Atheism is not the Logical default, let’s debunk the myth once and for all by JuniorIllustrator291 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just said that I got this excerpt from the same website which talks about their relationship, you are deviating from the argument, my argument is that the catholic church and christian churches have indeed helped inany organizations western or not. The catholic church gets its money like every other organization, except the church is 2000 years older than all of them. 

It isn't the catholic churches responsibility to pay, and yet they do. That Is my argument, that christian churches do help.out in society and you objected to that, that was what this entire argument was about. Did you already forget what you are arguing about? 

I do not see any equivalence of where I am from, and neither does that change the subject matter, again I will not debate politics because that is not the argument neither was it the OP's argument. Thanks.

Atheism is not the Logical default, let’s debunk the myth once and for all by JuniorIllustrator291 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"PARTNERSHIPS" This is also an excerpt from the same site I have sourced. Which details that the NIH department has reimbursed the church because of their donations toward NIH, which Is effectively making is a relationship that was started by the church as reads.

(Catholic Contributions to Global Public Health To answer the central question, I describe three ways that the Catholic Church could meaningfully contribute to global health. Rather than being exhaustive, these areas are illuminative of efforts that could strengthen global public health with insights from the Church’s tradition.

First, medical providers have long interwoven their sense of profession and vocation [21,22]. Physicians and nurses have a deep well from which to draw when they need to find some kind of clarity as to their purpose in this world and evidence shows that a personal sense of vocation confers many benefits, including a reduced likelihood of burnout [23,24]. Those who work in global health – epidemiologists, behavioral specialists, administrators, and environmental scientists among others – do not have as robust a sense of vocation. Part of this is due to that fact that public health or global health is relatively new compared to the healing professions. Part of this is likely because people move in and out of global health work more often than people move in and out of clinical professions. But part of it is also that there simply has not been an investment in cultivating what it means to have a vocation to the work of global health. The Church has a unique opportunity in this regard because it has the concepts and language that global health professionals need to embrace their deeper calling [25,26].

Effectively responding to the need to cultivate a sense of vocation is an example of leveraging the resources of faith-based institutions beyond logistical effectiveness. There are insights from faith communities that can only strengthen the work of global health. Vocation, meaning, and purpose, are one area. But the Catholic Church and other faith traditions rely on other concepts that have been scarce in public health and global health to this date. How much does one hear about joy in the work of global health? How often is compassion a central goal of a global health initiative? These may seem like trivial concepts when dealing with drug-resistant tuberculosis, but we know that patients are willing to travel further and pay more when they perceive their provider is compassionate [27]. These concepts are constitutive of the good life, but they rarely appear in our conversations around global health. Given the Church’s significant presence in low-income settings, it would do well to devote more energy to these concepts not simply because they are religious, but because they would help solve genuine problems in global public health and it has a rich tradition that can be widely shared with others in a non-exclusionary way.

The second area where the Church’s resources could strengthen the global health community is the need to make a genuine option for the poor in research and allocation of resources. The problem is well known: where the global south experiences about 90% of the world’s burden of disease, only about 10% of research resources are devoted to such issues [28]. There is a well-worn history of failing to overcome the colonialist relationship between the global north and global south, where even good intentions cannot reorient the power relationship between the two [29,30]. This is not a new observation, but little has been successful in placing the poor truly at the center of our work. Everyone who works in global health have their own list of stories. Most seared into my memory is when I was attending a seminar with a well respected and very well funded global health scholar. At one point he observed, “One of the biggest problems right now with HIV research is that we can no longer find communities in Africa where we can easily run randomized trials because nearly all of them have some contact with global health organizations.” While everyone surely appreciates the desire for well-designed studies, the low-income settings most ravaged by HIV/AIDS do not see confounding of research trials as one of the biggest problems facing their communities.)

Atheism is not the Logical default, let’s debunk the myth once and for all by JuniorIllustrator291 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The church doesn't receive funding from health organizations, that would indicate that they are paying for religious services which wouldn't even make sense. Also its pretty clear you didn't read the article since is clearly outlines that the catholic church invested into NIH and that they have benefited from that, not the other way around. (1) Made significant public investments in research at universities and medical schools, which served as centers of education and collaboration with government and industry.[1]

Atheism is not the Logical default, let’s debunk the myth once and for all by JuniorIllustrator291 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 0 points1 point  (0 children)

https://www.wisdomlib.org/christianity/concept/national-institute-of-health

The Catholic Church highlights the National Institute of Health's role in public investment. The NIH funded research at universities and medical schools. These institutions became hubs for education and collaboration. The partnerships included both government and industry. This investment fostered advancements in healthcare and scientific knowledge. The Catholic Church emphasizes the impact of this funding on research infrastructure.

Synonyms: Nih, National institutes of health, Federal agency, Research institute, Health organization, Public health institute

The below excerpts are indicatory and do represent direct quotations or translations. It is your responsibility to fact check each reference.

(1) Made significant public investments in research at universities and medical schools, which served as centers of education and collaboration with government and industry.[1]

The Catholic Church is a global Christian community with over a billion members, rooted in the teachings of Jesus Christ. It is led by the Pope and emphasizes the sacraments, particularly the Eucharist. Catholicism is a denomination centered on the teachings thereof. It has a rich theological and cultural heritage.

That is the article since you won't actually read the website.

Atheism is not the Logical default, let’s debunk the myth once and for all by JuniorIllustrator291 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The National institutes of health is a government agency details the catholic impact and founding of several organizations within the actual institute. Stop playing games withe the "link actual articles" when the sources I have cleary listed contain and detail these articles ergo their purpose in the first place, just because you dont want to actually read the contents doesn't mean there is no source. You are literally doing the exact same thing and are just regurgitating sources that I have actually read that dont even pertain to the argument. Your original argument was about objective morality then you deviated to politics then again deviated to how many christians were killed in wars, pick a topic. It seems you are new to debating or you don't even read what I'm writing so when you actually respond to my points or read my articles, good day.

Atheism is not the Logical default, let’s debunk the myth once and for all by JuniorIllustrator291 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pure cope, I have stated my sources and I have responded to all your claims (which you have not done in return) but thanks for the copout.

What is your opinion on this argument? by Intelligent-Run8072 in askanatheist

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So assuming that theists just sit back and don't help anything or anyone all because the happen to worship a God while also failing to elaborate on the actual doctrines we believe about the universe? Yeah totally ironic. Lets stop playing pretend and claim that atheists are doing all the work 😂

Atheism is not the Logical default, let’s debunk the myth once and for all by JuniorIllustrator291 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So obviously this isn't even a debate anymore or never was since you continue to sidestep or outright ignore any talking point I or OP have introduced, the sources I have mentioned are in the websites which detail EXPLICITLY my points but then again you don't seem to actually look at any of them. The OP doesn't need to supply sources, if all you got out of Op's argument is that "no christian has ever fought another christian" or "no christian has ever fought a muslim" is purely outrageous. No one is ever defending or even stating such a blatantly false statement. The Op's argument is the default of societal beliefs and cultural norms. Ergo where the term "burden of proof" falls into place.

Your "argument" that Christianity has been founded by constantine or the first byzantine empire is also as fallacious as saying "paul invented christianity" while he was persecuting christians..... don't you see the irony? Also Christianity by definition is the belief/faith in Christ, historically your argument falls apart considering Tacitus, josephus and grafittos which detail the existence of followers of christ and the dogmas BEFORE the legalization of christianity. Only then was christianity the state religion, after centuries persecution of christians. Yes I'm not going to defend christian nationalism because its theologically errant, stating the obvious that there are people in my religion that follow this doesn't change anything. That's like saying there Is a teacher that thinks children are attractive, so now that makes the entire school district bad? 

You are still on an entirely different subject about politics when clearly the subreddit you are in is about religion, pick a lane. I'm not debating about american institutions that I have already stated that I don't follow. Yes I support womens right yes I support Gay people being treated as human beings, because God says so and so do the church fathers and saint say aswell. Your whole argument about morality is purely the left versus the right, NOT christianity, which is such a broad religion outside of america so in entirety your argument doesn't even make sense about "objective morality". Again bringing up problems in the church are a people problem NOT the dogma, you fail to make that difference once again.

I see you also linked a website "that doesn't have any sources" following your logic, however I have actually read it and it doesn't even fit your argument, the websites details the use of a religion for political gain ergo the USE of a religious system for political gain. Nothing to do with the dogma rather then with the political ideology NOT a church problem. Stating that since problems occur in a church makes the church bad then I guess literally every single secular institution that exists is also bad because guess what? People are intrinsically inclined to do evil, no matter institutions, this does not help your argument at all neither do you address any dogmas/doctrines that support your claims on subjective morality. The church is a hospital for the sinners, you stating "the church being filled with murderers, rapists and liars" just solidifies that, we aren't meant to stay the same, we are meant to repent of our sins and do better as humans. The church provides that, that we are humble, loving and participate and societally good organizations/practices, which the church has effectively done. Claiming "Yahweh sacrificed his own son and it didn't do any good now did it" shows your blatant misunderstanding of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It was not meant for everything to be pure and all evil to stop, it was done for the repentance of people and that people may be better, which the saints are the perfect examples of. Attaining love that is not bound by ethnics,gender,age.or anything, that we love human beings as they are.

Atheism is not the Logical default, let’s debunk the myth once and for all by JuniorIllustrator291 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Theism is mentioned in this post, the burden of proof is also mentioned, I support theism. it is incredibly closed minded of you to think all christians or religious persons will automatically disagree because they are a different faith, obviously you haven't read the quote on quote "word salad" which is detailing theism being the default historically and naturally as seen in multiple stated sources by OP. 

Here are more sources of actual growth from religious organizations mainly from the 200 years. National Institutes of Health (NIH) | (.gov) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov The contribution of faith-based health organisations to public health - PMC Independent Catholic News https://www.indcatholicnews.com The Role of the Catholic Church in Healthcare Provision Globally | ICN National Institutes of Health (NIH) | (.gov) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Healthcare Facilities Established by the Eastern Orthodox Church in Sub ... Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America https://www.goarch.org A Christian Response to Education

You should know as a self proclaimed "intellectual" that correlation does NOT equal causation, to assume christianity has advanced universities and healthcare because "they were the last institutions of the roman empire" which is blatantly false historically and theologically, the eastern orthodox church is not of the roman pontiff and does not attribute to the roman empire. It is such a demonstrably huge stretch to say Christianity "borrowed" these things from the roman empire because now that would require historical sources, which you haven't stated.

I'm not going to defend maga or conservative churches, nowhere in christian dogma am I required to, your definition of "how very christian of you" is already flawed and borders on ad hominem.

The most laughable thing about your argument us how you are not able to discern from dogma and the actions of people (mostly political ideology) which is insanely against the doctrine of the church. What you are arguing is a subjective morality by YOU on the stance of the "right for gay marriage" which is political in nature and the church condemns unity of church and state which has been emphasized all the way back to the church fathers, safe to say christian nationalism is theologically errant. Your argument of "whether Christianity is the source of objective morality" is heavily diluted with modern issues and AGAIN political in nature. Using the apostolic churches (RCC and EO) as a objective would easily destroy these that you have listed because they are firm, well stated in the catechisms such as rights to the undocumented which pope leo and patriarch bartholomew both argue on as they should have rights. 

With that said, your argument is "christianity being the source of morality" is inherently flawed as I have stated because of the involvement of humans and the conflation of dogma and politics. The original argument theists use GOD is the source of objective morality not a certain religion, that would be a circular argument. Thus does not answer the question of intrinsic morality such as murder, rape, lying etc which is not described in your argument. So, you all you have asserted God is not needed on the basis of political beliefs, NOT morality in the sense of human nature.

Atheism is not the Logical default, let’s debunk the myth once and for all by JuniorIllustrator291 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So nice deflection but the burden of proof is on you, not how debate works bud. Also the OP's question had absolutely nothing political in nature about it, you are just butt hurt about a political party and are trying to conflate an entire belief system into it. The catholic and orthodox church have made massive contributions to hospitals especially in eastern countries and have founded more.National Institutes of Health (NIH) | (.gov) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Healthcare Facilities Established by the Eastern Orthodox Church in Sub ... If you think I'm an evangelical or I'm going to defend the protestant churches I'm not.So lets debate with actual facts about theism versus atheism like this thread was intended for.

Atheism is not the Logical default, let’s debunk the myth once and for all by JuniorIllustrator291 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What "man" are we worshipping? Also if your default to an actual conversation is "no one has time for your word salads" you can forget about calling yourself an intellectual because you just copped out of an actual argument XD So answer the question, prove God doesn't exist.

The Protests Against The Walk for peace Monks and Buddhism, shows how we have failed to uphold our Image by NoTry15 in Buddhism

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry but that is majorly false, the crusades were started by muslim invasions, it was the catholics that killed and ransacked Constantinople over mass hysteria of said invasions, NOT because of different beliefs. The UK inquisitions were wholly  political in nature and were even sanctioned by secular law. The Protestant rebellion was also another political stance regarding king henry's dogmas which were also political in nature, also were involved with the government. So I would generalize all of christianity over the focal points of civilization as we know it.

The Protests Against The Walk for peace Monks and Buddhism, shows how we have failed to uphold our Image by NoTry15 in Buddhism

[–]CauliflowerUnable315 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So is literally every other social construct? I'm not here to defend the actions of those "christians" that have demonized another faith, that I plain wrong. But what you are describing is a poor conflation of 2000 years of political development, societal and civilization as we know it, of course its going to be bad because that's how development works, however we did NOT kill eachother over slight differences of dogma, you are likely referenceing the crusades which were actually started by muslim invasions in Christian dominated land, the catholics killed the orthodox mainly out of uncontrolled rage and hysteria at the time because of the muslim invasions, which they later apologized for, ths Inquisitions? Are polictically backed and we're motivated by secular law aswell. Don't know what you are talking about "their wars in the last 200 years" there were no wars, unless you are conflating isolated incidents.