Are you on team Christian?

[historia]

In a recent interview, Richard Dawkins, the noted evolutionary biologist and outspoken atheist advocate, talked about how he is a "cultural Christian," and that it would be "truly dreadful" if Islam became dominant in Great Britain and Europe.

He went further to say:

If I had to choose between Christianity and Islam, I would choose Christianity every single time. I mean, it seems to me to be a fundamentally decent religion in a way that I think Islam is not.

. . .

In so far as Christianity can be seen as a bulwark against Islam, I think it is a very good thing. In Africa, for example, where you have missionaries of both faiths operating, I'm on team Christian's side, as far as that is concerned.

I'm not certain that Muslims actually have missionaries, as such, operating in Africa, or anywhere else for that matter. But it is certainly the case that Muslims and Christians are competing for adherents in Africa, Indonesia, and other countries.

Questions for debate:

(1) Do you agree with Dawkins that Christianity is preferable to Islam?

(2) Do you agree with Dawkins that Christianity is a bulwark against Islam?

(3) If so, do you think that atheists should support Christian missionary activities to limit the spread and influence of Islam?

[TRANSPONDER]

I do agree with Dawkins. I don't think i could stand the demands of being Muslim. Not being able to have prawn noodles and a cider with it...and praying five times a day? No, give me Christianity every time.

And yes, a nationally cultural religion will stand against a missionary religion. Christianity stood against Islam in the Philippines, Buddhism stood against Islam in Siam, Confucianism struggled against Buddhism in China because it was about how to run a society, not purporting to teach about the unknowns and offer the answers to life.

Hindo Buddhism fell to lslam in Malaya and Java because it was a cult of Kingship and less to do wit involving the populace. It is probably why the cults of Isis, Mithras and Christianity sidelined the Imperial cult in Rome. The mystery cults involved the people while the Imperial cult did not, and Christianity went after converts in a way the more selecting mystery cults didn't.

It is probably one of the problems with atheism. It is a thing of reason and does not purport to offer what religions offer. Though I think it might in offering rational answers while religions offer only speculations.

[SiNcE_1985]

Questions for debate:

(1) Do you agree with Dawkins that Christianity is preferable to Islam?

Yes.

(2) Do you agree with Dawkins that Christianity is a bulwark against Islam?

Yes.

(3) If so, do you think that atheists should support Christian missionary activities to limit the spread and influence of Islam?

I think atheists should support Christianity by becoming Christians.

[TRANSPONDER]

Questions for debate:

(1) Do you agree with Dawkins that Christianity is preferable to Islam?

Yes.

(2) Do you agree with Dawkins that Christianity is a bulwark against Islam?

Yes.

(3) If so, do you think that atheists should support Christian missionary activities to limit the spread and influence of Islam?

I think atheists should support Christianity by becoming Christians.

Nope. All the time we get the choice to reject both, that's what we do, because there is every rational and evidential reason to do so.

That Christianity is a better bad choice than Islam does not mean I'd choose it over - say - Buddhism. Or better still, no religion at all.

[SiNcE_1985]

Nope. All the time we get the choice to reject both, that's what we do, because there is every rational and evidential reason to do so.

Then certainly, by all means..

That Christianity is a better bad choice than Islam does not mean I'd choose it over - say - Buddhism. Or better still, no religion at all.

Neither Muhammad nor Siddhartha Gautama can hold a candle to Jesus of Nazareth.

[TRANSPONDER]

Matter of opinion, I suppose.While I'd take Jesus over Muhammad, I'd take Buddha over Jesus, who comes across as snappish, moody, vindictive and lacking in manners

[The Nice Centurion]

Nope. All the time we get the choice to reject both, that's what we do, because there is every rational and evidential reason to do so.

Then certainly, by all means..

That Christianity is a better bad choice than Islam does not mean I'd choose it over - say - Buddhism. Or better still, no religion at all.

Neither Muhammad nor Siddhartha Gautama can hold a candle to Jesus of Nazareth.

Of course not, when all three of them probably never existed!

[SiNcE_1985]

Of course not, when all three of them probably never existed!

Then neither did Christopher Columbus, Julius Caesar, or Gengish Khan.

[TRANSPONDER]

Of course not, when all three of them probably never existed!

Then neither did Christopher Columbus, Julius Caesar, or Gengish Khan.

Yeah..well,it comes down to just how much we can trust historical records. In fact while I have no doubt that Muhammad existed, but I still doubt a number of the claims about his life, and pretty much the same about Jesus, I have reason to think Buddha was totally made up,mainly for political reasons. I could be wrong.


I don't think there is much doubt about caesar. While we may question some of the writings as polemical there is portraiture and inscriptions. The records of Columbus can hardly be doubted and Genghis Khan and the successors are surely as likely as Alexander and his successors. To equate them with Jesus is just not good enough. Despite clams by Bible apologists, there is nothing unquestionable in historical records that supports the Gospel version of Jesus.

History does not work the way you imply and it smacks too much of kicking the chessboard over when the player can see he's going to lose.

Dismissal and denial of any doubt and question instead of taking them on does not look good and (again) people looking in will see who is making the case and whom is waving it away as opinion. Debate is not about blocking all discussion and refusing to do anything but claim Biblical apologist claims as Fact.

They are evidence, sure, as is the case with historical records and indeed science where it observes what once happened rather than what is happening. But the audience looking in want something better than 'believe..or not 'type argument.

P.sI was wondering whether to mention that Pilate might have been qiestioned, but the caesarea inscription surely put his reality beyond reasonable doubt. But I wondered about Joseph caiaphas. Sure,he is in the list of Jewish High priests, but might that not be based on the Gospels? I looked it up and Josephus mentions him and how he was appointed by Gratus, served a hefty long time under Pilate which is a very uncommon situation (and suggests they co - operated very well together), until bot were replaced when Tiberius died.

But the thing is here, that historical records, which may have their political bias, but have no religious reason to lie, can raise doubts about the Gospel record.

Pilate is a tough and even brutal guy, not the weak well meaning appeaser of the gospels. The Passover release custom is never mentioned in history, and it would be amazing if Josephus did not mention crowds of jews calling for the release of an imprisoned political figure. There is serious doubt that any such custom existed. The blasphemy charge is certainly made up and made up by Christian writers, too as it makes no sense in Jewish terms. It cannot be a true record, apart from which John has no record of a Sanhedrin trial at all - the similar events were placed by him at the High Priests' house. This is why doubts of the gospel -story are more than 'opinion'.

[The Nice Centurion]

Of course not, when all three of them probably never existed!

Then neither did Christopher Columbus, Julius Caesar, or Gengish Khan.

Additionally we got a good possibility that Paul never existed!