesn't work and slavery is abolished.

e: abolitionists aren't abolitionists without Christianity.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 16:28

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

I always lol when I remember how atheists think morality is some sort of universal constant.

talk about magical thinking.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 16:31

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

CommieGIR posted:

Once again: So Abolitionists would've been okay with slavery had they not been Christian

Your statement or question or whatever it was is nonsense. Its like asking whether blue would still be blue if it was green.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 16:35

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

CommieGIR posted:

Either its a holy war, or they just like involving God a lot.

But let's step back a second: Christianity was just the cultural paradigm of the day back then, for both sides. Abolitionists used Christianity because people would listen if you involved their religion, and this is the same reason the South and North used Christianity in their political and military appeals.

This does not support Miltanks idea that Christianity was the motivator, nobody would have listened if they hadn't put a religious spin on it, because that was just how 1800s culture worked.

The 2nd great revival is considered by most historians as the catalyst for the abolitionist movement. You are literally wrong.

CommieGIR posted:

Nope. You made the claim, either provide supporting evidence that Christianity was the SOLE drivers in Abolition, or stop making the claim. The question is: If the Abolitionists were not Christian, would they have had no argument against slavery? Your statement is that you HAVE to be Christian to be an abolitionist, which by the way just means you are against slavery.

You can't ask questions like this and expect people to take you seriously. This is like a Dan Carlin level pseudo-intellectual "what if"

You don't HAVE to be a Christian to be an abolitionist, but all the abolitionists WERE Christians.

Miltank fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Feb 6, 2015

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 16:39

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

Starving Autist posted:

Or if religion wasn't made up for the sole purpose of exercising control over the weak and powerless but now pretends that it actually opposed the fact that it has been exclusively used for that purpose throughout its entire existence.

Christianity wasn't made up for the purpose of control so you are wrong right out of the gate.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 16:45

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

John Brown obviously was just pretending to be a devout Christian in order to trick dull-witted religious folk into supporting his atheist cause.

e:^ lol no

Miltank fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Feb 6, 2015

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 16:51

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

who ar eyou?

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 16:55

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

Kaal posted:

If John Brown invented abolitionism then he did it about century too late.

It is EXTREMELY telling that atheists think that the important aspect of abolition was just thinking it up. It took action and conviction of believe more than anything else.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 16:58

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

Starving Autist posted:

Yeah, it's a lot of effort to convince people that the teachings of the religion that they believe they have to follow or else they'll burn for eternity are actually wrong. But Christianity adapts, and eventually we have people like you who refuse to believe that the religion officially sanctioned slavery at the deepest level for the vast majority of its existence.

Hmmmm nope.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 17:03

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

Ah yes the First Republic, a shining example of Atheist society.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 17:07

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

Sinnlos posted:

I am only putting in the effort this thread deserves.

Christianity, being a religion based partly upon the philosophy and teaching of Jesus, has had a significant impact on world history. Yes or no?

No because any historical developments attributed to Christianity could have happened without Christianity because *farts*

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 17:27

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

Crowsbeak posted:

I almost think Commie has one of those simplistic views of history where everyone is only doing what they do for material gain.

It is extremely obvious that he is a historical materialist which is like... really not a productive method.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 17:34

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

CommieGIR posted:

And that is all I was saying. Seriously.

you said it terribly, congrats.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 17:35

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

CommieGIR posted:

From the guy who cannot take responsibility for the idea that his religion has done harm as well as good.

The Old Testament falls within the realm of the Christians, even if Christ wasn't in there.

The difference between you and me: I can accept that atheists do bad things, like Pol Pot and Stalin. You cannot even come to terms with the idea that your own faith has ALSO been used to do and justify bad things. Well done.

Christians ~~did~~do many terrible things. I reserve the right to call a Christian's faith lukewarm, but that doesn't mean they aren't "christian" in the descriptive sense.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 17:41

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

Starving Autist posted:

Oh come on, just earlier you were saying that slavers did not count as Christian, because slavery is un-Christian, despite it being explicitly endorsed by scripture.

I was ironically countering another poster's claim that DPRK wasn't atheist. Maybe try reading posts before posting posts? Just a little tip I picked up over my years of posting.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 17:48

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

CommieGIR posted:

You are Miltank are the ones arguing I'm a materialist, I am not arguing from that standpoint.

The question is whether abolitionists where morally outraged with slavery sans Christianity or not. The argument made by Miltank was that you HAVE to be Christian to be an abolitionist.

You argued that abolitionists used Christianity as a means to an end which is a standard materialist reading of history. Your line of thought about historical abolitionism without Christianity also led me to believe this because it was very materialistic.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 17:53

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

CommieGIR posted:

Your argument being that you have to be Christian to be an abolitionist. Which is demonstrably false. It still took legal viewpoints to completely dismantle slavery, and there is too many Christians on both sides of the pro/con field of slavery to say that your religion was the sole reponsible motivator.

I was arguing in an underhanded way by using 'abolitionist' in its academic meaning ie the American Abolitionist Movement which was specifically Christian. I have no doubt that there were atheist who were anti-slavery, but the First Republic is about as bad of an example of this as exists, not the least because they allowed slavery to continue in San Domingo.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 18:30

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

supermikhail posted:

I haven't studied this matter, but it seems there's a bit of a consensus that the earliest writings about Jesus go to 30 years after his death. And while I think that after that time it's plausible for there to be real recollections of a person and perhaps some of his sayings, it somewhat tests credulity for the entirety of even a single gospel to be remembered and orally transmitted over that time. Even the Jefferson's Bible doesn't seem very believable to me. I think a gospel of the size of a Grimm's tale would be much more convincing. I mean, why does everything have to be a direct quote from Jesus? Why couldn't it be just, "We've founds a bunch of witnesses, and they seem to agree that the core messages of the Sermon on the Mount were..."

The Gospels are a transcriptions of early Christian oral traditions. You are reading them in an entirely ahistorical way.

# ¿ Feb 7, 2015 15:54

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

Ocrassus posted:

I think this thread should shift away from the slave trade and focus on modern day issues that many Christians throw their weight behind.

Gay people and marriage is an excellent example. Where do you, Miltank et al, stand on this issue and are your reasons religiously motivated at all?

What about certain illegal drug use? A great deal of moralising from religion is used to justify its continued prohibition despite the empirical argument increasingly suggesting that it is a bad practice.

Jesus's teachings are generally presented as deontological principles, which I personally think have no place in a modern society.

Jesus doesn't seem to be especially interested in upholding cultural norms, particularly when they don't serve the interests of the meek. I support gay marriage for this reason and I believe that Jesus would support the LBGT community (or rather, condemn the church for its persecution of the same) if he lived today.

Drug use doesn't bother me, Jesus drank wine and I smoke mad weed. We need to reform our drug policy to keep it from unjustly harming minorities.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2015 05:34

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

au contraire, it is the love of money at the root of all evil.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2015 06:00

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

Orkin Mang posted:

if that's true then why are barter based societies full of a-holes too? anyway, yeah the love of money is an evil thing, but the fanaticism that underlies this love of money is itself a religious sentiment. if we were truly rational then we would think about it and discover that no, money is not the be all end all of everything, it's just a tool we use to make the world a better place without religion. one day we'll have sentient robots and a christian would want to make them slaves, but an enlightened society would treat them as equals.

You are correct that love of money is a form of religion, but wrong if you think that whatever you replace established religion with will not also be religion.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2015 06:12

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

Orkin Mang posted:

there's a place in the brain that's where irrational beliefs come from. every human has it but some people use it and others dont use it, depending how rational you are. i would propose that a christian for example vs a rational atheist would have this part of the brain more active, a brain scan would show up a whole bunch of electrical activity in that spot when you ask a christian to talk about the bible. im not trying to be mean i'm just saying that's what would probably happen. taking that bit of the brain out is illegal, so society is pretty much stuck with having to teach people not to keep using it, an impossible task! dont forget, george w bush was president and i think that part of his brain must have been as big as a grapefruit. humans are probably not the way in the long run. all it takes is one rational atheist robot designer to design a robot brain without this bit in it that's all, and it's hard to see how society wouldn't be much the improved for it.

This is some good pasta.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2015 06:27

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

Its one of those things where even if he's not a troll, his argument pretty much speaks for itself.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2015 06:43

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

SedanChair posted:

This old argument? "Not believing is just another kind of believing"? No it isn't.

Get rid of religion and it will replace itself with some other type of functionally identical irrationality. This irrationality won't necessarily have god or magic, but that won't actually make in any more rational.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2015 12:36

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

SedanChair posted:

I don't believe so. Some people will never be smart enough to be rational, it's true. But when you take away the sacrosanct nature of a particular kind of irrationality and stop saying "this is the one kind of irrationality you can't question, and it's a case where being irrational is totally good" then surprise, some people will actually become pretty good critical thinkers.

Lots of people will ascribe to irrational beliefs like neoliberalism or conspiracy theories or something but there is a difference. Religion is the only case where we specifically say making yourself irrational and insensible to good arguments is the goal and is praiseworthy.

I see this argument made a lot here but I haven't seen anything to back it up. The idea that because religion is objectively wrong, then it must also be harmful in some way- is there any evidence that supports this? I am skeptical of rationality because I recognize its moral limits.

Rationality is clearly the best way possible to understand the physical world around us. However, when it comes to understanding something that is outside rationality's domain, such as interaction and morality, then what you have will be the religious. Such religion informed only by rationality isn't guaranteed to be any more benevolent than religion informed by any other meaning.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2015 17:49

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

BrandorKP posted:

I don't think I'll ever really get the deep south.

"Protestant Christianity" as shorthand for participation in the Cult of State.

Miltank fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Feb 10, 2015

# ¿ Feb 10, 2015 20:03

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

Knowing bible facts (aka OT genocides and ancient legal codes) =/= knowing about Christianity.

# ¿ Feb 10, 2015 22:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 03:50

Miltank: Dec 27, 2009; by XyloJW

CommieGIR posted:

Disprove? How do you disprove faith?

No, more neutralize the idea of a 'Kind and loving omnipotent being'. But as I've said in this thread and Kyries thread: In reality, I don't give two shits what religion you hold dear as long as it stays out of schools and government. I just like debating about religion on a joke forum.

What aspects of God do you find impossible?

E: the Christian God as you understand him.

Miltank fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Feb 11, 2015

# ¿ Feb 11, 2015 00:15

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > There is one thing that doesn't matter, and that is Jesus Christ

«‹›3 »