Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)
Comments
-
What the hell does Christianity have to do with the Industrial Revolution? Unless you mean the treatment of the workers, while the powerful got richer and greedier? In which case I get it.
But Christianity did nothing for the industrial revolution what-so-ever!
Also, nice one jumping ahead over a thousand years!
So, which parts of the Industrial Revolution are you prepared to argue would have occurred without:
a) The agricultural techniques developed by monastries which provided enough food to produce the population of the UK in the 17th-19th centuries which was essential to the Industrial Revolution?
b) The great universities of Europe which were founded by the Church?
c) The application of the scientific method as logically applied by Bacon?
d) The investment of capital made possible by developments in the monastries such as double-entry book-keeping and mortgages?
Tell us how the Industrial Revolution could have happened without all that to build on.0 -
So, which parts of the Industrial Revolution are you prepared to argue would have occurred without:
a) The agricultural techniques developed by monastries which provided enough food to produce the population of the UK in the 17th-19th centuries which was essential to the Industrial Revolution?
b) The great universities of Europe which were founded by the Church?
c) The application of the scientific method as logically applied by Bacon?
d) The investment of capital made possible by developments in the monastries such as double-entry book-keeping and mortgages?
Tell us how the Industrial Revolution could have happened without all that to build on.
All of the above are just the continuation of and building on what went before.
I think it was Einstein who replied in answer to the question which was more important Beethoven's 9th or Newton's Laws and he replied the 9th as that was the result of individual genius and if Beethoven had'nt lived we would'nt have it. Whereas if Newton had'nt lived we would still have his Laws as Science etc is the accumulation of knowledge - standing on the shoulders of giants and all that.0 -
Well that is one point i have continually tried to make. But it isnt positive for society is my point.
it is a lack of a belief.
No it isnt it is a belief of a lack of a God/gods/ supernatural forces!
http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/files/2011/08/NONES_08.pdf
figure 1.13 page 11
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Please understand i/we use these explicit definitions here to avoid fudging
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas
You seem confused: 'a disbelief in the existence of a deity' is not the same as 'a belief that no deity exists'.
Your attempt to twist the meaning of the word 'atheist' by replacing the word 'disbelief' with 'belief' is ironic really if you bear in mind your reaction to the suggestion that since only 32% of people polled classified themselves non-atheist, 68% can be said to have classified themselves as atheist.
Disbelief requires no data; no mental processing; it takes up no space.
Belief however requires data. In order to believe in the non-existence of something, one must first define what it is that doesn't exist before it is rejected by the belief system. How do you define something that doesn't exist?
From an atheist's point of view, there is no reason, no supporting data, for supposing the existence of a God. All things that are attributed to God by religionists can be much more satisfactorily explained without any recourse to God at all.
I also think that 'lack of faith' is implicit in the term 'atheist'. Atheists tend to ask deeper questions; they argue with each other and common sense, logic and reasoning help to form a world view through empiricism. And pragmatism, of course.
People who have faith possess mental machinery that constrains the kind of questioning that can occur in matters of faith and this gives rise to the mental framework out of which the 'God effect' emerges.
Atheists lack faith and therefore the mental framework that is required to 'house' the 'God effect'; the mechanism of 'belief' is missing from their mental 'toolkit'.
An atheist is unable to believe in God (no comparative data for it) therefore the question of the non-existence of a God that is supposed not to exist is rendered meaningless.
A non-belief in a positive is not always the same as a belief in a negative.
Oh, and for an example of Christians not being involved in wholesale slaughter just have a look at the Middle-East, and Africa.
Your cherry-picking never ceases to amuse me.0 -
So is it pointless trying to convince an atheist of God? Is their no proof ever going to convince him/her?Originally Posted by himnextdoor
An atheist is unable to believe in God
Isnt this a bit like a theist saying that no proof will ever convince them of the nonexistence of God? Which you claim makes it a faith position. So....
I'm inclined to agree with you here. Beliefs may be a mater of disposition or psychology.0 -
My point was very straightforward. In response to himnextdoor's question about what the world would look like without Christianity, I pointed out that most things in the modern world deveoped, in part, because of Christianity.
Which made me wonder: how would Einstein and Oppenheimer have got on with the inquisition?
I wonder how many Einsteins were lost to the fires of history through professional jealousy and Christianity.0 -
Advertisement
-
All of the above are just the continuation of and building on what went before.
I think it was Einstein who replied in answer to the question which was more important Beethoven's 9th or Newton's Laws and he replied the 9th as that was the result of individual genius and if Beethoven had'nt lived we would'nt have it. Whereas if Newton had'nt lived we would still have his Laws as Science etc is the accumulation of knowledge - standing on the shoulders of giants and all that.
And where has anyone here claimed anything different? The question was where we would be without Christianity. No-one is pretending that Christianity operates in a vacuum devoid from other influences.0 -
himnextdoor wrote: »Which made me wonder: how would Einstein and Oppenheimer have got on with the inquisition?
I wonder how many Einsteins were lost to the fires of history through professional jealousy and Christianity.
I don't know, but I'd be prepared to wager that it was a lot less than were butchered through professional jealousy in the atheist regimes of the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites.
Glass houses and stones etc.0 -
So is it pointless trying to convince an atheist of God? Is their no proof ever going to convince him/her?
Isnt this a bit like a theist saying that no proof will ever convince them of the nonexistence of God? Which you claim makes it a faith position. So....
I'm inclined to agree with you here. Beliefs may be a mater of disposition or psychology.
You've answered your own question really by introducing the concept of proof. Because an atheist lacks the machinery that gives rise to faith, he needs proof in order to synthesise a framework that can house the 'God effect'.
Of course, he wouldn't be an atheist then so therefore can be convinced of the existence of God through examination of data that supports the idea of there being a God.
A non-atheist on the other hand requires no proof; faith replaces the requirement for evidence and the lack of evidence for God serves as proof in and of itself. It makes humans easy to manipulate. Especially if you can get them at a young age.
Although, I reckon that most of the religious leaders around the world are praying that there is no God because if there is, they could be in very hot sulphur.0 -
Interesting, I believe but require no evidence or rather I know when I lack the tools to do the work, then again I see evidence of belief all around me and am happy to go with the proof of the belief in action. Maybe I just don't get the need for evidence, more a suck it and see type of guy.A non-atheist on the other hand requires no proof; faith replaces the requirement for evidence and the lack of evidence for God serves as proof in and of itself. It makes humans easy to manipulate. Especially if you can get them at a young age.0 -
Through the wormhole..
Is there life after death..
Just started on Sky 549, for anyone that's interested.0 -
Advertisement
-
And where has anyone here claimed anything different? The question was where we would be without Christianity. No-one is pretending that Christianity operates in a vacuum devoid from other influences.
I think you claimed a bit more than that PDN - post 2663 for example.
As to where would we be without Christianity ? Who knows probably just about the same place I would think.
By the way you never answered my question about all the improvements between the ancients and the renaissance.0 -
I don't know, but I'd be prepared to wager that it was a lot less than were butchered through professional jealousy in the atheist regimes of the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites.
Glass houses and stones etc.
Where do you get the notion that Christians are not involved in the wholesale slaughter of humans? They are and have been since time immemorial. From the Crusades in the Middle-East a thousand years ago to the Crusades in the Middle-East today, Christians have been involved in the wholesale slaughter of human beings. In both world wars, the majority of the killing was done by Christians.
Or doesn't bombing a hospital in Bagdhad count?
All that was required in order to progress human knowledge was time and freedom. Christianity cannot claim to have bestowed both these things on humanity; they weren't theirs to give.
And without question, science would have been very restrained in the times when religious fervour was a real threat to life and limb; a time when the subject of religion evoked feelings of fear.0 -
Perhaps you should read that post, rather than plucking a number out of thin air? That post certainly does not claim that Christianity operated in a vacuum devoid of other influences.I think you claimed a bit more than that PDN - post 2663 for example.
You're right, I didn't because it was totally irrelevant to the point I was making. Your penchant for rabbit trails has been well noted.By the way you never answered my question about all the improvements between the ancients and the renaissance.0 -
Interesting, I believe but require no evidence or rather I know when I lack the tools to do the work, then again I see evidence of belief all around me and am happy to go with the proof of the belief in action. Maybe I just don't get the need for evidence, more a suck it and see type of guy.
LOL. I guess I'm more a watch them suck it and see what happens type of guy.
The belief in action you referred is more related to teamwork than a belief system. This is just another evolutionary development that allowed us to survive through cooperation. It's a nice feeling to be part of a team, I get that, but that feeling of team spirit would not be diminished through the lack of a God. Nor augmented.
Religion is useful to humans as a tool but it is unfortunate that human nature ensures that there are always people to exploit it.0 -
himnextdoor wrote: »Where do you get the notion that Christians are not involved in the wholesale slaughter of humans?
Maybe you should address what I post rather than making stuff up about me? Where have I said that Christians have never been involved in slaughter. Cite the post, please, or an apology is in order.
That might be the case if you adhere to a very loose definition of 'Christians'. Most of the participants in the world wars belonged to fairly secular societies.In both world wars, the majority of the killing was done by Christians.
I'm not aware of any Christian group bombing a Bagdhad hospital. Was it the Methodists or the Salvation Army that carried out this atrocity? Have you inside information that enables you to state categorically that no atheists or agnostics participated in this bombing of which you speak?Or doesn't bombing a hospital in Bagdhad count?
That statement should be very easy to verify, particularly for someone who claims to operate by proof rather than by faith. All you have to do is to name all those other parts of the world where Christianity had little influence, but which for centuries sustained intellectual development and developed stuff like the logical application of the scientific method, or gave us Newtonian physics, or computers, or Universities such as Oxford and Cambridge, or the theory of evolution, or which produced Galileo or Copernicus or Kepler.All that was required in order to progress human knowledge was time and freedom. Christianity cannot claim to have bestowed both these things on humanity; they weren't theirs to give.0 -
This is just silly, with this logic you could believe in any old hogwash and justify it as "It must be true or else I wouldn't think it's true because I'm super at finding the truth"philologos wrote: »muppeteer: Because it simply isn't true as far as I'm concerned and as far as all who are Christians think. If it weren't true, more than likely I wouldn't have been able to see Christianity as true.
Have you never been mistaken? Or is your track record so good in finding the truth you find yourself able to justify belief by the simple fact that you yourself find it convincing?
Most people I find try to justify their belief externally to "its true because I think it's true".
I have to say I don't think of all Christians as lacking ability. I wouldn't even bother talking to you if I believed that. I would however think you are using that ability to come to spurious conclusion.Atheists like to think Christians are devoid of logical reasoning abilities, but I don't think that's true. I do much the same as most others in respect to the world. I look at it, and I analyse what corresponds with reality and what doesn't. I don't believe atheism corresponds with reality in the slightest, and I find that Christianity does. I'm going to go through your post later today and spend a bit of time on it.
I'll re post what I said again as it answers the above but you seem to have missed it:However, the argument still falls flat on its face. Why atheism even if Christianity is false? Rubbishing Christianity does not demonstrate atheism to be true. It's like saying if I rubbish atheism and every single other faith if that were even possible, that Christianity would be true. That's nonsense though, one must present a positive argument for that position. Likewise, you do too.
To clarify the above it is not necessary to individually rubbish(or find the evidence lacking), all possible gods. It is only necessary to dismiss the basic overarching premises. For example you don't have to dismiss blue winged unicorns and then separately red winged unicorns. Dismissing one god by suggesting there is not enough convincing evidence for it does not mean I can fail to dismiss another god if there is a similar lack of evidence. This is one of the huge inconsistencies in the theist position.Lack of evidence and hence lack of belief is sufficient for you too I suspect.
Sufficient for you when it comes to unicorns yes?
Sufficient for you when it comes to other gods such as Zeus?
You reject other gods such as Zeus and unicorns for lack of evidence and become by the fact of not having a belief in them an aunicorist and an azeusist.
Why should a lack of evidence not be sufficient when it comes to the Christian God?
Are you still maintaining that if you should become unconvinced of the evidence for Christianity and theism that you would not somehow become an atheist? Atheism is what is left over when you reject all the other gods, not something you start believing in that needs a convincing basis separate from the unconvincing nature of gods.
Specifically why atheism if Christianity is false?
Because the same lack of evidence, combined with our known human predilection to invent gods, that suggests Christianity is false also suggests that all other human religions are false also.0 -
This is just silly, with this logic you could believe in any old hogwash and justify it as "It must be true or else I wouldn't think it's true because I'm super at finding the truth"
Have you never been mistaken? Or is your track record so good in finding the truth you find yourself able to justify belief by the simple fact that you yourself find it convincing?
Most people I find try to justify their belief externally to "its true because I think it's true".
I have to say I don't think of all Christians as lacking ability. I wouldn't even bother talking to you if I believed that. I would however think you are using that ability to come to spurious conclusion.
Mupeteer you are entitled to believe whatever you will, even about Christians - heck you won't be the first, that said they don't 'lack ability' - thankyou -
You could even argue that Christ wasn't a historical figure, many have - that doesn't mean that they were necessarily clever, if anything they were biased in the extreme to basic historic study, even educated atheists acknowledge historic study.
However, it's plainly obvious that you have made your choices and don't pay a whole lot of regard to Christianity above belief in fairies etc. Santa and the Tooth Fairy - Personally I think that's your problem. If you feel an affinity with nature or have some kind of notion about setting people free from Christianity, than good luck with that.
As far as Christianity is concerned you either believe Christ is God or don't - very simple really at the core, you do or don't, are open or are not, think Christ is on par with delusional humans, or are convinced he is on par with Santa, and wonder at apparently educated but defective somehow people who actually believe that Christ told the truth - how shocking!!
You can swim the surface, and call Christians delusional nymph and fairy believers etc. without knowing us, but when you get to the deep end and actually debate more than strawmans perhaps it might engage your mind a little and you will understand why apparently educated people believe in Christ. Then again you could just continue being where you are - all lofty.0 -
Maybe you should read again what I posted. Reading carefully, last time I looked, was of benefit to a historian.
My point was not that civilisation comes exclusively from Christianity, but rather that Christianity played a pivotal role in developing the methods, technologies, and kind of society that make life bearable for most of us today.
What advances occurred, in part, because of Christianity?
Many developments and refinements in agricultural techniques which occurred in the monastries of Europe.
The development of double entry book-keeping and insurance which made possible capitalism and the investments that led to the Industrial Revolution.
Cheap and efficient printing as developed by Gutenburg and popularised to meet the demand for copies of the Bible caused by the Reformation.
The heliocentric system as expounded by Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and others.
The logical application of the scientific method as developed by Francis Bacon.
Newtownian physics.
Computers.
The theory of evolution.
Of course the whole counter-factual game is far from precise. You can always argue that the Aztecs might have paused long enough from cutting people's hearts out to establish an equivalent to Oxford University. But, looking at real history, we find that most things that make 21st Century life bearable for most of us developed in some way through the monastries, universities, hospitals and other institutions that were founded by Christian churches.
Oh I have read the post 2663 ok PDN, where along with all of the above you claimed-
2663 without Christianity -there would have been no scientific method/-no Universities/- GPS technology almost certainly would'nt have come about.
2692 there would have been no Renaissance.
2697 by implication the Industrial Revolution.
one could equally argue that from the ancients to the Renaissance there was only limited advances - with some astonishing exceptions some of which were directly attributable to the Christianity - the Divine Comedy, those glorious Cathedrals are prime examples.
And it was the rediscovery of the Ancients that caused the Renaissance the Reformantion - The Enlightment- The Industrial Revolution and so on.
And in answer to the notion who that it was Christianity, or Irish and Byzantine monks that preserved all this knowledge , it makes one wonder what were they doing with it for 1300 years !0 -
Oh I have read the post 2663 ok PDN, where along with all of the above you claimed-
2663 without Christianity -there would have been no scientific method/-no Universities/- GPS technology almost certainly would'nt have come about.
2692 there would have been no Renaissance.
2697 by implication the Industrial Revolution.
Which is entirely different from the farcical notion, which no-one here has argued, that Christianity somehow developed in a vacuum.
But I've long ago given up on the notion that you might admit you were wrong to imply that I have suggested such a thing.
There's a great book by Thomas Cahill called 'How the Irish saved Civilisation' that is well worth reading.And in answer to the notion who that it was Christianity, or Irish and Byzantine monks that preserved all this knowledge , it makes one wonder what were they doing with it for 1300 years !
When you consider the ravages caused by Germanic barbarians, Islamic armies and the Vikings, preserving that knowledge at all was an achievement of astonishing tenacity. It deserves better than the sneering of armchair critics who enjoy the fruit of that knowledge.0 -
Apologies if I appear "lofty", it is not my intention.Mupeteer you are entitled to believe whatever you will, even about Christians - heck you won't be the first, that said they don't 'lack ability' - thankyou -
You could even argue that Christ wasn't a historical figure, many have - that doesn't mean that they were necessarily clever, if anything they were biased in the extreme to basic historic study, even educated atheists acknowledge historic study.
However, it's plainly obvious that you have made your choices and don't pay a whole lot of regard to Christianity above belief in fairies etc. Santa and the Tooth Fairy - Personally I think that's your problem. If you feel an affinity with nature or have some kind of notion about setting people free from Christianity, than good luck with that.
As far as Christianity is concerned you either believe Christ is God or don't - very simple really at the core, you do or don't, are open or are not, think Christ is on par with delusional humans, or are convinced he is on par with Santa, and wonder at apparently educated but defective somehow people who actually believe that Christ told the truth - how shocking!!
You can swim the surface, and call Christians delusional nymph and fairy believers etc. without knowing us, but when you get to the deep end and actually debate more than strawmans perhaps it might engage your mind a little and you will understand why apparently educated people believe in Christ. Then again you could just continue being where you are - all lofty.
As for the type of Christians that say you either believe in Christ or not, or that I must "open my heart" I don't have much time for them as we seem to operate under a different set of rules.
Those Christians who are rational and have rational reasons for believing what they do interest me and are the ones I like speaking to.
What really interests me is when two somewhat rational people look at the same world and the same evidence and come to wildly different conclusions. And I think debating some of the people here is the deep end, working out the premises and assumptions that lead to, what I believe to be at least, incorrect conclusions. I'm sure others get a kick out of the same without any need to be converting anyone.0 -
Advertisement
-
While there would probably be more war, it would probably involve less bombing. More a case of people chopping each other up with machetes due to a failure to develop the scientific method in any systematic manner. No universities etc. would probably have held back technology quite seriously.
The modern habit of using GPS systems to guide bombs would almost certainly never have developed with out the patronage of the Church that enabled Copernicus and Galileo to do their stuff, or indeed the Christian-based worldview which led them to seek for order in the earthly and heavenly realms.
Counter-factual history ('What If') can be quite fascinating, but it has a habit of rebounding on you quite nastily when you try to use it to prove an ideological point (like real history does too).
Well PDN this was your initial post that kicked off this whole debate and if you are saying that i have misunderstood it ( along with Bannasidhe and others) in taking this to mean that Christianity is the reason why we are where we are today , if you are saying that interpretation is incorrect then I am happy to admit I got it wrong.0 -
Apologies if I appear "lofty", it is not my intention.
Fair enough. Please don't mention the FSM though, Santa and Fairies are a welcome distraction to having spaghetti thrown in for a good laugh - or Epicurus, because we all need curing from Epi - he's kind of boring at this stage.As for the type of Christians that say you either believe in Christ or not, or that I must "open my heart" I don't have much time for them as we seem to operate under a different set of rules.
No we don't operate under different rules - you are just as human as everybody else I'm afraid. It's not only a case of opening up your 'heart' though - ultimately yes certainly it is, but also a case of not letting yourself write your very own version of xenophobia or fear of those Christians, or Christ believers, on your life above and beyond opening up your 'heart' and not a little recognising 'mind' behind your fellow humans who don't necessarily subscribe to every supernatural thing, just because they are Christians.Those Christians who are rational and have rational reasons for believing what they do interest me and are the ones I like speaking to.
Well, you have spoken with one, one of many if you stick about - Phil, who is fearless!What really interests me is when two somewhat rational people look at the same world and the same evidence and come to wildly different conclusions.
That does happen, and not only in the 'Christian' worldview, unless one is very unaware of the wider world.
I would imagine that creeds by any other name, or beliefs and goals of proof, are part and parcel of every study of humanity, although not exactly as apparent, they are there too among the intellectuals who seek knowledge and claim to explain 'everything'...And I think debating some of the people here is the deep end, working out the premises and assumptions that lead to, what I believe to be at least, incorrect conclusions. I'm sure others get a kick out of the same without any need to be converting anyone.
Welcome to the Christianity forum...we love a good debate here apparently -
0 -
Maybe you should read again what I posted. Reading carefully, last time I looked, was of benefit to a historian.
My point was not that civilisation comes exclusively from Christianity, but rather that Christianity played a pivotal role in developing the methods, technologies, and kind of society that make life bearable for most of us today.
What advances occurred, in part, because of Christianity?
Many developments and refinements in agricultural techniques which occurred in the monastries of Europe.
The development of double entry book-keeping and insurance which made possible capitalism and the investments that led to the Industrial Revolution.
Cheap and efficient printing as developed by Gutenburg and popularised to meet the demand for copies of the Bible caused by the Reformation.
The heliocentric system as expounded by Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and others.
The logical application of the scientific method as developed by Francis Bacon.
Newtownian physics.
Computers.
The theory of evolution.
Of course the whole counter-factual game is far from precise. You can always argue that the Aztecs might have paused long enough from cutting people's hearts out to establish an equivalent to Oxford University. But, looking at real history, we find that most things that make 21st Century life bearable for most of us developed in some way through the monastries, universities, hospitals and other institutions that were founded by Christian churches.
Algebra, algorithms, mathematics, computers -all possible due to Islam. Europe was still using the Roman numerical system until the Crusaders brought those nifty 1,2,3's back from the Middle East- not to mention that stroke of mathematical genius that is zero. Without there would be no binary code or for that matter double entry booking.
Printing - I suppose a little thing called the Renaissance had nothing to do with that. All of those 'pagan' books containing the wisdom of those decidedly not Christian Greeks and Romans which European Christianity had suppressed for so long, but had been so carefully and lovingly preserved in the East -by Muslims - suddenly with the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 became available again and an age of re-discovery of what had been lost began.
It was lost to Europe because Christianity ruthlessly suppressed any information that did not conform to its world view. It did this by having a monopoly on education and literacy.
Printing destroyed that and the knowledge of the ancient pagan world fed first the Renaissance and then The Age of Reason - it's father was Galileo who challenged the Christian orthodoxy that placed Earth at the centre of the universe.
Natural Philosophers such as Newton, Boyle, Hooke, Von Liebnitz began to look at how the world was actually made. To explore how it worked. Based not on the Bible - but on scientific experimentation and observation. Central to the work of Newton and Von Libnitz was those ol Muslim numbers...
They insisted that observable, measurable proof was more important then faith.
From the Age of Reason grew the Enlightenment - which questioned everything from the concept of the divine right of kings to the existence of God. Political theorists such as Locke and Montesque laid down the foundation for secular societies where each citizen was equal and entitled to freedom on conscience. Those ideas were central to both the American revolution and French revolution and the creation of the western world's first secular states.
The scientific advances of the Age of Reason - steam power etc - combined with the Enlightened concept of man as controller of his own destiny led to the Industrial revolution.
Once again - I fail to see how Christianity can be credited with any advances and find it interesting that it was the precise moment that Christianity began to fracture in Europe and lost the total control it had enjoyed for centuries that technology, social structures, medicine, engineering, political theory, literature, art and even plumbing once again began to advance and innovate.
I see how one could credit Islam with many advances - BTW they also pioneered anatomy - their anatomical studies led to surgery becoming more then chopping off limbs. Anatomical studies were punishable by death in Christian Europe.
Paper we got from the very non-Christian Chinese (via Muslim traders)- as well as the idea of printing (using movable type no less) that inspired Gutenberg. They also gave us gunpowder, tomatoes and pasta.
Sooo - that list you supplied -
Monasteries - you are vague as to what exactly these development are - it can't be writing - the version used in Europe was developed in Mesopotamia, adopted by the Persians who passed in on to the Greeks who developed the phonetic alphabet which was adopted by the Romans who developed the alphabet and the glyphs we still use.
Agriculture - what is your evidence to suggest that monasteries - which had been in existence for some time - were the impetus behind the 3 major agricultural innovations of the Middle Ages in the 9th/10th centuries - the 3-Field System, the heavy plough and the invention of the horseshoe which made it possible to use horse power?
Is it co-incidence that all of these developments happened at the same time as the Franks were able to impose political stability in central Europe for the first time since the Fall of Rome and the average temperature increased in central and Northern Europe?
Shall we just ignore the fact that when anarchy raged across Europe from the 6th to 9th centuries the only central authority and most powerful, unified, organisation was the Christian Church based in Rome?
Stability returned, Europe rebuilt and there was even a mini-Renaissance once a secular power was able to counter-balance the church and provide patronage to scholars independently of the Church.
Double entry booking right on through to computers would not have been possible without Islam.
Nice attempt to deflect BTW with the Aztec 'might have been' comment but I'm afraid that you are dealing with a real life historian who has studied and lectured on this stuff. I do not do 'what is'. I do 'what actually happened' and I have more then enough evidence at my disposal to back up everything I say.
Would you like some links? Here is one on agriculture in the Middle Ages http://www.flowofhistory.com/units/west/10/FC63 - in summary it says things pretty much continued the same way as the (Pagan) Romans did it from 5th to 9th centuries (wasn't there monasteries then??? Of course there were, that was the great age of Christian expansionism in Europe) - then the Frankish Empire came along - Feudal system, political stability allowing trade to resume - and the weather got milder...0 -
Lovely.
Not only Fairys etc. and Santa, but also Islam, Atheist, Spiritual religions, caste and creeds of all kinds -
The Christianity forum is a veritable hive of ney sayers - but full of humanity, exactly it's purpose.
What a great forum 0 -
Right, which is why the Industrial Revolution and the development of the scientific method happened in Africa?
Nice try Richie, but epic fail. Where do you think Islam came from? It developed as a Christian heresy. No Christianity - no Islam.
Oh, and by the way, if you bother to read those books rather than something you saw on a documentary once then expect to discover that many of the the key figures who saved the scientific knowledge in the Islamic worls were, wait for it, Byzantine Christians!
Epic Epic fail PDN.
Christianity was nothing more then an offshoot of Judaism which was Romanised by Paul so it could be sold to the empire. He even changed the name of the man he claimed was the son of God from the scary Hebrew Jeshua to the nice Roman sounding Jesus to make it more palatable. After all -the Jews had recently risen in a bloody revolt (66 C.E.) against Rome led by among others Eleazar ben Simon - his name was Romanised as Lazarus but his political activites are not mentioned at all in the Bible. Can't have a man closely identified with Jewish rebellion recognised as the same one brought back to life by by one's messiah now can we?
Islam owes much to Judaism, but absolutely nothing to Christianity which is considers to be a failure as to their way of thinking it took the words of God as delivered by the prophet Jeshua and twisted them and turned the prophet into a god - to Muslim eyes this is blasphemy.
They believe that when it became obvious that the message of Jeshua had been subverted, God chose a new prophet and Muhammad was his name.
God had to do this sort of thing quite often apparently. That's why there were so many prophets.
In Judiasm the possibility exists for God to continue to send these phrophets - they recognise Jeshua as one in a continuing line of many. To Muslims Jeshua was the last important prophet before Muhammad, but Muhammad is the last prophet God will send. To Christians John the Baptist (also recognised by Jews and Muslims as a prophet ) was the last prophet - Jesus was not a prophet - he was the son of God. Was he? Or did he have to be portrayed as a deity to be taken seriously in an Empire when the ruler was a living god in his own right.
When the empiror is a living god - who on Earth would be interested in following an executed prophet (executed for treason BTW - crucifixion was only for treason against the Roman Empire - no other crime was punished this way) from a defeated and dispersed tribe from the Middle East where there was a living god right there on the Imperial throne?
Now....
These Byzantine Christians who apparently preserved all this knowledge - would they have lived during what historians refer to as the Islamic Golden Age (750 CE - c. 1258 CE) ? Strange how it's not called the Byzantine Golden Age if their role was a pivotal as you like to portray it as.
One assumes you will also claim that ʾAbū l-Walīd Muḥammad bin ʾAḥmad bin Rušd and Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Sīnā who saved the works of Aristotle, the latter's medical text books later became the standard texts in European universities, were Greek.
As no doubt was the mathematical genius Abū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī after whom the algorithm is named. He saved and updated the works of Ptolemy as well as writing mathematical treatises and was believed in Europe to have 'invented' algebra - but in fact he had 'simply' refined and advanced pagan Greek and Persian ideas.
Perhaps you would have us also believe the House of Knowledge - a treasure trove of preserved works and intellectual debate was really in Byzantium and not Baghdad?0 -
That statement should be very easy to verify, particularly for someone who claims to operate by proof rather than by faith. All you have to do is to name all those other parts of the world where Christianity had little influence, but which for centuries sustained intellectual development and developed stuff like the logical application of the scientific method, or gave us Newtonian physics, or computers, or Universities such as Oxford and Cambridge, or the theory of evolution, or which produced Galileo or Copernicus or Kepler.
I never said that Christianity had no influence; the early Christians were masters of psychological terror.
The fear instilled by the Catholic church is still evident in 21st century Ireland.
There is no-one who can be considered more cruel than Christians. They are blind to suffering on the basis that it is the will of God.
How is sticking a pole up your enemy's anus worse that burning a Jewish girl for being Jewish?0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »Algebra, algorithms, mathematics, computers -all possible due to Islam (Developed as a Christian heresy). Europe was still using the Roman numerical system until the Crusaders brought those nifty 1,2,3's back from the Middle East- not to mention that stroke of mathematical genius that is zero. Without there would be no binary code or for that matter double entry booking.
Printing - I suppose a little thing called the Renaissance (lots of scholars funded by and receiving patronage from the Church) had nothing to do with that. All of those 'pagan' books containing the wisdom of those decidedly not Christian Greeks and Romans which European Christianity had suppressed for so long, but had been so carefully and lovingly preserved in the East -by Muslims (a heresy that developed from Christianity) - suddenly with the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 became available again and an age of re-discovery of what had been lost began.
It was lost to Europe because Christianity ruthlessly suppressed any information that did not conform to its world view. It did this by having a monopoly on education and literacy.
Printing (Gutenburg again) destroyed that and the knowledge of the ancient pagan world fed first the Renaissance and then The Age of Reason - it's father was Galileo (a Christian, funded by the Church and borrowing ideas from a Polish canon) who challenged the Christian orthodoxy that placed Earth at the centre of the universe.
Natural Philosophers such as Newton (a Christian who studied and taught at Cambridge, a University founded by the Church), Boyle, Hooke (son of a clergyman who was educated at Westminster School which was founded by monks), Von Liebnitz (devout Christian) began to look at how the world was actually made. To explore how it worked. Based not on the Bible - but on scientific experimentation and observation. Central to the work of Newton and Von Libnitz was those ol Muslim numbers...
They insisted that observable, measurable proof was more important then faith.
From the Age of Reason grew the Enlightenment - which questioned everything from the concept of the divine right of kings to the existence of God. Political theorists such as Locke (Westminster school and Oxford - those pesky monks and churchmen couldn't help establishing all these schools and universities and Montesque laid down the foundation for secular societies where each citizen was equal and entitled to freedom on conscience. Those ideas were central to both the American revolution and French revolution and the creation of the western world's first secular states.
The scientific advances of the Age of Reason - steam power etc - combined with the Enlightened concept of man as controller of his own destiny led to the Industrial revolution.
Once again - I fail to see how Christianity can be credited with any advances and find it interesting that it was the precise moment that Christianity began to fracture in Europe and lost the total control it had enjoyed for centuries that technology, social structures, medicine, engineering, political theory, literature, art and even plumbing once again began to advance and innovate.
I see how one could credit Islam with many advances - BTW they also pioneered anatomy - their anatomical studies led to surgery becoming more then chopping off limbs. Anatomical studies were punishable by death in Christian Europe.
Paper we got from the very non-Christian Chinese (via Muslim traders)- as well as the idea of printing (using movable type no less) that inspired Gutenberg. They also gave us gunpowder, tomatoes and pasta.
Sooo - that list you supplied -
Monasteries - you are vague as to what exactly these development are - it can't be writing - the version used in Europe was developed in Mesopotamia, adopted by the Persians who passed in on to the Greeks who developed the phonetic alphabet which was adopted by the Romans who developed the alphabet and the glyphs we still use.
Agriculture - what is your evidence to suggest that monasteries - which had been in existence for some time - were the impetus behind the 3 major agricultural innovations of the Middle Ages in the 9th/10th centuries - the 3-Field System, the heavy plough and the invention of the horseshoe which made it possible to use horse power?
Is it co-incidence that all of these developments happened at the same time as the Franks were able to impose political stability in central Europe for the first time since the Fall of Rome and the average temperature increased in central and Northern Europe?
Shall we just ignore the fact that when anarchy raged across Europe from the 6th to 9th centuries the only central authority and most powerful, unified, organisation was the Christian Church based in Rome?
Stability returned, Europe rebuilt and there was even a mini-Renaissance once a secular power was able to counter-balance the church and provide patronage to scholars independently of the Church.
Double entry booking right on through to computers would not have been possible without Islam (again!).
Nice attempt to deflect BTW with the Aztec 'might have been' comment but I'm afraid that you are dealing with a real life historian who has studied and lectured on this stuff. I do not do 'what is'. I do 'what actually happened' and I have more then enough evidence at my disposal to back up everything I say.
Would you like some links? Here is one on agriculture in the Middle Ages http://www.flowofhistory.com/units/west/10/FC63 - in summary it says things pretty much continued the same way as the (Pagan) Romans did it from 5th to 9th centuries (wasn't there monasteries then??? Of course there were, that was the great age of Christian expansionism in Europe) - then the Frankish Empire came along - Feudal system, political stability allowing trade to resume - and the weather got milder...
Thank you for proving my point so eloquently. For someone who claims to be a historian you seem to have real difficuloty with understanding what it is written in front of your eyes.
My one straightforward point (in response to himnextdoor) was that Christianity was pivotal to the development of so much of modern life. You appear to be trying to argue against some other position that neither myself nor anyone else here has taken - namely that Christianity came up with everything as original ideas.
You could have saved yourself a whole lot of typing if you had actually taken the time to read my post.0 -
Well PDN this was your initial post that kicked off this whole debate and if you are saying that i have misunderstood it ( along with Bannasidhe and others) in taking this to mean that Christianity is the reason why we are where we are today , if you are saying that interpretation is incorrect then I am happy to admit I got it wrong.
Fair enough, apology accepted.
Btw, you can use the same point for many bad things as well as good things. I could say (as I have on many occasions) that without Christianity there would be no Crusades, Inquisition, or 9/11. But then, if you and the chorus were consistent, you would argue that this only happened because Christianity borrowed ideas from other people. Or, of course, you could make the claim that these things would all have happened anyway, even if there had been no Christianity.
The problem with counter-factual history is that it allows people's prejudices to dominate over reason or logic. So we get one-eyed reasoning that says:
"Yeah, all the good things would have happened if there was no Christianity, but none of the bad things would have happened".0 -
himnextdoor wrote: »There is no-one who can be considered more cruel than Christians. They are blind to suffering on the basis that it is the will of God.
How is sticking a pole up your enemy's anus worse that burning a Jewish girl for being Jewish?
Sorry, is there some kind of cruelty index that I'm unaware of? With regard to suffering, it might help to familiarise yourself with what Christians actually believe. A good place to start might be the many fine Christian organisations which are working to relieve human suffering.
As for your final sentence, both are bad. If you can find a single Christian here who thinks that either of those acts are ok on the basis of the Gospel, I may.concede you have a point. I'd doubt it somehow.0 -
Advertisement
-
Benny_Cake wrote: »Sorry, is there some kind of cruelty index that I'm unaware of? With regard to suffering, it might help to familiarise yourself with what Christians actually believe. A good place to start might be the many fine Christian organisations which are working to relieve human suffering.
As for your final sentence, both are bad. If you can find a single Christian here who thinks that either of those acts are ok on the basis of the Gospel, I may.concede you have a point. I'd doubt it somehow.
I think you're falling into the trap of feeding the troll, Benny.
There are atheists who will use this thread to engage in discussion - and others that use it to simply bait Christians and throw out vague or generalised insults.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement