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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
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 -
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.
Oh dear - is that really the best you can do?
Is that what passes for debate and discussion in this particular forum?
Anyone who demonstrates that your pontifications on European history have no basis in historical fact is treated to some thinly veiled insults, a few slight digs followed by some bizarre claim that they have proven your point.
Your needlessly highlighted passage are an attempt to link educated people to the church - I believe I mentioned the monopoly Christianity had on education in Europe so of course scholars were educated in church controlled universities. There weren't any other kind - the church forbade it.
Would you also claim that all Irish people are Catholics - or just the 99% who attended national schools under the control of the Catholic Church?
Your assertion was that Christianity was responsible for the technological advances in Europe - your 'proof' of this is that every intellectual in Europe was apparently a Christian. Considering that prior to the Reformation every Christian in Europe was also a Catholic (or risked a visit from the Inquisition) shall we also try and say that all advances prior to 1521 were Catholic advances?
If that was the case - makes you wonder why Luther (and Hus and Wycliffe and Calvin, and the Cathars, and the Anabaptists, and the Lollards etc etc ) had such a problem with Rome - patron of the arts and sponsor of technological advances as you claim it was.
You have, I noticed, completely missed the point that advances such as the Renaissance occurred after information suppressed by the Christian authorities became available again in Europe. Including the Reformation.
That these rediscovered ideas led to scientific experimentation and new political theories which undermined the domination of Christianity as the only game in town is ignored as it doesn't conform to your pseudo-history.
Shall we ignore all other patronage apart from that of the Church?
No Charles I and the Royal Societies? No mention of Sophia, Elector of Hanover, her daughter Sophia Charlotte Queen of Prussia and Caroline Queen of Britain as Von Libnitz's patrons? What about the de Medici? How about the role of the German princes in protecting Luther from Rome?
Shall we mention that Hitler was a Catholic - he was educated at a Catholic School in Lambach, Austria?
Himmler was a devout Catholic and the architect of the Holocaust.
That Stalin was a member of the Orthodox Russian Church - he won a scholarship to a seminary in Georgia?
Or do you want to cherry pick who you claim was a Christian and who wasn't?0 -
Perhaps because the Bible was written over a number of centuries, whereas Jesus only lived for 33 years or thereabouts?
Its just that if the aim of Jesus coming on this earth was to spread the word of God, im wondering why he couldnt have created a book on how to live morally etc himself. Why did he only appear in the middle east also. I had a quick look on the internet but couldnt find a convincing answer on this one.0 -
Its just that if the aim of Jesus coming on this earth was to spread the word of God, im wondering why he couldnt have created a book on how to live morally etc himself. Why did he only appear in the middle east also. I had a quick look on the internet but couldnt find a convincing answer on this one.
Because it a silly question, Jesus didn't come to spread the word of God. He came to redeem mankind and fulfill the prophesy.
It's all internally consistent when you examine it, you might have to squint a bit I'll admit, but as a system it holds up.0 -
Because it a silly question, Jesus didn't come to spread the word of God. He came to redeem mankind and fulfill the prophesy.
It's all internally consistent when you examine it, you might have to squint a bit I'll admit, but as a system it holds up.
But surely the bible is seen as the word of God which uses the bibles writers as its principle communicators of the life and teachings of Jesus.
How about the issue of him only appearing in the middle east? What not make global revelations / appearances?
The idea of vicarious redemption doesnt make sense to many people. (Its not clear how or why a human sacrifice absolves all our sins, otherwise skepticism on this matter would not exist on the level that it does. Whats the process at work here?). The idea of it may absolve us of our sins but not our responsibility imo.
If our souls are on the line for this stuff, there needs to be less ambiguity.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »Oh dear - is that really the best you can do?
Is that what passes for debate and discussion in this particular forum?
Anyone who demonstrates that your pontifications on European history have no basis in historical fact is treated to some thinly veiled insults, a few slight digs followed by some bizarre claim that they have proven your point.
But you have demonstrated no such thing. Instead you have attacked a position that nobody, least of all myself, ever made.
My position was that Christianity opened the way for institutions to develop, institutions that failed to develop anywhere else in the world. These institutions made possible the preservation and the rediscovery of insights from others, and for them to be developed and synthesised which resulted in great technological, philosophical and societal advances that have shaped the modern world as we know it (both for good and for evil).
So you, thinking that in some bizarre fashion that you are "demonstrating that my pontifications have no basis in historical fact" proceed to list a series of events that involve people (most of whom were Christians) studying at universities founded by the church, in many cases carrying out research funded by the church, rediscovering manuscripts that were preserved either by monastries or by another religion which was an offshoot of Christianity, and even the transmission of knowledge by the Crusaders.
And this aparently, in some strange parallel universe, demonstrates that Christianity had no role to play in any of this? Absolutely hilarious!
But the church only held a monopoly over a small portion of the earth's surface. What about all the rest of the world? Where were the great universities and scientists that have shaped our lives and the modern world that flourished in the rest of the world where Christianity couldn't be such a horrible hindrance to education and science?Your needlessly highlighted passage are an attempt to link educated people to the church - I believe I mentioned the monopoly Christianity had on education in Europe so of course scholars were educated in church controlled universities. There weren't any other kind - the church forbade it.
Surely, if the Church was such a hindrance, then the renaissence should have happened in the Congo rather than in Europe? Why do you cite Liebniz, Newton and Locke instead of the great philosophers and scientists in the Philippines that discovered Newtonian physics? How come the scientific method was refined by Bacon instead of by some Aztec guy?Shall we mention that Hitler was a Catholic - he was educated at a Catholic School in Lambach, Austria?
Himmler was a devout Catholic and the architect of the Holocaust.
That Stalin was a member of the Orthodox Russian Church - he won a scholarship to a seminary in Georgia?
Or do you want to cherry pick who you claim was a Christian and who wasn't?
Your vitriol appears to adversely affect your reading and comprehension skills. Where have I claimed that Christianity only helped good things to develop, or that professing and devout Christians only ever did good things?0 -
Advertisement
-
Whats the process at work? Thats one of the big questions. Some go for atonement, http://carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/substitutionary-atonement-jesus-christAndrewf20;
Its not clear how or why a human sacrifice absolves all our sins, otherwise skepticism on this matter would not exist on the level that it does. Whats the process at work here?
Others go with Christus Victor http://www.gregboyd.org/essays/essays-jesus/the-christus-victor-view-of-the-atonement/
Some claim its universal, some particular. Some use legalism and others sacramental ism.
As to why the middle east and why 2012 years ago when New York at the time of Ed Sullivan would have been a better choice for global exposure? Back to the prophesy and the royal line of David and the distance between God and Man and loads of stuff that squares the circle if you want it to.0 -
Anyway, stimulating as I'm finding this conversation, I'll have to bow out now. I'm flying out to work on a project in a location where, for centuries and until very recently, they were free from the stultlfying repression and anti-intellectualism of Christianity. As a result I won't have access to electricity or the internet for the next couple of weeks.
0 -
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".
No problem PDN- but you are still not reponding to my question as to that contribution By Christianity from the ancients to the Renaissance- which one could argue was the period when Europe was most under the control, influence, power, what ever word you like of a centralised church authority.
A case can be made that in fact the Church was a restraining force on knowledge for a thousand years and Europe was no more or no less advanced than the Middle East China Japan and that it was the explosion of untrammelled curiosity unleashed by the break up of a monopolistic church that propelled West to the fore .
That we got here in spite of the church not because of it.0 -
But you have demonstrated no such thing. Instead you have attacked a position that nobody, least of all myself, ever made.
My position was that Christianity opened the way for institutions to develop, institutions that failed to develop anywhere else in the world. These institutions made possible the preservation and the rediscovery of insights from others, and for them to be developed and synthesised which resulted in great technological, philosophical and societal advances that have shaped the modern world as we know it (both for good and for evil).
So you, thinking that in some bizarre fashion that you are "demonstrating that my pontifications have no basis in historical fact" proceed to list a series of events that involve people (most of whom were Christians) studying at universities founded by the church, in many cases carrying out research funded by the church, rediscovering manuscripts that were preserved either by monastries or by another religion which was an offshoot of Christianity, and even the transmission of knowledge by the Crusaders.
And this aparently, in some strange parallel universe, demonstrates that Christianity had no role to play in any of this? Absolutely hilarious!
But the church only held a monopoly over a small portion of the earth's surface. What about all the rest of the world? Where were the great universities and scientists that have shaped our lives and the modern world that flourished in the rest of the world where Christianity couldn't be such a horrible hindrance to education and science?
Surely, if the Church was such a hindrance, then the renaissence should have happened in the Congo rather than in Europe? Why do you cite Liebniz, Newton and Locke instead of the great philosophers and scientists in the Philippines that discovered Newtonian physics? How come the scientific method was refined by Bacon instead of by some Aztec guy?
Your vitriol appears to adversely affect your reading and comprehension skills. Where have I claimed that Christianity only helped good things to develop, or that professing and devout Christians only ever did good things?
Ok so we are clear:
My position was that Christianity opened the way for institutions to develop, institutions that failed to develop anywhere else in the world. These institutions made possible the preservation and the rediscovery of insights from others, and for them to be developed and synthesised which resulted in great technological, philosophical and societal advances that have shaped the modern world as we know it (both for good and for evil).
Firstly - how could these institutions make 'possible the preservation and the rediscovery of insights from others' unless these insights already existed? Where did these insights that were 'rediscovered' come from exactly? Who were these others? Why had their insights been lost?
Maybe these insights were the result of:
History of Formal education :
Middle East:
Began in Mesopotamia when the sons of the wealthy and professional classes were sent to schools to learn to read and write. When the syllabic script was developed, literary and school attendance became widespread through the empire.
In Babylonia most towns had free libraries. Girls and boys received formal education in scribal schools - among the troves of Babylonian artefacts still in existance are vocabularies, works on grammar and the oldest surviving work of literary fiction Epic of Gilgamesh (2150-2000 BCE).
Ashurbanipal (685 – c. 627 BC), a king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire founded the library of Ninevah - the first systemically organised library in the Middle East which contained copies of scrolls from across Mesopotamia. Part of that collection still survive.
In 64 AD it was decreed in Israel and Judah that all public schools be open in every town and hamlet and all children above the age of 6 were to attend. The community met the costs and the pupil-teacher ratio was set at a max of 25-1.
India:
From 1500 BCE to 600 BCE - the Vedic Period education was freely and widely available - subject included Medicine, grammar, verse, nature studies, logic, reasoning and composition.
The Gurukul system of higher education consisted of residential schools of learning - this was free to any student with academic ability but those from wealthy families were expected to pay a contribution to subsidise the less well off. At the Gurukuls, the teacher imparted knowledge of Religion, Scriptures, Philosophy, Literature, Warfare, Statecraft, Medicine, Astrology and History.
China:
During the Zhou Dynasty (1045 BC to 256 BC), there were five national schools in the capital city, Pi Yong (an imperial school, located in a central location) and four other schools for the aristocrats and nobility, including Shang Xiang. The schools mainly taught the Six Arts: rites, music, archery, charioteering, calligraphy, and mathematics.
During the Han Dynasty (206 BC- 221 AD), boys were thought ready at age seven to start learning basic skills in reading, writing and calculation.
In 124 BC, the Emperor Wudi established the Imperial Academy, the curriculum of which was the Five Classics of Confucius. By the end of the Han Dynasty (220 AD) the Academy enrolled more than 30,000 students, boys between the ages of fourteen and seventeen years.
During the Ch'in Dynasty (246-207 BCE) a formal exam process was instituted for candidates for civil service jobs -this later became the The Nine rank system - a civil service nomination system during the Three Kingdoms (220-280 AD) and the Southern and Northern Dynasties (420-589 AD) in China.The Nine Rank System was eventually superseded by the Imperial examination system for the civil service in the Sui Dynasty (581-618 AD)
Greece and Rome:
In the city-states of ancient Greece, most education was private, except in Sparta.
In Athens, during the 5th and 4th century BC, aside from two years military training, the state played little part in schooling.Anyone could open a school and decide the curriculum. Parents could choose a school offering the subjects they wanted their children to learn, at a monthly fee they could afford. Most parents, even the poor, sent their sons to schools for at least a few years, and if they could afford it from around the age of seven until fourteen, learning gymnastics (including athletics, sport and wrestling), music (including poetry, drama and history) and literacy.
By around 350 BC, it was common for children at schools in Athens to also study various arts such as drawing, painting, and sculpture. The richest students continued their education by studying with sophists, from whom they could learn subjects such as rhetoric, mathematics, geography, natural history, politics, and logic.
Some of Athens' greatest schools of higher education included the Lyceum (the so-called Peripatetic school founded by Aristotle of Stageira) and the Platonic Academy (founded by Plato of Athens). The education system of the wealthy ancient Greeks is also called Paideia. In the subsequent Roman empire, Greek was the primary language of science. Advanced scientific research and teaching was mainly carried on in the Hellenistic side of the Roman empire, in Greek.
The first schools in Ancient Rome arose by the middle of the 4th century BC. These schools were concerned with the basic socialization and rudimentary education of young Roman children.
At the height of the Roman Republic and later the Roman Empire, the Roman educational system gradually found its final form. Formal schools were established, which served paying students .
Normally, both boys and girls were educated, though not necessarily together.
In a system much like the one that predominates in the modern world, the Roman education system that developed arranged schools in tiers : A Roman student would progress through schools just as a student today might go from elementary school to middle school, then to high school, and finally college.
So - we have schools - both publicly funded and private fee paying. Systems of higher education - including what we would recognise was primary, secondary and third level - all in existence, in different parts of the world, prior to the year 0...
Now you stated that 'Christianity opened the way for institutions to develop, institutions that failed to develop anywhere else in the world.'
It has been demonstrated that educational institutions pre-date Christianity by thousands of years in some cases, and existed in regions as diverse as China and Babylonia, India and Rome. Before Jesus was even born there were free schools in Israel and Judah. Third level education in India, China and Rome. Libraries were in existence across the world.
The Chinese education system was so advanced that it had a standardised, empire wide, compulsory civil service exam 200 years before the birth of Jesus.
Christianity didn't get into the education game in a formal way until the 6th century AD... and then it adopted the methodology of the ancient Pagan Romans - who had borrowed it from the Greeks who had been heavily influenced by the Persians0 -
I suspect that PDN's response would be something along the lines of "very good, but what has any of that got to do with my position?". If he were to make such a statement then I would have to agree with him. I can't see the relevance of your rather long post to what he said.0
-
Advertisement
-
p.s. - thanks for the summary but it is good to cite your sources, especially if you are reproducing their content in bulk.0
-
Fanny Cradock wrote: »I suspect that PDN's response would be something along the lines of "very good, but what has any of that got to do with my position?". If he were to make such a statement then I would have to agree with him. I can't see the relevance of your rather long post to what he said.
I think the relevance is that some us understood or misunderstood what PDN was claiming in the name of Christianity.
In short he was claiming that christianity was responsible for either directly or through its institutions in bringing about or facilitating the modern world as we know it. PDN said that was incorrect
As the argument progressed the word pivotal was introduced. Now rather than constantly telling us we were interpreting his posts incorrectly why not just restate his position in a clearer manner and possibly answer some of the questions put to him ?
Instead, using the old cliche, he opted to play the man and not the ball every time.
May I ask Fanny Craddock what do you think his position is ?0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »I suspect that PDN's response would be something along the lines of "very good, but what has any of that got to do with my position?". If he were to make such a statement then I would have to agree with him. I can't see the relevance of your rather long post to what he said.
Which is why I clearly quoted the part of his argument I was directly responding to -
by demonstrating that this is a factually incorrect statement. His position is wrong.'My position was that Christianity opened the way for institutions to develop, institutions that failed to develop anywhere else in the world.
All of this can be found in wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education#History_of_Formal_education_in_ancient_civilizations-
and while I would not normally link to this I have checked the footnotes provided in the article and as someone who has lectured for many years on the history of education in an Irish university the sources linked are academically valid. I also doubt most posters here would have access to the academic sites I would normally use.0 -
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.
The hubris... my god.0 -
Indicatory evidence is useless unless it can be used to distinguish between competing theories. Your indicatory evidence, to continue your analogy, is only circumstantial evidence. Your theory may fit certain evidence but any other theory can be created as to fit the evidence after the fact. What you need is a unique identifier to suggest your god and not some other cause.
This would be akin to matching a fingerprint to your God. But what you are doing is observing a fingerprint and suggesting that your God is the only thing that has fingers. This is just untrue.
Indicatory evidence is valuable in any respect. There are plenty of unique things about Christianity, which will inevitably set it apart from other faiths. I don't need to go around refuting every single belief system. If I find that there is evidence to back Christianity up, and the more and more that Christianity and the Biblical record are attested to in reality, the more and more confident I can be in believing it.
However, atheism is a different kettle of fish. In order for atheism to be demonstrated to be true, every single other position on God must be wrong, and there should be good reason for this. Atheists in the past have presented positive arguments as to God's existence, and in my opinion they can be reasonably expected to again. An example would be the Problem of Evil a commonly put positive atheist argument as to why they believe that God's existence is less likely than not. I respect that argument far more and find it more valuable precisely because it is a demonstration of why people regard atheism to be an accurate position in reality.
It's really a new-atheist position that atheists shouldn't argue positively for their position. I believe it to be mistaken.
Christianity clearly matches up with the world around me. Like anyone else this is my criteria for discerning what is true from what is false. Atheism, doesn't match up with reality as far as I'm concerned, and there are quite a few Christian arguments against the atheist position some of which I've provided in more lengths than in the post that I made quickly going through them. I consciously decided to follow Jesus in 2007, that's when I started posting about Christianity by and large. My posts before that, aren't the most Christian if I'm being honest with you.The reasons you put forward in this post are weak to say the least.
Let's look at them.The "evidence" based on observing ethics behaving as the bible describes is no evidence at all. Any author that lives in a human society could observe how people view ethics and morals. There is nothing to stop a perfectly non divine person from writing down a set of moral guidelines and principles, plenty of Greeks did so that still have relevance today.
Ethical behaviour simply put, is not relative. Nobody would claim that if I went fieldshooting on a Sunday morning in a busy pedestrian street that that would be an acceptable means of recreation. If people are wronged, they generally rebuke the other. People don't believe by and large that morality is a human made construct. They believe that there is an objective standard between other humans, they appeal to that standard when they claim that other people should know better.
The entire principle of universal human rights is also built on the concept of an objective standard. Some examples would be the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or the US Declaration of Independence where Thomas Jefferson wrote:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Human rights are undeniable precisely because they are not ours to give, and not ours to take away. There is an objective moral law that humans generally attempt to adhere to, humans fail to do this many times, but none the less when ethical issues arise, humans go for objective standards, they do not pfaff around with moral relativity. An objective moral law, has a law giver, much as other conventions have a law giver.
Subjective morality is rarely if ever demonstrated.The archaeological "evidence" is again a non starter as all it suggests is that the biblical authors mixed truth with myth and fable. The mention of Paris in a Dan Brown novel does not give credence to his fiction just because Paris exists.
Even if the exodus from the dessert were backed up(which it isn't in the slightest) it still does not suggest anything divine. Prophecy has been shown to be unreliable when events are interpreted to fit an existing narrative. For example nostradamus and his "hister" prophecy are examples you'll surely agree are no evidence of supernatural powers.
Again. Firstly, archaeology does matter. You're making the mistake that each of these arguments on their own should be absolute proof of God's existence. That's false. In the same way that finding an item of someone elses clothing beside a murdered body does not demonstrate absolutely that that other person killed the person.
What I am suggesting is that the more and more we find that demonstrates the Bible is true, the more and more reason that I have to believe and trust in His Word. That's simple. As for Biblical prophesy. It's not unreliable in the case of Jesus when we have clear mentions of His birth, death, ministry, and His resurrection written 600 years before his death. They can be clearly cited and demonstrated. These prophesies go right down to His death on the cross (Psalm 22), to that He would be buried in a rich mans tomb (Isaiah 53:9). There are literally hundreds of these and they deserve consideration rather than being fobbed off, I could go on, but I want to address the rest of your post. When documents that precede Jesus by 600 years back up the Gospel accounts of His life, that gives them more credence.As for the resurrection being supported by the early church members risking death to say it was true? Again this does not support a divine creator.
The fact that people can be led astray and believe in ridiculous things has been observed countless times. We have seen it in more recent history even with the benefit of newspapers reporting on the creation of wacky beliefs (Mormons) and even more recently Scientology.
The fact that society has moved on from more superstitious times has done nothing to dull our credulity of charismatic figures.
These cult figures can even lead there followers to certain death (Jim Jones) let alone possible persecution and death at the hands of Romans.
Well. Let's look at it, on the basis of my previous 2009 post because I don't believe this was addressed. I had Jim Jones mentioned, I've had Joseph Smith mentioned. These situations differ to the Resurrection clearly. That's why the Resurrection should be considered in its own right on its own circumstances. Most of the comparisons I had discussed on the A&A forum before, simply differed fundamentally to the situation that the Gospel presented. Secondly, I have zero interest in discussing anything else, I want to discuss Jesus.
So let's have it:2) Christian history does not make sense without a Resurrection event:
Let's go through this bit by bit:
a. You have been with a charismatic preacher for 3 years in Israel,
b. You have seen this man endure trials of all sorts, and you have come to know His personal character during this time.
c. You see this man die.
x. -
d. You and the others who were with you at the time, spread the teachings of this individuals thousands of miles throughout the Gentile world, preaching that we can become a new Creation in Christ Jesus if we are baptized and confess that Jesus is Lord (2 Corinthians 5).
e. These men are zealous for the spiritual truths that this man taught throughout His worldly existence, even until the point of death, by stoning (James the Righteous - see Josephus' Jewish Antiquities), Thomas who is believed to have been gored with a spear in India, Peter said to be crucified upside down, James Son of Zebedee who was said to have been put to death by Herod in the book of Acts.
Now, what on earth can explain the difference between d and e. How on earth if you have seen your best friend, if you have seen this man who has testified to such truths while alive, could they possibly have endured to spread it as zealously as they did and until the point of death? It does not make sense unless something extraordinary happened inbetween both of these events. I'm not saying that this necessarily has to be the Resurrection, but it certainly gives credence to it.
If you cannot explain to me conclusively how all 11 disciples went through to the lengths that they did in a reasonable manner, then this will always give credence to something extraordinary having happened to bring these men to those lengths.
Then taking into account that in the accounts the mention of women running to the tomb would have been seen as laughable in Jewish society at the time, a lack of an attempt to cover this up would indicate that it was indeed the honest and frank truth of the situation.
There are more and more textual implications like these in the Gospels themselves.
Firstly, the idea that one person would be deluded about someone that they were with for 3 years is fair enough. It's possible that one person could be. When we go up the scale in terms of numbers, this becomes less and less likely when we consider the 11 disciples as a whole. Indeed, it becomes even less likely when we consider 500 witnesses as Paul mentions. He mentions even that they were still alive and that believers could go to Jerusalem to see them. The delusion argument is limited in its scope. It is extremely unlikely to presume that all were of an unsound mental state, and it is extremely unlikely that up to 500 people would make the same mistake in identifying a man even if for a moment we thought that all 11 disciples were deluded.
Secondly, the idea that the Apostles made up the New Testament as fiction is laughable also given how silly the disciples are presented in it. Indeed, as I've already mentioned placing women as the first witnesses to the Resurrection would have been a very humbling revelation in Jewish, Greek and Roman societies which were inherently misogynistic. If you read the beginning of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics for example you'll see exactly how Greek society was.
Thirdly, think about it. You realise that Jesus died, and that was it. There is no benefit in risking your life to tell people that He has been resurrected for the dead and that all can be saved through His name. Motivating one person to risk their lives for nothing is difficult enough. Motivating 500+ people to do the same is considerably more difficult. You would think that returning to Galilee to fish would be the more logical option.
It is more likely that a certain event occurred in place of X. There must have been a catalyst for this spread of the Gospel to have even occured.The rest of your "evidence" is appeals to the content of the Bible itself. Which is akin to asking a Scientologist why Scientology is true and having them rely only on the works of L Ron Hubbard. I'm sure that they would also say that they are consistent with the world around them and provide a framework with which to view the world and the truth.
If you can see why you reject Scientology and other religions and apply the same to Christianity you will see an undeniable pattern. That an internally consistent narrative (the Bible, the Koran, whatever Jim Jones and Hubbard espoused) is not difficult to invent.
Let me why I say this is nonsense. What I'm doing is looking to the Bible, and seeing how it is evident in the world around us, and how history and archaeology can help us in determining its truth. That's a rather good approach to deal with any text in terms of seeing its truth or falsity. I don't see why you consider that approach to be lacking, and I don't know how else you expect me to argue for the Bible if I can't look to the Bible and say, I see X, Y and Z in the world.
Having reasons like these, are a heck of a lot better than the "nothing" that you claim that Christians have to support their faith. That's as far as I can tell a lie, because there are countless reasons as to why one would believe in Christianity in the 21st century.
This is one of what you might call one of the positive indicators of atheism. The fact that humans can invent and follow until death a supernatural belief system. Each supernatural system is unique in its detail but the overarching supernatural elements have consistently been debunked over history. What makes your supernatural system any different?Also what makes you and the early Jews and Christians immune to things like hyperactive agency detection such that you can discern reality from imagined gods? (Another positive indicator of atheism, although a lack of evidence is justification enough, but since you asked:))
Do you have some new science to help you avoid this pitfall that the rest of us are unaware of? You keep using the term evidence but as far as I can see you have presented none.
As opposed to the hyperactive there is no rhyme, ultimate cause, or ultimate reason to the world.
As opposed to the idea that the universe created itself, or indeed postulating a multiverse just to explain this one.
There's quite a number of flaws to an atheistic view of the world, on a social level, and on a level of it simply not being evident in the world around us.
Apologies for the delay, let's see if this can get something started.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »
All of this can be found in wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education#History_of_Formal_education_in_ancient_civilizations-
and while I would not normally link to this I have checked the footnotes provided in the article and as someone who has lectured for many years on the history of education in an Irish university the sources linked are academically valid. I also doubt most posters here would have access to the academic sites I would normally use.
Yes, I know where it can be found. I linked to it first, remember?
OK, so you checked the footnotes - all 64 of them, I gather. Fine. But I still don't understand what the history of education according to a wikipedia article has got to do with PDN's point? As afar as I can see he didn't claim that formal education began with Christianity. Rather, he talked about the development of institutions. But perhaps I am missing something?
No. You may not ask :PMay I ask Fanny Craddock what do you think his position is ?Instead, using the old cliche, he opted to play the man and not the ball every time.
To my mind he did play the ball and perhaps he played the man after that. But that is all part of the sport, no?
In answer to your question above, I take my understanding of PDN's point straight from the horse's mouth. He said that "Christianity opened the way for institutions to develop, institutions that failed to develop anywhere else in the world". It might be a certain bet that you will disagree with this, but I don't see why there remains any confusion. Nor for that matter do I see why there is a need to cite large proportions of wikipedia or bring Hitler, Stalin or Himmler into this.
To reiterate, the point being made -- at lest as far as I can see -- is not that Christians don't do bad things or that Christian institutions have not stood in the way of what we now consider to be progress. It's that Christianity (with all that this word entails) shaped Europe in such a way that made certain things we now take for granted a reality - the same things we didn't see develop in other parts of the world.
It's interesting that an atheist like Alain de Botton can happily admit that something like the Welfare State arose because, and not in spite, of Christianity. On the other hand, you seem to think that we got here against the best efforts of Christianity.
What you you think is the primary achievement (and by this I speaking terms of positive impact) that Christianity has had on mankind and why?0 -
You keep claiming this but you have been unable to demonstrate it is even possible.philologos wrote: »It's really a new-atheist position that atheists shouldn't argue positively for their position. I believe it to be mistaken.
I asked you to present positive evidence to support your lack of a belief in some examples. You failed to provide this evidence.
Can you please do so before you continue to repeat the above claim?0 -
philologos wrote: »However, atheism is a different kettle of fish. In order for atheism to be demonstrated to be true, every single other position on God must be wrong, and there should be good reason for this.
Where the hell did you get that idea?
Atheism is not "demonstrated true". Theists beliefs are demonstrated false, and by rejecting them you are an atheist.
An atheist is someone who has rejected all theists beliefs they have heard of, not all that have ever existed. Some guy in a cave in Australia 5 thousand years ago comes up with a notion of a god that no one else ever knows about I do not have to a) find out about that and b) reject it to call myself an atheist.philologos wrote: »It's really a new-atheist position that atheists shouldn't argue positively for their position. I believe it to be mistaken.
They have been. You are simply ignoring them. That is your right to do so if you so wish, but it is disingenuous to state that atheists have not been arguing for atheism (which is really arguing for the rejection of theist claims).0 -
You know it's possible, and I know it's possible too. This man gave it a good go, as did this guy. This is an example of a positive argument for atheism. The problem of evil isn't an a negative argument, because it says, given the way the world is, it's reasonable to think that God exists. It's also a heck of a lot better than any most arguments that any new-atheist will present largely for this reason. I don't believe the problem of evil is sound, but I can certainly see how someone could see it that way. The "no evidence" / "no reason" argument is however, absurd from my POV.0
-
First and foremost you did not answer the question I asked.philologos wrote: »
I specifically asked you to provide the exact positive arguments you have to support your lack of belief in fairies and Russell's teapot. This would serve to provide proof that such positive evidence can be provided for a lack of belief and would show examples of what exactly you are looking for.
You have not provided the same thing you are looking for.
Second the Problem of Evil is not a positive argument for Atheism, it's a negative argument against theism. It is addressing and pointing out a flaw in the concept of theism. (And as an aside it cannot be an argument for atheism as it does not counter concepts like the Greek Gods or just an out and out evil one.)
It is not the independent positive evidence you said you are looking for.
It's absurd because it's a strawman and a shift in your goalposts.philologos wrote: »The "no evidence" / "no reason" argument is however, absurd from my POV.
No one is arguing that there is "no reason" to be atheist. We are just pointing out that there cannot be positive evidence for it since it's a negative position.0 -
Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement