Communism is great for shedding those stubborn unwanted kilos from the midsection.

I will start by saying that any arguments that I present in the preceding text against Christianity as a force for good, are in reference, not too individual Christians but to the religion itself, in its natural state (which is arguable what that is), but I am asserting now that its natural state pertains to the scripture, and the implications of it.

So first I want to address a few of your points. You say that “Christianity embraces the fact that all men are flawed”, I would disagree with that, and say it is not fact. What is fact however, and something you cannot negate, is that Christians look upon homosexuality as a flaw, and one that is certainly not embraced. I want to draw attention to your wording, you say “Christianity embraces the fact that all men are flawed”, gay men are men also and therefore, logic would lead us to assume that your claim must imply that Christians embrace the fact that the flaw of homosexuality is A) inevitable, and B) acceptable. It is not arguable that the default Christian view of homosexuality is not a positive one.

A second point you made which I will dispute is that you can point to “bright spots” in history where people have fallen in line with scripture. Firstly this depends on your perspective. There are many religious people, including Christians, who would regard a world where adultery is punishable by death as "bright". Secondly I will say that if society were a close reflection of scripture it would not produce an ideal world. The strict following of a text written 2000 years ago is a ridiculous concept, it’s written in the absence of 2000 years of progress, and is therefore mostly inapplicable and highly unreliable in a modern world. Not to mention it promotes immoral concepts.

Now I will argue why I think that Christianity has a primarily negative impact on the world. The Christian religion claims to know many truths about the universe, however it is based on a concept which attracts falsity. That concept is faith. I define faith as the belief in something in the absence of sufficient evidence. This concept/mentality is promoted by the church and has created a culture of blind acceptance of truth, absent of critical thought and confusion between authority and truth. Faith is a destroyer of progress, the oppression of sciences due to their warranted contradictions with god, has caused a deceleration in the progress of humanity, and presented many obstacles in the search for answers. Christianity does not contribute anything to the search for truths about our universe and therefore the promotion of Christianity actively slows down the progress of the human race. The concepts and ideals promoted by Christianity are great for controlling the masses, but as for their false claims of seeking truth, the nature of religion has nothing to do with truth, it’s about control.

The Christian way of life is often described as a moral one, I would say that to be a true Christian you cannot be moral. I think you will agree that equality, liberty, and tolerance are essential traits within a moral society, it is also undeniable that Christianity in essence contradicts all three. The scripture is rife with both sexism and homophobia. The man is favored as the superior gender and the female the inferior. It is in aggressive opposition of homosexuality and therefore intolerant. I cannot think of anything more detrimental to the progress of morality, the progress of technology and the progress in the search for truth, than living in a Christian world.

http://bishop-accountability.org/priestdb/PriestDBbydiocese.html

Don't know about leaving your kid in the car but the molestation thing, could have picked a better example..

your an idiot, you cant compare rough sex with your girlfriend to being violently raped by some guy you don't know, Sorry to bust your bubble but girls don't fantasize about that.

I want to start by saying the main point driving this argument is that prevention is a better outcome than punishment after a crime has already been committed.

Laws have always been viewed as the default solution for crime in society. Because of this mentality little focus has been directed to technologies to prevent crime. Most laws are essentially threats in nature; if you do something bad then something bad will happen to you, and for a law to be effective in preventing a crime it must be assumed that the level of risk and punishment is higher than the gain from committing the crime. The flaw with this logic is that human nature and history dictates that we don't all have the same morals, reasoning, and we don't always make the right decisions; therefore, what might prevent 50% of the population not to commit a crime may not work for the other half. Another issue is, crimes committed irrationally, in the absence of any reasoning or pre-meditated thought can not be prevented by laws, because as mentioned earlier for laws to be effective, the person committing the crime would have to be understanding of the relative law, have the capacity to assess his chances of getting caught and the severity of the punishment in relation to the reward, and then to make the decision as to whether or not to commit said crime. You would also have to assume that every person has that capacity and performs that thought process before committing any crime. This is obviously absurd.

Another issue with laws is that they tell people what is moral and what is not. Morals are relative to the individual, and peoples decision making and therefore there actions are dictated by that fact. If a person thinks what he is doing is moral, then most of the time it will be done, regardless of what is written in legislation.

The main argument for technology as a superior method of preventing crime, is that it is in nature a preventative solution, which as I asserted earlier is the most desirable outcome. New technologies would be designed to prevent crimes which involve a decision making process by making the decision for them. for example, cars could be designed to have in built breath testers to prevent drink driving, in built GPS in cars could trigger a mechanism that prevents the car speeding.This would take away the possibility of someone deciding to drive at dangerous speeds. One only needs to look at the revenue gained from drink driving and speeding tickets to see that current laws aren't having a significant enough influence on drivers. There are technologies that exist similar to these although they aren't perfected and have many flaws, an increase in focus on these types of technologies could see a significant decrease in crime and eventually due to the exponential nature of technology, the end of crime.

pretty arrogant assumption to say you know a) that god exist and b) that you know his duties. what have you seen that I haven't?

no but they do have a duty to get educated and and stop breeding and supporting ignorance in society.

The burden of proof is on the person claiming that god exist. The fact that you cant completely disprove that the christian god exist, doesn't mean you should believe it.