Why Do atheists Attack Christianity?

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

I don't quite understand is how you see Theocratic Muslims as a problem with Christianity, though.

For sixty years after independence we in Ireland pretty much had Theocratic Christianity, in both states - the North and the Republic. It wasn't pretty and many aspects of that Theocracy still remain to be rooted out.

Sure, but that's in contrast to what the rules of Christianity (the Bible) states.

It's an example of corruption of the anchor points as outlined in scripture, but the anchor points don't change so you can rally under them, as opposed to a relative anchor of the secular state which has no actual foundation.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Any atheist that claims there is such a thing as 'atheistic values' is a fool. Atheism is practically content free, being as it is simply an assertion that there is no God. It has no normative content. Now individual atheists have values but they come from elsewhere but not from their atheism.

Then we as a society have to deal with the issues of fools, since many atheists claim there are objective moral truths in their worldview.

Do you have credible evidence for those two phenomena you mention?

I thought these issues were pretty common knowledge.

I don't know what you mean by credible evidence, but I know of one article off the top of my head for Euthanasia:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/judging-the-value-of-a-life/article1688283/

And one for German enforced prostitution:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2005/jan/05013106

It is not the role of the state to enforce morality, as such. The state ought to confine itself to guaranteeing individual liberties, enforcing the harm principle, and guarding rights. The law should not concern itself with individual morality outside those boundaries. That should be left to individuals.

If a fetus is a human then abortion is murder.

If not then disallowing abortion is tyrannical dictation over what a woman can do with her own body.

Morality and liberty are inseparably.

Seriously, I've got to go now though.

Edited February 8, 2011 by OldEnglishSheepdog

[doubting_tommy]

I already addressed this.

Yes, that's the background for the concept, but it didn't actually reflect what we would consider truly democratic values, as seen in the example I provided that they sold children for sex slaves. All people were not equal.

Are we talking about egalitarianism or democracy? The two are quite distinct.

The origin of the concept and what we currently identify as democracy are two very different things.

We currently identify democratic governments in countries where the majority are not Christian, which suggests that Christian values are not the only ones capable of

[808state]

True, but Christianity eventually did, and it was only Christianity that did.

Everyone else jumped on the band wagon afterwards.

There were non-Christians in Ancient times that were anti-slavery. It's not an original Christian concept at all.

And I would say that many "Biblical values" existed somewhere in the world prior to the Bible.

I thought these issues were pretty common knowledge.

I don't know what you mean by credible evidence, but I know of one article off the top of my head for Euthanasia:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/judging-the-value-of-a-life/article1688283/

And one for German enforced prostitution:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2005/jan/05013106

The first article seems to be giving out false information on euthanasia in the Netherlands. The patients have to be fully aware of their conditions and must request euthanasia without the influence of others. As far as infants go, it's only if the babies must be going through unbearable suffering that can't be ended any other way, parents must consent, the child has to be thoroughly examined, and the actual termination has to happen very carefully. I don't see anything wrong with that.

The original source of the second article retracted their story years ago.

Anyway, I think the main issue with wanting to use the Bible as the basis for a government is that there are many many many different interpretations of the Bible. You may not going to get everyone to agree with an interpretation. It's essentially going to be relative to the person doing the interpreting and what society is like at the time, and then we're back at where we started.

[doubting_tommy]

I thought these issues were pretty common knowledge.

I don't know what you mean by credible evidence, but I know of one article off the top of my head for Euthanasia:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/judging-the-value-of-a-life/article1688283/

And one for German enforced prostitution:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2005/jan/05013106

The euthanasia article doesn’t seem to substantiate your claim that doctors in the Netherlands are killing people against their will. Those who do advocate legalisation of euthanasia tend to base their arguments on the right of an individual to choose the moment and manner of his or her death and would presumably regard the killing of patients against their will as being unacceptable.

As for the German prostitution case, this has been debunked here: http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp

Edit: I see I have been beaten to it!

Edited February 9, 2011 by doubting_tommy

[Guest]

.... but I do think the Christian media tends over-exaggerate what the non-Christian "agenda" actually is. In-fact....

There Are Only Two Sides

He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth. Luke 11:23

And Two Outcomes

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36

No Exaggeration

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

I already addressed this.

Yes, that's the background for the concept, but it didn't actually reflect what we would consider truly democratic values, as seen in the example I provided that they sold children for sex slaves. All people were not equal.

Are we talking about egalitarianism or democracy? The two are quite distinct.

The origin of the concept and what we currently identify as democracy are two very different things.

We currently identify democratic governments in countries where the majority are not Christian, which suggests that Christian values are not the only ones capable of

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

The first article seems to be giving out false information on euthanasia in the Netherlands. The patients have to be fully aware of their conditions and must request euthanasia without the influence of others. As far as infants go, it's only if the babies must be going through unbearable suffering that can't be ended any other way, parents must consent, the child has to be thoroughly examined, and the actual termination has to happen very carefully. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Sure, but the onus is on you to demonstrate that the article really is giving out false information.

I've read this in so many different places, this was just an article I happened to have close at hand (not necesarily the most definitive source) but if you object then please demonstrate that it's incorrect.

The original source of the second article retracted their story years ago.

O, great, just link the retraction then please and I'll withdraw that point.

Thanks.

Anyway, I think the main issue with wanting to use the Bible as the basis for a government is that there are many many many different interpretations of the Bible. You may not going to get everyone to agree with an interpretation. It's essentially going to be relative to the person doing the interpreting and what society is like at the time, and then we're back at where we started.

I submit that when it comes to how we treat others, there are only two ways to interpret the Bible:

1. Reading what it says and accepting what is written; or

2. Distorting what is says for personal gain.

The oft-stated objection that it can say whatever you want it to say is simply neglegent.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

The euthanasia article doesn

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

(By the way, only a fool would dispute that a human foetus is in essence human. That point is moot. What is central to the argument is whether or not one considers a human foetus to be a person.)

Sure, but I like to let things that go without say, go without say.

Edited February 9, 2011 by OldEnglishSheepdog