Davidf,

“People questioned slavery before Christianity. “

Yes they did. There was even a legal method for Romans to free their slaves and indeed it wasn’t unknown for slaves to gain citizenship and political power in Rome. Some even rose to the very heights of power eg Narcissus under Claudius. Most of the writings you saw at Delphi were from that period rather than the classical age of Greece. But even when these people were ‘freed’ they still, for the most part, had to live in the former masters house until he died. A slave by another name.

But this misses the point. Slavery, the institution, remained in Greece and Rome even though some slaves were released. Gracchus was known to release his female slaves once he tired of them, but always replaced them with new slaves.

And yes, the move in the 18/19th century to close slavery as an institution was strongly opposed by some Christians. But it was strong favoured by others, and they succeeded.
This was the first time in human history that a civilisation moved to outlaw slavery. It’s never been attempted in Islam and remains favoured by many (see what happened to the Yazidi and is currently happening in Libya). There was a desultory effort in China in the 9th century but that failed and wasn’t tried again. Outlawing of slavery was never tried in India or, as far as we know Japan or Mesoamerica. Most Aboriginal women were slaves and could be sold – eg to Chinese traders in Arnhem in the 16th-18th century and to white sealers in Tasmania.

/cont

/cont

As far as we know slavery has existed throughout human history and almost certainly back into pre-history and it has existed in every region.

Yet one, just one, society moved to close slavery. That society was Christian. Averting your gaze to that fact because of an ingrained hatred of the religion and its adherents simply means that you failed to understand recent history. As we as a society forget why and how this victory over barbarity was achieved we invite its return. Again the Yazidi horror and the present problems in Libya are a foreshadowing of things to come as the Christian society folds.

________________________________________________________________________

“If I ignored the Inquisition, the support of authoritarian rule by the divine right of kings, the Dark Ages (Church opposition to independent thought made them dark), the Wars of the Reformation, the Crusades, the inquisition, the centuries of hatred which made fertile soil for the Nazi Holocaust and other atrocities I might have a positive view of Christianity. “

Funny how, in your jaundiced thinking, anything bad that happened in Christian realm was down the Christianity, but anything good has nothing to do with Christianity. Very even-handed of you!

The Dark Ages were dark because of the Church? So why no Dark Ages in Constantinople?

Its very true that the history of Christianity isn’t perfect. But to simply look at its shortcomings while ignoring the vastly greater problems with other religions is not even unhistoric, I’d call it a-historic. A complete lack of historic understanding.

As Churchill might have said…”Christianity is the worst of all religions, except for all the others that have tried”.

Dear mhaze,

Yes, I think the Dark Ages, the Inquisition, the suppression of knowledge and thought along with the other atrocities stem from the intolerance inherent in Christianity. In my opinion it has achieved its pre-eminence because it is an ideal religion of rule. Oppose the tyrant, and you are opposing God and Jesus. As far as I am concerned it is evil. Christianity is excellent at clouding people's minds so they can as you have done rationalise the evil. One Christian I know has written that I should think of the goals of Christianity rather than what Christians have actually done. Individual Christians might be quite honourable and decent people, but as a religion I think it inferior to most other religions. One of Christianity's flaws is its demand that its adherents accept nonsense.

I don't think the increasing percentage of people in the western countries who are leaving Christianity are leaving it because it is evil. I think they leaving because they think it is basically nonsense, and they don't want to be bothered

It doesn’t matter how the deity sees suffering or evil, mhaze.

<<That’s true if you assume that the deity sees evil/suffering in the same way as you do.>>

A god that allows ANY suffering or evil cannot, by definition, be omnibenevolent at the same time as omniscient and omnipotent.

<<So then you’ve ‘disproven’ the existence of a God that has the same values as you...>>

No, I’ve disproven the classic omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god. Sophisticated theologians, who have redefined God to be ‘maximally powerful’, seem to agree.

<<But you haven’t disproven a deity that has a different view on the nature of evil or suffering or sees them as a means to an end.>>

If it’s supposed to be omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent, I have. An omniscient and omnipotent god could think of a better way. A way that doesn’t involve millions of people starving to death and dying in hideous ways.

<<Which is why someone might want to change the terms of the issue from prove to discredit.>>

No, as you can see above, there was no reasonable suspicion in your mendacious claims.

You know what I do when someone uses a different word to what I used? I correct them. I don’t accuse them of trying to re-frame the argument, and then have the gall to claim that it’s something they regularly do (an allegation you are yet to demonstrate). That just smacks of dishonesty and desperation.

<<I was referring to you using them against me. You stopped using them when I started pointing out their invalidity.>>

Firstly, no, you didn’t point out their invalidity. You couldn’t even provide an example.

Secondly, I haven’t pointed out any fallacies in your arguments because I haven’t spotted any (apart from the Genetic fallacy). I gave you enough credit to assume that you were exercising a little more caution. I had already pointed out your use of the Genetic fallacy earlier by noting that just because Christianity enabled (or at least didn’t hinder enough) certain progress, that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily required now or in the future. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#251954)

Continued…

…Continued

I will admit, however, that I did resist noting that the error in your logic had a name, because I know how dishonest you are, and was not willing at the time to waste words/posts on discrediting your oh-so predictable claim that you had already supposedly called me out on them. Which, unsurprisingly, you have now done. So, let's get down to business:

1. mhaze: “I don't hate ... the way you (mis)use the fallacy table. “ (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7832#241939)

2. AJ: “You are yet to provide an example of myself misidentifying a fallacy ... You have invented this “meme tool” line to suggest that I am abusing something [i.e. misuse], presumably because you now realise that you cannot pin me on the misidentification of fallacies.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7832#241945)

3. mhaze: “I say (mis)use, you 'refute' by saying misidentify.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7832#241982)

[I’ll jump in here for a second to note something which I never pointed out at the time: there is no meaningful difference between 'misusing' the “list” of common fallacies and 'misidentifying' them, in this context, because the only way they could be misused would be to misidentify them.]

4. AJ: “I mentioned your talk of “misuse”, too: [I then quoted the second part of my comment above in 2]” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7832#241990)

Then you slipped off into the night, only to come back now with the audacity to pretend you were successful. This isn't the first time you've done that either, is it?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7994#247454
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7994#247502

<<And I’ve already shown where you did misuse the fallacy meme, so asked and answered.>>

No, as you can see above, you never did.

It is because I tire of going through this kind of crap with you that I resisted noting that there was a common fallacy which describes the error in your reasoning earlier.

<<Translation: I can’t think of any way to rebut your [claims].>>

We’re mind reading now, are we? I had already shown a massive gap in your thinking with my quote earlier. You are yet to overcome this. So, excuse me if I’m not enthusiastic about responding to a lengthy, one-eyed take on history.

Davidf,
“ As far as I am concerned it is evil.”

Yes I gathered that. But its based on a lack of knowledge of other religions and the real world.

“as a religion I think it inferior to most other religions”
Islam? Tengrianism? Aztec religion? Heard of the Rohingya….It’s been going on for centuries. Shinto?

“One of Christianity's flaws is its demand that its adherents accept nonsense.”
As opposed to all the other religions? Seriously…get a grip.

“In my opinion it has achieved its pre-eminence because it is an ideal religion of rule. Oppose the tyrant, and you are opposing God and Jesus. “
Yes and then it allowed that society to move to democracy and overthrown the tyrant. And how is supporting the tyrant worse than being the tyrant as happens in Islam? The religion is the state.

“I think the Dark Ages, the Inquisition, the suppression of knowledge and thought…”

Again so why no Dark Ages in Eastern Christendom?

AJ,

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19110#340159
I can’t imagine how you missed that one….he says with a knowing grin.

Re omnibenevolent …
Your argument assumes that your definition of benevolent is universal. What if this deity has a different understanding of how to be benevolent? I’m sorry to do this to you since clearly you have no concept of your view being one of many, but benevolence can come in many forms.