Does God exist? (William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins debate) (8 Viewers)

[Trequartista]

i can't figure out how come christianity had such success over europe considering rome, the eastern tribes and the amount of people who got killed because of spreading this religion

Because it helped kings to solidify their hold on power.

For example, in the 980s, the Kingdom of Kievan Rus' (Modern day Ukraine/Russia) decided to adopt Orthodox Christianity from the Byzantine Empire as it solidified its alliance with the Byzantines and as it helped the Kievan King to solidify his hold on power. The same can be said with Harold Bluetooth, Clovis I of the Franks, etc.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[AndreaCristiano]

i can't figure out how come christianity had such success over europe considering rome, the eastern tribes and the amount of people who got killed because of spreading this religion

When people make statements like this it makes me laugh. other religions have killed as many if not more and atheistic regimes have killed more globally than any theistic regime. so please make statements within reason.

 

[Ford Prefect]

When people make statements like this it makes me laugh. other religions have killed as many if not more and atheistic regimes have killed more globally than any theistic regime. so please make statements within reason.

Im sorry man but that is not a valid point.

Nazi germany wasnt athiestic which is often cited in this argument. Stalin, Mao, Polpot etc. Never used athiesm as the reason for the attrocities commited. It could even be argued that they themselves created the image of them being a god and created there own theocratic rule under the cult of the personality, which is certainly what happened in Nazi Germany. There is a famous quote that i can't remember who it is attributed that states - "With or without religion you would have evil people doing evil things and good people doing good things, but it takes religion to make a good person do an evil thing".

You are also de-contetualising the figures. If you look in proportion to the population growths I would estimate that the theocratic regimes in the past are proportionally in line with the 'athiest' regimes.

Also the christians are the worst for the killing in the name of their god (even though Jews, Christians and Muslims believe in the same god). The Catholics are still at it under the 'no condoms' rule - which is spreading aids in africa. Botswana for example has 50% of the adult population as HIV positive, which means that soon it will be a non-country, and the catholic church refuses aid if either you aren't a catholic or practice contraceptive sex.

 

[blondu]

When people make statements like this it makes me laugh. other religions have killed as many if not more and atheistic regimes have killed more globally than any theistic regime. so please make statements within reason.

you missunderstood me...i was saying that a lot of pagain people in that time killed christians (nero for example) so they can protect themself from this new learnings and still christianity had a massive success, and their preachers continued transmitting the message no matter the consequences

 

[ALC]

Perhaps we can make a reverse Sabatier reaction -- combining water with methane to produce hydrogen and carbon dioxide in the presence of a nickel catalyst.

Or: we send astronauts into space with bags of Los Pollos Hermanos and 44-ounce Slurpies.

Just saw this. That should give them enough energy.

 

[Trequartista]

When people make statements like this it makes me laugh. other religions have killed as many if not more and atheistic regimes have killed more globally than any theistic regime. so please make statements within reason.

I don't get this whole argument.

Yep both religious and atheistic states have killed a lot of people but mostly, it wasn't in the name of religion/atheism.

If we take for example the crusades and the inquisition, they were launched by the Catholic Church to extend its power and strengthen its control over Christian society. The Church is an institution and they usually didn't kill people in the name of Jesus Christ, they mostly did so to consolidate and expend the power of their own institution.

The same can be said about communists regime like the Soviet Union, The People's Republic of China and Khmer Rouge. They were "atheistic" but they did not kill people in the name of atheism. In Marxism-Leninism, religion is seen as having a dividing influence in society, which compromises the utopia of a uniform dictatorship of the proletariat. Therefore, these regimes did not kill people because they felt that atheism is true, they did so because they thought that religions compromised their Utopian projects.

That's how I view this argument and that is why I find it irrelevant, on both sides.

 

[AndreaCristiano]

I don't get this whole argument.

Yep both religious and atheistic states have killed a lot of people but mostly, it wasn't in the name of religion/atheism.

If we take for example the crusades and the inquisition, they were launched by the Catholic Church to extend its power and strengthen its control over Christian society. The Church is an institution and they usually didn't kill people in the name of Jesus Christ, they mostly did so to consolidate and expend the power of their own institution.

The same can be said about communists regime like the Soviet Union, The People's Republic of China and Khmer Rouge. They were "atheistic" but they did not kill people in the name of atheism. In Marxism-Leninism, religion is seen as having a dividing influence in society, which compromises the utopia of a uniform dictatorship of the proletariat. Therefore, these regimes did not kill people because they felt that atheism is true, they did so because they thought that religions compromised their Utopian projects.

That's how I view this argument and that is why I find it irrelevant, on both sides.

That's my point as well just not fully articulated like yours. just because men do the evil under a banner of sorts doesn't mean that's because of that banner. power corrupts man of all kinds and humanity allows itself that corruption. It takes something and uses it for its own purpose , even if it's contrary to that purpose

 

[JuveJay]

Harold Bluetooth

His contribution to wireless technology should not be underestimated.

 

[Trequartista]

His contribution to wireless technology should not be underestimated.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

That's my point as well just not fully articulated like yours. just because men do the evil under a banner of sorts doesn't mean that's because of that banner. power corrupts man of all kinds and humanity allows itself that corruption. It takes something and uses it for its own purpose , even if it's contrary to that purpose

The same can be said about religious people. Religion is, by some sorts, a means to dissipate power. You tell what the people should do, and they do it. It's just packaged in a different way.

 

[Nzoric]

The same can be said about religious people. Religion is, by some sorts, a means to dissipate power. You tell what the people should do, and they do it. It's just packaged in a different way.

How is it a means to dissipate power? It's a mean to centralize and seize power.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

That's what I meant. Wrong word usage.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

He meant disseminate.

disseminate |diˈseməˌnāt|
verb [ trans. ]
spread or disperse (something, esp. information) widely : health authorities should foster good practice by disseminating information. See note at scatter .
• [usu. as adj. ] ( disseminated) spread throughout an organ or the body : disseminated colonic cancer.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

 

[Linebreak]

Our very own existence is evidence of God's existence.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Which god?

 

[Linebreak]

Which god?

The one true God that existed before time and will continue to exist after time

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Who is this one true god?

 

[X Æ A-12]

Who is this one true god?

 

[ALC]

I bow before thee.