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)

18788909293327

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    this isnt necessarily true. the philosophy of langiuage shjows us that while communication is inteed a main function of language the primary function is NOT communication but philosophy.
    ...
    The primary function of language is in understanding and thinking -philosophy.

    Ok ... ?

    I'm not talking about whether the primary function of language is communication.
    ISAW wrote: »
    I can just as easily claim we model computers the universe on logic processing and laws of nature rather than a puppet master god.

    I don't understand what you mean by that.
    ISAW wrote: »
    i dont think christians today when there is a flood say "why is god punishing us" do they?

    Really? That seems the default response. After a natural disaster you can't turn on the TV without seeing some preacher saying that this is because we have turned our back on God.

    But there are few points to make. Firstly there is a difference between someone having an initial reaction that this happened for a reason, and then discarding this initial thought as irrational. Through scientific understanding of natural events we have come to understand the processes behind, and the chaotic nature of such processes, and so are more likely to abandon supernatural thinking to explain such events. We still have this instinctive first response though.

    Secondly we are talking about far more than just natural disasters. People, across all religions and including atheists, still think (to varying degrees of rational acceptance) in these terms. I've had many conversations with theists on this site alone where they have said that the evidence for their beliefs comes from events in the natural world which they attribute to supernatural forces at work behind the sense, be that God or angels or benevolent spirits etc
    ISAW wrote: »
    and your piles and piles of established research to back this opinion up is?...

    I'm more than happy to compile the list again (though bare with me as I'm in work at the moment). Though I would point out I've done this before and it was ignored wholesale by those I was presenting it to.
    ISAW wrote: »
    where has the church stated a natural disaster is "god is punishing us" or "the devil is doing it"?

    You are joking right? Er, off the top of my head Exodus 7, though I could have picked countless other examples from the Bible, or from Christianity since the Bible or from any other religion for that matter.

    It is a common theme across human civilisations, to attribute natural disasters to acts of their god(s). It is so common that is what these things are termed in thinks like insurance forms, "acts of God".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    there are huge parallels between the genesis 22 account of Abraham and Isaac and the crusifiction story of Jesus.
    Such as?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ISAW your points are increasingly random, tangential and have little do with the points I am making.
    Nor do you seem to be actually reading what I type.
    ISAW wrote: »
    No it isnt it is a belief of a lack of a God/gods/ supernatural forces!
    No, that is not what Atheism is, and it is not the position I hold.
    The position I hold is not what you are defining as agnosticism as that definition is both wrong and does not accurately define my position.

    The best way to define my position is that I lack a positive belief in god.
    This is the position I am referring to as atheism (since that's what the word means), so arguing by assuming I hold a different position is wrong.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Russels teapot was created to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others.
    And I am simply using it as an example of something which Philologos does not positively believe in to illustrate the failing in his logic.
    You do not seem to realise this even though I has repeated this several times.
    ISAW wrote: »
    The problem above is that
    either
    1. YOU are the one saying god does not exist YOU are taking the atheist position.
    or
    That is not the position I hold.
    ISAW wrote: »
    2. You are claiming the burden of proof is on theists to prove a negative disprove -the positive evidence you use to support your negative positions- athiesm or Ateapotism and Afairyism. which compounds two logical fallacies proving a negative and shifting the burden the latter of which was ironically the reason russel invented the teapot.
    This is not what my point is, nor is it what I am claiming. You have not read my posts
    Philologos is asking for positive evidence for a negative position. I am asking him to do the same to show why asking that is silly.
    ISAW wrote: »
    You define atheist and agnostic as the same thing.
    No I did not.
    I gave you the specific definitions of that words that I (and pretty much everyone use). You did not read them.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Science has not established that God does not exist!
    And science has not established that Russell's teapot or fairies do not exist.

    If you are agreeing with what Philologos is asking, please supply the specific positive evidence you use to support your lack of a belief in these things.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    tommy2bad wrote:
    ISAW wrote: »
    That nugget would violate one of the central principles of cosmology - homogenity - and a create a contradiction with the two postulates of relativity equivalance and c in a vacuum being constant.

    Two trains both moving away from you in opposite directions at the speed of light do not see each other as moving away from each other at twice the speed of light.

    If you travel in a train at half light spped and you turn on a light it does not go back to where you came from at half the spped of light or go forward ahead of you ar one and a half times light speed.

    The apparent paradox is what relativity explains.

    There are crossed wires here. The speed of light postulate of special relativity is regarding the local speed of light. Spin around on the spot, for example, and you will see the stars rotate around you much faster than the speed of light. So galaxies can recede at faster than the speed of light because the expansion of the universe is an expansion of spacetime itself, and not just a case of galaxies travelling through spacetime.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    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).

    Why no universities without Christianity ? Plato Aristotle Academys etc surely would have developed just as well ?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    marienbad wrote: »
    Why no universities without Christianity ? Plato Aristotle Academys etc surely would have developed just as well ?

    These what ifs are ultimately rather pointless, since they hypothetical boundaries are largely undefined and each party assumes just enough to make their position seem reasonable but not any counter.

    So the Christians will say that without Christianity we would have no schools, no universities etc, working off the proposition that these were Christian institutions supported by the churches and thus remove Christianity you remove that support. Poof no more schools.

    This of course ignores the possibility that in the complete absence of Christianity some other system would probably have developed and since learning and discovery is a trait of humanity not just Christians it is reasonable of course to assume that some other patronage would have appeared to fund schools and universities, perhaps without the need to adhere to the doctrines of the church.

    Of course Christians will rightly point out that humans oppressing discovery that contradicts doctrine is not a feature unique to Christianity. If you remove Christianity you would still be left with humans, and humans have a tendency to oppress new knowledge if it is in conflict with strongly held beliefs, be they religious or otherwise. And since powerful organisations tend to be more conservative that small fringe groups what ever organisation that finds itself in a position to fund such activities will tend towards the scared of new ideas model.

    So frankly what ever way you play human history they details might change, the time scales might change some what, but the overal march of progress I would imagine would be relative similar. These debates I feel should focus less on what ifs in the past and more would it be greats in the future :P


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Ok ... ?

    I'm not talking about whether the primary function of language is communication.

    so why say: "a primary function is to process human to human interaction" i.e. communication. To what sort of "human to human interaction" which does NOT involve communication were you referring?
    I don't understand what you mean by that.

    I mean we have human models for computers but i dont see atheists claiming that worship of computers or control of us by computers is a natural process just as they claim people will say it is a natural part of evolution to say "God did it".

    I will add here that biological "evolution" of a species and sociological evolution of a society are two different uses of the word "evolution" and you fudge the definition by equating them. As memetics has.
    Really? That seems the default response. After a natural disaster you can't turn on the TV without seeing some preacher saying that this is because we have turned our back on God.

    Based on such media representation we can claim Muslims are all war mongers who burn US flags and have WMD and secret Al Khyda bases in Iraq!

    Fringe fundamentalists dont represent the other 99% plus of Christians no more than cold fusion or UFO fanatics represent science.
    5quote]
    But there are few points to make. Firstly there is a difference between someone having an initial reaction that this happened for a reason, and then discarding this initial thought as irrational. Through scientific understanding of natural events we have come to understand the processes behind, and the chaotic nature of such processes, and so are more likely to abandon supernatural thinking to explain such events. We still have this instinctive first response though.
    [/quote]

    Your argument is that a sociological instinct to believe in god is biologically predetermined remains unproven.
    Secondly we are talking about far more than just natural disasters. People, across all religions and including atheists, still think (to varying degrees of rational acceptance) in these terms. I've had many conversations with theists on this site alone where they have said that the evidence for their beliefs comes from events in the natural world which they attribute to supernatural forces at work behind the sense, be that God or angels or benevolent spirits etc

    but if atheists are superstitious that you cant say superstition is genetically predetermined to only theists!
    I'm more than happy to compile the list again (though bare with me as I'm in work at the moment). Though I would point out I've done this before and it was ignored wholesale by those I was presenting it to.
    in which case you dont have to do anything except link to the post where you claim you were ignored. Id be interested to see the list and identify who ignored it.
    You are joking right? Er, off the top of my head Exodus 7, though I could have picked countless other examples from the Bible, or from Christianity since the Bible or from any other religion for that matter.

    great! Id love to see some of these countless examples from the last say fifty years. where for example has the Pope or archbishop of Canterbury or the Patriarch of Istanbul
    (which would encompass about 90% of christians) stated a natural disaster is god punishing us?
    It is a common theme across human civilisations, to attribute natural disasters to acts of their god(s). It is so common that is what these things are termed in thinks like insurance forms, "acts of God".

    so you claim.
    So your list from the last 50years for mainstream Christianity is...?
    given it is so common you should have no problem in producing say ten examples from the leaders of christianity over the last 50 years.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Such as?

    "Some time later" - Isaac, the son of promise, had been born, and Abraham had sent Ishmael and Hagar away (Gen 21:10-21). Isaac would have been a young man by then.
    Abraham was open to the voice of God, God speaks and he says "Here I am"
    This is stated as a 'test'. Does Abraham really believe the promises that God has already made about Isaac? Gen 17:19, Gen 21:12
    Abraham was told to sacrifice his only1 son, whom he loved. This parallels Jesus "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.". Mat 3:17, John 3:16, Heb 11:17, 1 John 4:9.
    Through Abraham, the father of Isaac. We see and feel the father heart of God as he sacrifices Jesus on the cross.
    Abraham exhibits faith in God's promises, that would be fulfilled through Isaac and his descendants, Gen 17:19, Gen 21:12, Heb 11:17-18
    As a result of his faith in God's promises Abraham was obedient. Note: faith results in obedience, and faith has an object, God's promises.
    If God sacrificed Isaac, then Abraham reasoned that God would raise Isaac from the dead in order to keep his promise to Abraham. Heb 11:19. Just as God raised his Son from the dead.
    It was God's will to afflict his son, Isa 53:4
    A burnt offering is a pleasing aroma to the Lord (Gen 8:20, Exo 29:18 ). Jesus was also a fragrant offering to God, Eph 5:2. See also Phil 4:18
    Mount Moriah was where Solomon's Temple was built. 2 Chr 3:1 Where future burnt offerings would be made 1 Ki 8:64


    "Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey." Abraham did not delay his obedience to the voice of God.
    Jesus went to Jerusalem on a donkey
    Two servants went with Isaac, just as two thieves where crucified with Jesus.
    Third day, Jesus rose on the third day, Abraham received his son back on the third day alive.
    v5 "We will worship and then we will come back to you" - this was an act of worship on Abraham's part (Rom 12:1), and he expected to come back with the boy.
    Isaac carried the wood for his sacrifice just as Jesus carried his cross to the place of execution.
    God provided Jesus as the lamb.
    Jesus is our sacrificial lamb, 1 Cor 5:7.
    The father was to sacrifice his son. The crucifixion of Jesus was the father's idea, Acts 2:23.


    Abraham was open to the voice of God, God speaks and he says "Here I am"
    The intent of Abraham to sacrifice his son, was as good as the deed. God tested Abraham to the fullest extent, and he passed the test.
    Abraham did not withhold his only son, the son whom he loved. Just as God did not withhold his only son, whom he loved, to pay for our sins. Mat 3:17. He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all-- Rom 8:32
    Jesus was sacrificed on the altar of the cross to pay for our sins. 1 Cor 5:7 Eph 5:2
    Isaac yields himself to his fathers will. Just as Jesus yields himself to his Father's will. Luke 22:42

    {Gen 22:13} Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. {14} So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, "On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided."

    God provided the ram as a substitute for Isaac. God provided his Son who died as our substitute for our sins.
    The mountain of the Lord is the same mountain that Jesus was crucified.
    The Lord will provide - Jehovah-jireh


    In the words above God ratifies his covenant to Abraham, see Gen 17:19, Gen 21:12
    "through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed" ,This is fulfilled when Jesus died for our sins, then people from every nation will be blessed (Great commission, Mat 28:19), Rev 5:9.
    "because you have obeyed me", because Jesus obeyed God, he would bring many sons to glory. Heb 2:10
    God did not withhold his only son, Rom 8:32
    Abraham received his son 'back from the dead', Heb 11:19.


    After Isaac was 'sacrificed' his Bride Rebekah was born. The Church is the Bride of Christ, and was born out of the sacrifice of Jesus, 1 Pet 1:23.
    Jesus was descended from Isaac according to the flesh, Mat 1:2.
    Like Isaac we are children of the promise Gal 4:28
    Isaac was forty years old when he married Rebekah Gen 25:20

    Source: http://www.apocalipsis.org/Abraham.htm


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    No atheist that I know would assert that there is no such thing as God; they would say that there is no reason to be persuaded that one, of many possibles, does exist and is personally responsible for all of creation.

    We are not talking about people you know as the standard!
    Definition of Atheism in Religious Reference Works:
    The HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion, edited by by Jonathan Z. Smith and William S. Green
    Modern naturalistic atheism descends from atomism but goes further and denies the existence of any superhuman beings, of any form of transcendent order or meaning in the universe. These notions, it insists, are merely temporary human projections onto a reality alien to human thinking. In practice, atheism denotes a way of life conducted in disregard of any alleged superhuman reality. Existential atheism is a positive form of the teaching: it argues that if humans are to be authentically free in the universe, then it is necessary that God not exist since that would limit human liberty.

    agnosticism: Gk. agnos, "unknowable"
    The view that there is insufficient evidence to posit either the existence or nonexistence of God, and by extension, of the immortal soul. Agnosticism functions as an intellectual mid-position between theism and atheism. The term was coined in 1869 during the Victorian debate over Western biblical faith and the new Darwinian outlook in science and cosmology. There are, as well, forms of religious agnosticism, which avow ignorance about the mystery of the divine nature.

    The above definition at first defines atheism simply as the denial of the existence of any gods, but then it proceeds to acknowledge that, in practice, atheism simply involves the absence of any belief in a "supernatural reality."

    But no matter what you few friends believe i have given the definition used in a survey of a sample of over 1000 people. when you have over 1000 "atheists you know" and ask them then we will consider your definition as valid.

    A proper atheist doesn't believe there is no God any more than you don't believe in tooth-fairies at the bottom of the garden; an atheist just doesn't believe in fairy-tales; we don't have to look for them in order not to find them.
    [/quote]
    Seriously, apart from bird-song and butterfly-wings, what has God done for mankind? Would there be more bombing and killing and war in the absence of Christianity? In what way would the world be worse off without God?

    We already covered that

    Christian societies rarely killed people and in fact contributed to economic growth Very few were a societal negative.
    Atheist regimes were genocidal and contributed to huge piles of bodies and economic ruin. ALL of them!


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    King Mob wrote: »
    No, that is not what Atheism is, and it is not the position I hold.
    The position I hold is not what you are defining as agnosticism as that definition is both wrong and does not accurately define my position.

    We all know you position! It is not atheism as defined by the Nones survey

    How would you answer if asked "Regarding the existence of God do you think...?

    A no such thing
    B no way to know
    C Not sure
    D the is a higher power but no God
    E I dont know or refuse to answer
    The best way to define my position is that I lack a positive belief in god.

    so do yo believe "no such thing" or "no way to know" or "not sure"

    yo are B arent you?- agnostic.
    This is the position I am referring to as atheism (since that's what the word means), so arguing by assuming I hold a different position is wrong.

    atheism =A No such thing. You are NOT atheist!
    Unless you believe "no such thing"
    That is not the position I hold.

    Like i said you are not A you are not an atheist.

    No I did not.
    I gave you the specific definitions of that words that I (and pretty much everyone use). You did not read them.

    and you evidence "everyone" uses that definition is?
    My evidence is based on a survey ov over 1000 NONES. what is your based on?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ISAW wrote: »
    We all know you position! It is not atheism as defined by the Nones survey

    How would you answer if asked "Regarding the existence of God do you think...?

    A no such thing
    B no way to know
    C Not sure
    D the is a higher power but no God
    E I dont know or refuse to answer

    so do yo believe "no such thing" or "no way to know" or "not sure"

    yo are B arent you?- agnostic.


    atheism =A No such thing. You are NOT atheist!
    Unless you believe "no such thing"

    Like i said you are not A you are not an atheist.
    F. None of the above.

    The closest you can get would be a combination of A and B with modification and better wording.
    The options you are offering do not properly cover what I and most atheist positions are, hence your definitions are useless.
    ISAW wrote: »
    and you evidence "everyone" uses that definition is?
    My evidence is based on a survey ov over 1000 NONES. what is your based on?
    Among other stuff, what the words actually mean.

    I take it you have acknowledged the point I was trying to make to Philologos then?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    "Some time later" - Isaac, the son of promise, had been born, and Abraham had sent Ishmael and Hagar away (Gen 21:10-21). Isaac would have been a young man by then.
    Abraham was open to the voice of God, God speaks and he says "Here I am"
    This is stated as a 'test'. Does Abraham really believe the promises that God has already made about Isaac? Gen 17:19, Gen 21:12
    Abraham was told to sacrifice his only1 son, whom he loved. This parallels Jesus "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.". Mat 3:17, John 3:16, Heb 11:17, 1 John 4:9.
    Through Abraham, the father of Isaac. We see and feel the father heart of God as he sacrifices Jesus on the cross.
    Abraham exhibits faith in God's promises, that would be fulfilled through Isaac and his descendants, Gen 17:19, Gen 21:12, Heb 11:17-18
    As a result of his faith in God's promises Abraham was obedient. Note: faith results in obedience, and faith has an object, God's promises.
    If God sacrificed Isaac, then Abraham reasoned that God would raise Isaac from the dead in order to keep his promise to Abraham. Heb 11:19. Just as God raised his Son from the dead.
    It was God's will to afflict his son, Isa 53:4
    A burnt offering is a pleasing aroma to the Lord (Gen 8:20, Exo 29:18 ). Jesus was also a fragrant offering to God, Eph 5:2. See also Phil 4:18
    Mount Moriah was where Solomon's Temple was built. 2 Chr 3:1 Where future burnt offerings would be made 1 Ki 8:64


    "Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey." Abraham did not delay his obedience to the voice of God.
    Jesus went to Jerusalem on a donkey
    Two servants went with Isaac, just as two thieves where crucified with Jesus.
    Third day, Jesus rose on the third day, Abraham received his son back on the third day alive.
    v5 "We will worship and then we will come back to you" - this was an act of worship on Abraham's part (Rom 12:1), and he expected to come back with the boy.
    Isaac carried the wood for his sacrifice just as Jesus carried his cross to the place of execution.
    God provided Jesus as the lamb.
    Jesus is our sacrificial lamb, 1 Cor 5:7.
    The father was to sacrifice his son. The crucifixion of Jesus was the father's idea, Acts 2:23.


    Abraham was open to the voice of God, God speaks and he says "Here I am"
    The intent of Abraham to sacrifice his son, was as good as the deed. God tested Abraham to the fullest extent, and he passed the test.
    Abraham did not withhold his only son, the son whom he loved. Just as God did not withhold his only son, whom he loved, to pay for our sins. Mat 3:17. He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all-- Rom 8:32
    Jesus was sacrificed on the altar of the cross to pay for our sins. 1 Cor 5:7 Eph 5:2
    Isaac yields himself to his fathers will. Just as Jesus yields himself to his Father's will. Luke 22:42

    {Gen 22:13} Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. {14} So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, "On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided."

    God provided the ram as a substitute for Isaac. God provided his Son who died as our substitute for our sins.
    The mountain of the Lord is the same mountain that Jesus was crucified.
    The Lord will provide - Jehovah-jireh


    In the words above God ratifies his covenant to Abraham, see Gen 17:19, Gen 21:12
    "through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed" ,This is fulfilled when Jesus died for our sins, then people from every nation will be blessed (Great commission, Mat 28:19), Rev 5:9.
    "because you have obeyed me", because Jesus obeyed God, he would bring many sons to glory. Heb 2:10
    God did not withhold his only son, Rom 8:32
    Abraham received his son 'back from the dead', Heb 11:19.


    After Isaac was 'sacrificed' his Bride Rebekah was born. The Church is the Bride of Christ, and was born out of the sacrifice of Jesus, 1 Pet 1:23.
    Jesus was descended from Isaac according to the flesh, Mat 1:2.
    Like Isaac we are children of the promise Gal 4:28
    Isaac was forty years old when he married Rebekah Gen 25:20

    Source: http://www.apocalipsis.org/Abraham.htm

    Wow. Ok, where to start.

    Half of those ISAW are pure conjecture about the supernatural elements and the other half don't even make sense. The most glaring one (and I can list others if you like) is that Isaac wasn't even scarified. If we are Isaac and Jesus is the lamb then comparisons between what Isaac did and Jesus did are meaningless since Isaac isn't supposed to be Jesus, the lamb is supposed to be Jesus (did the lamb carry the knife that killed it?)

    Thank you though for providing a perfect example of the sort of thing I'm talking about, when given two stories and told that they are related the human mind will start searching for patterns in both stories, even if on closer examinations such patterns are nonsensical.

    Isn't the mind a curious thing :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,186 ✭✭✭Andrewf20


    Does anyone have opinions on why they think Jesus did not write or create the bible himself?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    marienbad wrote: »
    Why no universities without Christianity ? Plato Aristotle Academys etc surely would have developed just as well ?

    Hardly, since the Academy in Athens petered out at least a Century before the advent of Christianity.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Andrewf20 wrote: »
    Does anyone have opinions on why they think Jesus did not write or create the bible himself?

    Perhaps because the Bible was written over a number of centuries, whereas Jesus only lived for 33 years or thereabouts?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    Christian societies rarely killed people



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    ISAW your points are increasingly random, tangential and have little do with the points I am making.

    No, that is not what Atheism is, and it is not the position I hold.

    That is not the position I hold.

    This is not what my point is, nor is it what I am claiming. You have not read my posts

    No I did not.
    I gave you the specific definitions of that words that I (and pretty much everyone use). You did not read them.

    I feel your pain


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    Hardly, since the Academy in Athens petered out at least a Century before the advent of Christianity.

    Not really relevant though PDN , it proves that academia prospered before that advent of Christianity and not because of it. And what flourished once can do so again as The dark ages showed. This is before we even get to other civilisations . But as Zombrex said the '' what if '' of history is'nt really relevant.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    marienbad wrote: »
    Not really relevant though PDN , it proves that academia prospered before that advent of Christianity and not because of it. And what flourished once can do so again as The dark ages showed. This is before we even get to other civilisations . But as Zombrex said the '' what if '' of history is'nt really relevant.

    No, it proves that academic initiatives came and went while falling way short of the systematic application of the sciemtific method necessary to produce a fraction of the technological advancements necessary for modern civilisation.

    I agree that 'what ifs' aren't ordinarily that relevant - but it becomes relevant when an atheist tries to play the old "Ah wouldn't the world be perfect if there was no Christianity" card. Then it is perfectly legitimate to point out the pivotal role that Christianity played in the development of the modern world including technological advancement, and the development of the kind of rational and tolerant societies in which most of us aspire to live.

    Of course you are free to believe, without a scrap of historical evidence, that these things would have developed without the influence of Christianity. And you can ascribe it to a massive coincidence that none of these things developed to any meaningful extent in the huge areas of the globe where Christianity was largely unknown until recently. But let's be clear - that would very much represent a faith position on your part.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    No, it proves that academic initiatives came and went while falling way short of the systematic application of the sciemtific method necessary to produce a fraction of the technological advancements necessary for modern civilisation.

    I agree that 'what ifs' aren't ordinarily that relevant - but it becomes relevant when an atheist tries to play the old "Ah wouldn't the world be perfect if there was no Christianity" card. Then it is perfectly legitimate to point out the pivotal role that Christianity played in the development of the modern world including technological advancement, and the development of the kind of rational and tolerant societies in which most of us aspire to live.

    Of course you are free to believe, without a scrap of historical evidence, that these things would have developed without the influence of Christianity. And you can ascribe it to a massive coincidence that none of these things developed to any meaningful extent in the huge areas of the globe where Christianity was largely unknown until recently. But let's be clear - that would very much represent a faith position on your part.


    Wow what a rant ! but lets indulge you for a minute- what were the advances in astromomy medicine science etc from the time of the Greeks to the renaissance ?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    marienbad wrote: »
    Wow what a rant ! but lets indulge you for a minute- what were the advances in astromomy medicine science etc from the time of the Greeks to the renaissance ?

    Marien, are ypu wanting a discussion or do you want to play a muppet game where any viewpoint that differs from your own is dismissed as a rant? :rolleyes:

    Again, the discussion is not which developments occurred in which segments of history. No Christianity, no Irish monks saving copying and storing manuscripts, no Byzantine Church preserving science etc, no church patronage of the arts, no Renaissance!


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    PDN wrote: »
    No, it proves that academic initiatives came and went while falling way short of the systematic application of the sciemtific method necessary to produce a fraction of the technological advancements necessary for modern civilisation.

    I agree that 'what ifs' aren't ordinarily that relevant - but it becomes relevant when an atheist tries to play the old "Ah wouldn't the world be perfect if there was no Christianity" card. Then it is perfectly legitimate to point out the pivotal role that Christianity played in the development of the modern world including technological advancement, and the development of the kind of rational and tolerant societies in which most of us aspire to live.

    Of course you are free to believe, without a scrap of historical evidence, that these things would have developed without the influence of Christianity. And you can ascribe it to a massive coincidence that none of these things developed to any meaningful extent in the huge areas of the globe where Christianity was largely unknown until recently. But let's be clear - that would very much represent a faith position on your part.

    I'm sorry but as a historian I have to say that must be the biggest load of utter BS I have read in a long time.

    Civilisation means nothing more or less then humans living collectively in an urban setting - usually these evolved to become city states.

    Civilisation emerged in various locations across the globe independently of each other - it made sense once agriculture was developed for people who were permanently settled to erect protective structures to protect themselves and their produce/domesticated animals.

    Long, long before Christianity emerged all of the basics of civilisation were in place from the domestication of animals, to agriculture, to architecture, to art, to plumbing, to philosophy, to legal systems, to sewage systems, to the wheel, to engineering, to bureaucracy, to literature, to poetry, to record keeping, to transport, to preserving food etc etc etc.

    Precisely what advances can be credited specifically to Christianity?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    Marien, are ypu wanting a discussion or do you want to play a muppet game where any viewpoint that differs from your own is dismissed as a rant? :rolleyes:

    Again, the discussion is not which developments occurred in which segments of history. No Christianity, no Irish monks saving copying and storing manuscripts, no Byzantine Church preserving science etc, no church patronage of the arts, no Renaissance!

    We seem to be incapable of having a discussion so I will leave it to Bannisidhe.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,237 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    PDN wrote: »
    No, it proves that academic initiatives came and went while falling way short of the systematic application of the sciemtific method necessary to produce a fraction of the technological advancements necessary for modern civilisation.

    I agree that 'what ifs' aren't ordinarily that relevant - but it becomes relevant when an atheist tries to play the old "Ah wouldn't the world be perfect if there was no Christianity" card. Then it is perfectly legitimate to point out the pivotal role that Christianity played in the development of the modern world including technological advancement, and the development of the kind of rational and tolerant societies in which most of us aspire to live.

    Of course you are free to believe, without a scrap of historical evidence, that these things would have developed without the influence of Christianity. And you can ascribe it to a massive coincidence that none of these things developed to any meaningful extent in the huge areas of the globe where Christianity was largely unknown until recently. But let's be clear - that would very much represent a faith position on your part.

    Are you serious here PDN?

    There was huge advancement well before Christianity on a worldwide level.

    Hell, one of the reasons it slowed down so much in Europe was because of the Church!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    PDN wrote: »
    Marien, are ypu wanting a discussion or do you want to play a muppet game where any viewpoint that differs from your own is dismissed as a rant? :rolleyes:

    Again, the discussion is not which developments occurred in which segments of history. No Christianity, no Irish monks saving copying and storing manuscripts, no Byzantine Church preserving science etc, no church patronage of the arts, no Renaissance!

    I watched a documentary and in it they praised Islam for saving a lot of our history and scientific discoverys that the Christians were burning at the beginning and throughout the dark ages.

    I've been meaning to get my hands on the few books mentioned in it but I'll wait until I get my kindle.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Are you serious here PDN?

    There was huge advancement well before Christianity on a worldwide level.

    Hell, one of the reasons it slowed down so much in Europe was because of the Church!

    Right, which is why the Industrial Revolution and the development of the scientific method happened in Africa?
    RichieC wrote:
    I watched a documentary and in it they praised Islam for saving a lot of our history and scientific discoverys that the Christians were burning at the beginning and throughout the dark ages.

    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!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    PDN wrote: »
    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!

    Do you, as a Christian wish to take responsibility for muslim extremism in the modern day? since, no Christianity, no Islam. somehow I think your logic might end short of that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,237 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    PDN wrote: »
    Right, which is why the Industrial Revolution and the development of the scientific method happened in Africa?


    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!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Precisely what advances can be credited specifically to Christianity?

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    RichieC wrote: »
    Do you, as a Christian wish to take responsibility for muslim extremism in the modern day? since, no Christianity, no Islam. somehow I think your logic might end short of that.

    Again, maybe you should read what other people post? Where did I say that Christianity should take responsibility for anything?

    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.

    Without Christianity there would be no Islam. Whether you think that is a good thing or not is up to you. Would the world be better without Muslim extremism? Possibly. Possibly not. Have you read Tom Holland's book 'Persian Fire'? When you read what the ancient Persians got up to - such as routinely impaling their enemies on sharpened sticks rammed up the anus, then modern Iran doesn't seem quite so bad after all. One of the reasons why Muslim extremism looks so bad to you is because you're comparing it to the more tolerant societies that have developed in countries that were exposed to Christianity for centuries. Compare muslim extremism to tribal warfare in Africa, or the caste system in India, or Aztecs cutting hearts out of people while they're still alive.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement