Often, as here, the Onion engages in satire, which does very much have a serious point to make.

For everyone interested: That fount of wisdom, Wikipedia, has a useful set of citations describing Hitler's intentions to destroy or alter German Christianity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#cite_note-Bundle-3
Hitler talked of his faith in Christianity because he was good at tailoring his speeches. If he was talking to a mostly Christian nation, he would sound Christian. Doubtlessly he encouraged pagan-oriented and anti-religious supporters the same way, if less publicly. The main goal was in all things to subsume society to his own wishes.

Putin, pointing to individual examples of the Greeks or Romans is beside the point, although I still do think you're mistaken - the number I have heard (can't find the citation, but it is my lecture notes) is that he was responsible for the execution of over a million people, not counting battles. The Roman empire was most decidedly a slave economy, and while it was fine for educated slaves in classical Athens, it wasn't quite as nice for the ones working in the mines, or the huge numbers of slave kept in Sparta.

"Rome was quite generous to those they conquered, turned them into autonomous client states, and even paid tribute to their gods." That's rather cold comfort - Julius Caesar kills thousands and thousands of Gauls, literally solely so he can get more political power back in Rome, and the alleged generosity of imperial subjection is their reward? And if things were so generous and everyone so happy, why did the Romans bother to pay for all those expensive legions in their conquered territory? But anyway: Your big picture division of the world between the humane classical era and the cold and wicked dark ages of theistic hegemony lacks historical basis.

@ Thucycdides


THANK YOU! It would have been easy to just give up on this project but you saw it through :-)


@ Obi

I just re-read the argument in its entirety. Lol, my first memory of it was the miles of bike riding I did in that week or so. I'd get your argument/response/ rebuttal etc. and almost immediately go on a 10 to 17 mile bike ride. It was a great way to sort out my thoughts. Good times.

I see your maintenance of the idea that Christianity (as distinct from Christians and their actions) could be judged as a force for good or not. I'm not sure that I got that at the time. It is an interesting idea.

Hopefully you can see my resolute refusal of "No True Scotsman" in re-reading it. In retrospect I think we unwittingly agreed on a question that leaned in my favor. It wasn't necessary for me to maintain that Christianity was the ultimate or even the only force for good in the world, only that it was a force for good. I wonder what the outcome would have been if we had asked if Christianity was a force for evil in the world. As it stood I was able to freely accept secular organizations as forces for good and remind everyone that Christian groups do the same thing. The conclusion is almost forgone.

Anyway, it was well fought and I do respect your tenacity. It was even more interesting as a battle of English majors ;-)


@ everyone

Thanks for your responses and critiques. I'll continue to read them, but do not think it is my place to respond to them. The debate is done, I've had my say; now it's in your hands.

One thing that I does concern me, on an aside, is the idea that Christians must subjugate their reason to some other person. I addressed this (probably in a draft that did not make it to the final copy). Hitchens says something to the effect that "Try as you might, you cannot follow Jesus of Nazareth, instead you must follow some infallible leadership on earth". I've heard that same thought echoed in this thread. Please think very carefully before you stereotype your overbearing Christian neighbor as some mindless automaton waiting for the green light to wipe you out. Fear is, after all, the most potent factor in getting you to attack others. But you knew that; you play Diplomacy ;-)

@obi

"Good debate again, CA"

Thanks, back at ya :-)

"Yes, Putin, in Nazi Germany, even the church was to be subservient to the State and the Fuhrer. This reinforces my point."

It doesn't reinforce anything you're saying. You're trying to claim NSDAP was 'anti-Christian', they were anything but. But nevermind, theists just make assertions and cite wikipedia, what's the point of discussing anything with you.

"We're having a real discussion and you bring in an Onion parody?"

That's par for the course with Semck.

@CA

You're quite welcome. I of course only signed up to help because I thought it was a good idea. Which is odd for someone who sees most religion debate as a chasing after the wind.

To all,

What say you, shall I post the next one? Both debaters have had a chance to weigh in.

Yes. Keep em coming

Putin, why you hating on Semck?

Even though I agree with you much more on the major issues, he argues his points more convincingly, and is in general a far more decent and reasonable fellow.

Oh wait, guess I answered my own question :P

Okay posting the new. Please refer tangential ongoing debates to new thread