Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Virgil° wrote: »

State law is based on our collective morality.

Care to define collective morality without using a "natural law" argument?
You are aware of the pitfalls that you might pander to fascism or the Borg mentality?

A ruthless businessman who makes a lot of money on the backs of people losing their jobs is walking a fine line.

The important word in that is "ruthless" . You are suggesting ruthlessness is acceptable, But not always! So what decides when it isn't acceptable?

But we can discuss it and debate it and readjust laws around this discourse. An option not found in the bible.

You would not be correct there. The Bible does not claim to discuss every thing eg. nuclear weapons are not mentioned. But discussing the morality of such things is left in the hands of the church. That is mentioned in the Bible several times.

A Margaret Thatcher quote to back up a huge sweeping statement? At least i know what I'm dealing with.

I think the quote was "there is no society only individuals"

Again with the short sightedness. What is good for one person is not necessarily good for the whole and by association that one person within the whole. If everyone acted like one morally corrupt person, who thought it was fine to ,lets say, kill for personal success, humans would be extinct.

We are going into holism versus reductionism but the argument you raise is similar to the tragedy of the commons

In this case the lack of ability to rationalise morals outside religion

Natural law can be secular.

The majority of the human race believe that taking anothers life(in normal circumstances) is not moral. This is a moral norm. We call people who think its morally normal to kill people, psychopaths and murders. This is one example of a moral norm. There are many. Yes, they change from culture to culture. But most civilised peoples agree on the major ones.

And what if miost agreed that persecuting Jews or depriving blacks a vote or sex with children was acceptable. Would that "moral norm" be acceptable. Or is it always wrong even if a majority think it is acceptable?

marienbad wrote: »

Concerning the sun - of course we can prove it

Logically by deduction. Okay. Care do so then?

- the question is why bother- you are the one introducing these outlandish analogies .

The question is are you paying attention. Morbert claimed i can't logically prove atheism caused atrocities in the past. I freely admit i can't deduce God or Christianity is tryue. It might all be a complete co incidence that Christian rulers were benevolent and atheistic regimes slaughtered people.

As for your your Oxford dictionary quotes quotes- lets read them again shall we -

inferring general law from the particulars, - you have not done so, you have created a set of particulars which no-one else agrees with, either here or on academia and inferred a general law from those flawed premises.

I was asked tfor apaarticular case.
I cited Pol Pot.
Pol Pot slaughtered clergy and believers.
Atheism was central to his regime.

There are loads of particular examples - pick any atheistic regime.

and from the particular to the general- you have just skipped over the known and just stuck with your own version of what can be assumed.

No - it is fairly much established in the literature what Pol Pot's regime did.
the retort is "Well maybe it was not done because of atheism.
But in this case I'm not using atheism as a premise and deducing what happens!
What I am doing is showing an atheistic regime and showing it slaughtered people.
Which is what I have been asked to cite as an example.

A start would be showing that atheism =equals atheistic regime/totalitarian regime, otherwise your argument is a house of cards.

Only if one is trying to deduce logically from that premise.
I'm using induction not deduction here.
That is the point being made above.

shauneym

Alas Doc this thread can never end , for if we ever think we have found the truth... then someone will deny it

Doc Farrell

Are you saying Jack Charlton is responsible because he's only 76! Or is Charleton Heston, coz he did play Moses? Or Bobby because he developed the big bang theory with the Belgian priest? I'm confused....

Edit. Oh charlatan! Now I understand. Welcome to Dante's never ending thread shaunyem!

The Quadratic Equation

Virgil° wrote: »

State law is based on our collective morality.

No it is not, it is based on law, order, and politics. And politics is the art of lieing, cheating, and manipulating to gain power.

Virgil° wrote: »

This is the grey area within morals that is actually desirable. A ruthless businessman who makes a lot of money on the backs of people losing their jobs is walking a fine line. But we can discuss it and debate it and readjust laws around this discourse. An option not found in the bible.

A Margaret Thatcher quote to back up a huge sweeping statement? At least i know what I'm dealing with.

That's right, you're dealing with cold hard reality.
Thatcher is admired by a small minority, but not by the weak majority.
A minority of powerful and determined people are always destined to lead the weaker majority.

Virgil° wrote: »

Again with the short sightedness. What is good for one person is not necessarily good for the whole and by association that one person within the whole. If everyone acted like one morally corrupt person, who thought it was fine to ,lets say, kill for personal success, humans would be extinct.

No, its the law of evolution, and survival of the fittest. Thats how the food chain works.

Virgil° wrote: »

The majority of the human race believe that taking anothers life(in normal circumstances) is not moral. This is a moral norm. We call people who think its morally normal to kill people, psychopaths and murders. This is one example of a moral norm. There are many. Yes, they change from culture to culture. But most civilised peoples agree on the major ones.

The majority of the human race are not successful or powerful, they allow themselves to be restricted by a morality invented by others to suit their politics. As for killing for gain, that requires a cost Vs benefit risk analysis, nothing more, and it is usually unnecessary, you can use manipulation, politics, law and order, and power to achieve the same desired effect of personal gain and removing any human obstacles to your success, with much less risk.

Virgil° wrote: »

You reap what you sow.
Be careful what you wish for.

I like this game!

Your restrictive personal morality rules only apply to the weak.

shauneym

Genesis 1:1 states " In the Beginning".
This one line IMHO has created through aincient tribal indoctrines and persecution the sad sad state(s) of our species.
The divides created among power hungry Charleton's and the force used to Usurp those not in a position to defend their right to oppose.
The radicalisation of so called belief's have evolved to discuise the fact that we are a 'Species' called Homosapien's and just a sub species of the ever evolving Blue Planet orbiting a star in a Universe which is one of many in a infinite cluster of matter and energy which composition is decided upon which and what particle's come together to form such a mass.
The very term " In the beginning " implies that there is a Universal time frame, There is not !!!!!!! 'Time' is man made concept, if it were Celestial then would a God not have given such knowledge to aincient humans to allow them to create and form such modern concepts as time and calender's .
No the truth is very simple, God and religion (which ever one you have been indoctrined into) are a concept of a relatively recent evolution, our Planet and Species evolution are a result of billions of year's of matter and energy compressing into what and where we are today.....

Virgil°

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Not if they get on top first, and never ever confuse state law and security of the state, with morality.

State law is based on our collective morality.

It's not hard to technically avoid breaking state law (to avoid the consequences) and still be extremely so called 'immoral' by other peoples weak, self imposed, restrictive standards.

This is the grey area within morals that is actually desirable. A ruthless businessman who makes a lot of money on the backs of people losing their jobs is walking a fine line. But we can discuss it and debate it and readjust laws around this discourse. An option not found in the bible.

As Margaret Thatcher said "There is no society"

A Margaret Thatcher quote to back up a huge sweeping statement? At least i know what I'm dealing with.

'Morality' is a bar to personal 'success', it always has been.
Survival of the fittest works.
That's evolution and natural selection.

Again with the short sightedness. What is good for one person is not necessarily good for the whole and by association that one person within the whole. If everyone acted like one morally corrupt person, who thought it was fine to ,lets say, kill for personal success, humans would be extinct.

Leaving your strawman / ad homiem attempt aside for now ;

Id rather not leave them aside being honest given that

A: you don't know what an ad hominem is.
I would have had to say- You're wrong because of X trait

What I actually said was - Following your (wrong)logic you imply you have X trait.

In this case the lack of ability to rationalise morals outside religion

B: Given the above it wasn't a strawman either.

Do you really think I am totally unique, rather than just being totally honest ?
Moral normality ? There is none. What is considered totally moral by one person is totally imoral for another.

The majority of the human race believe that taking anothers life(in normal circumstances) is not moral. This is a moral norm. We call people who think its morally normal to kill people, psychopaths and murders. This is one example of a moral norm. There are many. Yes, they change from culture to culture. But most civilised peoples agree on the major ones.

All is fair in love and war.
The strong survive.
Winner takes all.

You reap what you sow.
Be careful what you wish for.
Every cloud has a silver lining.

I like this game!

ISAW wrote: »

Saying "there is no god" is an invitation to throw away natural Law.
It is reasonable to assume a society that rejects morality and preaches that absolute moral standards do not exist we result in deaths. also if you have no ideals for which to live by why bother building anything?
http://books.google.ie/books?id=gj114JLCEwQC&pg=PA184&lpg=PA184&dq=posterity+in+secularism&source=bl&ots=18ydEY7jqh&sig=OALyBCD-cbpk1PtisplktZFGVM4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e4giT8mRCIy3hAf4veDjBA&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=posterity%20in%20secularism&f=false

Posterity lost: progress, ideology, and the decline of the American family
By Richard T. Gill
Chapter 9 Page 184

Is there no end your unfounded speculations ? That quote proves nothing- just posits a series of open ended questions that could just as equally apply to the different brands of belief- i.e- if you eat pork you are lost, if have false idols you are lost, good works will save you, good works won't save you unless you are already choosen , etc etc.

It is just the same tub-thumping methodology used down through the centuries by religions against each other and now re-tooled and focussed on whatever is the new bogeyman..

And it is the same prophet of doomism that railed against Martin Luther, The Counter-reformation, Islam, whatever down through history.

The question is how are those ''moral'' standards arrived at- you believe they must be handed down , others believe they can be created by ourselves.

ISAW wrote: »

Let's not! Can you logically deduce the sun will come up tomorrow?

http://www.ssr.org/Induction.shtml
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED)
"the process of inferring a general law or principle from observation of particular instances"
and ...
deduction thus is “inference by reasoning from generals to particulars,” or “the process of deducing from something known or assumed…”

some of this mathematical proofs. Mathematics is a deductive process.

I have already supplied the historical evidence of "particular instances" of atheistic regimes and inferred that in general they were atrocious

Concerning the sun - of course we can prove it - the question is why bother- you are the one introducing these outlandish analogies .

As for your your Oxford dictionary quotes quotes- lets read them again shall we -

inferring general law from the particulars, - you have not done so, you have created a set of particulars which no-one else agrees with, either here or on academia and inferred a general law from those flawed premises.

and from the particular to the general- you have just skipped over the known and just stuck with your own version of what can be assumed.

A start would be showing that atheism =equals atheistic regime/totalitarian regime, otherwise your argument is a house of cards.

irishh_bob

ISAW wrote: »

Achieve it for whom? For the individual making the sacrifice? How is self interest justified as the main principle of societal progress? Clearly history shows that selflessness is what made all the great societies. With the exception of the few who held almost all the wealth and power how were all the others being selfish?

being selfless all the time doesnt make you happy , you need to be selfish somtimes in order to achieve your personal goals

Originally Posted by ISAW;

Achieve it for whom?

Try reading the post you're questioning.

Originally Posted by irishh_bob;

agree that morality is a barrier to personal success

How is self interest justified as the main principle of societal progress?

Let me google that for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest

Clearly history shows that selflessness is what made all the great societies. With the exception of the few who held almost all the wealth and power how were all the others being selfish?

What? Other people in the society or other societies less wealthy and powerful ?

irishh_bob wrote: »

agree that morality is a barrier to personal success , selfishness and a willingless to sacrafice personal integrity is often required in order to achieve great success

Achieve it for whom? For the individual making the sacrifice? How is self interest justified as the main principle of societal progress? Clearly history shows that selflessness is what made all the great societies. With the exception of the few who held almost all the wealth and power how were all the others being selfish?

tommy2bad wrote: »

. Whether their is or isn't a God or gods is a moot point if we cant effectively tell each other about how to live together.

Don't you find your salvation by "faith and good works" argument is a bit ironic?

marienbad wrote: »

Inductive is it ? Well lets forget about the sun as that is patently untrue

Let's not! Can you logically deduce the sun will come up tomorrow?

http://www.ssr.org/Induction.shtml
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED)
"the process of inferring a general law or principle from observation of particular instances"
and ...
deduction thus is “inference by reasoning from generals to particulars,” or “the process of deducing from something known or assumed…”

and come to Newton - ''there is a distance between a truth that is glimpsed and a truth that is demonstrated''. However Newton may have glimpsed his laws he sets out the proofs in clear demonstrable terms.

some of this mathematical proofs. Mathematics is a deductive process.

Care to do the same for your theory ? If not it is just your opinion.

I have already supplied the historical evidence of "particular instances" of atheistic regimes and inferred that in general they were atrocious

irishh_bob

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Not if they get on top first, and never ever confuse state law and security of the state, with morality.
It's not hard to technically avoid breaking state law (to avoid the consequences) and still be extremely so called 'immoral' by other peoples weak, self imposed, restrictive standards.
As Margaret Thatcher said "There is no society"
Ask any Anglo Irish Bank Bondholder as he sips cocktails on his Caymen Island's Beach
'Morality' is a bar to personal 'success', it always has been.
Survival of the fittest works.
That's evolution and natural selection.

Leaving your strawman / ad homiem attempt aside for now ;
Do you really think I am totally unique, rather than just being totally honest ?
Moral normality ? There is none. What is considered totally moral by one person is totally imoral for another.
All is fair in love and war.
The strong survive.
Winner takes all.

agree that morality is a barrier to personal success , selfishness and a willingless to sacrafice personal integrity is often required in order to achieve great success

tommy2bad wrote: »

This is nonsense. You can demonstrate the mechanism that causes the sun to rise and fall and logical deduce that the sun will rise tomorrow. You cant demonstrate any mechanism that causes atheism to inevitable end in atrocities.

Saying "there is no god" is an invitation to throw away natural Law.
It is reasonable to assume a society that rejects morality and preaches that absolute moral standards do not exist we result in deaths. also if you have no ideals for which to live by why bother building anything?
http://books.google.ie/books?id=gj114JLCEwQC&pg=PA184&lpg=PA184&dq=posterity+in+secularism&source=bl&ots=18ydEY7jqh&sig=OALyBCD-cbpk1PtisplktZFGVM4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e4giT8mRCIy3hAf4veDjBA&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=posterity%20in%20secularism&f=false

Posterity lost: progress, ideology, and the decline of the American family
By Richard T. Gill
Chapter 9 Page 184

But where then would all the values come from...

lmaopml wrote: »

I sometimes wonder at people who believe that Religion boxes in morality when it draws a distinct and clear line as to where we would like to progress to in terms of living together; and Atheism represents freedom of choice, but doesn't stipulate anything at all about what we are to progress to, but is 'progressive'.

What we call emancipation is always and of necessity simply the free choice of the soul between one set of limitations and another.

I don't understand? religion isn't just a set of good manners, thats just common decency. If religion is anything it has to be more than a set of rules and stipulations. Thats why I linked to the book. It says something about the methods religions use to keep an idea alive and questions what atheism has to offer instead. Whether their is or isn't a God or gods is a moot point if we cant effectively tell each other about how to live together. Religion hasn't always had the right idea of how to do this but it has been effective at sustaining it ideas. Maybe we can learn from it and progress. Atheist and theist alike.

lmaopml

I sometimes wonder at people who believe that Religion boxes in morality when it draws a distinct and clear line as to where we would like to progress to in terms of living together; and Atheism represents freedom of choice, but doesn't stipulate anything at all about what we are to progress to, but is 'progressive'.

What we call emancipation is always and of necessity simply the free choice of the soul between one set of limitations and another.

The Quadratic Equation

Virgil° wrote: »

It would be the end of that society and by association his own family within it.
I think of it as kind of an extension of or consequence of completely violating the golden rule.

Not if they get on top first, and never ever confuse state law and security of the state, with morality.
It's not hard to technically avoid breaking state law (to avoid the consequences) and still be extremely so called 'immoral' by other peoples weak, self imposed, restrictive standards.
As Margaret Thatcher said "There is no society"
Ask any Anglo Irish Bank Bondholder as he sips cocktails on his Caymen Island's Beach
'Morality' is a bar to personal 'success', it always has been.
Survival of the fittest works.
That's evolution and natural selection.

Virgil° wrote: »

you imply you wouldn't have the faculties to maintain moral normality were you, say, convinced to be an atheist, god forbid.

Leaving your strawman / ad homiem attempt aside for now ;
Do you really think I am totally unique, rather than just being totally honest ?
Moral normality ? There is none. What is considered totally moral by one person is totally imoral for another.
All is fair in love and war.
The strong survive.
Winner takes all.

Virgil°

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

So apart from religious belief there is no rational reason for adhering to what other people consider moral.

Except there is a reason. That personal subjective morality, excusing any action for the good of oneself, is short sighted in the extreme. If a person is willing to bypass the moral norms of a society then he must also consider(unless he is unable to do so) what would happen if others or even all others in that society acted as he did. It would be the end of that society and by association his own family within it.
I think of it as kind of an extension of or consequence of completely violating the golden rule.

What you've also done here with this rationale is a great disservice to yourself. Following your logic of "without religion there is no rational reason for moral norms" then you imply you wouldn't have the faculties to maintain moral normality were you, say, convinced to be an atheist, god forbid.

The Quadratic Equation

tommy2bad wrote: »

Came across this book, it might be of interest to followers of this thread.
http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Atheists-Non-believers-Guide-Uses/dp/0307379108

Apart from complying with state law to avoid goal and fines, being moral is totally contrary to natural selection, being 'successful', and survival of the fittest. So apart from religious belief there is no rational reason for adhering to what other people consider moral. Your morality then can then become subjective, not objective. Much easier. Under personal subjective morality, almost any action can be very easily justified by using the, 'survival of the fittest', natural selection, sucess and wealth of 'my family' and 'my offspring' above all else rational, and the ends will always justify the means.

Came across this book, it might be of interest to followers of this thread.
http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Atheists-Non-believers-Guide-Uses/dp/0307379108

The problem of the man without religion is that he forgets. We all know in theory what we should do to be good. The problem is that in practice, we forget. And we forget because the modern secular world always thinks that it is enough to tell someone something once (be good, remember the poor etc.) But all religions disagree here: they insist that if anyone is to stand a chance of remembering anything, they need reminders on a daily, perhaps even hourly basis.

ISAW wrote: »

I have quite clearly demonstrated how Hellinisation led to the roman Empire and that became enshrined as "logos" in Christianity which coupled it with "theos" and how the Eastern Roman empire was inextricable linked with the church and remained there until Constantinople fell fifteen centuries later. Athesim as an influence on this history had not part to play in building civilization at all. Clearly the Church was establkished and involved in running society since at least the third century.

It is onl;;y after the collapse of The Orthodox Empire that atheism becomes widespread in Europe as a philosophy to underpin running domains. Even since then in europe whenever it was tried society suffered. I don't claim all suffering was exclusive to atheism being adopted as a principle, but the worst run societies were atheistic.

My reasoning is inductive. I freely admit it is not logically deduced. Nor was Newton's law of gravitation. Nor can I logically deduce the Sun will rise tomorrow.

Inductive is it ? Well lets forget about the sun as that is patently untrue and come to Newton - ''there is a distance between a truth that is glimpsed and a truth that is demonstrated''. However Newton may have glimpsed his laws he sets out the proofs in clear demonstrable terms.

Care to do the same for your theory ? If not it is just your opinion.

Nor can I logically deduce the Sun will rise tomorrow.

This is nonsense. You can demonstrate the mechanism that causes the sun to rise and fall and logical deduce that the sun will rise tomorrow. You cant demonstrate any mechanism that causes atheism to inevitable end in atrocities. The whole frag count is a distraction.
You are raising a valid point but carting it to an illogical conclusion.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Their are a fair few skulls in the back story of any civilization.

Indeed. Even Thousands of them for christianity from time to time over 2,000 years.
But atheistic regimews has hundreds of millions - really Big piles.
Communism, Population density or technology don't explain how the piles are so big either because there are NON atheistic communist , dense populations and similarly technologically equipped societies which didn't have such piles.
In fact all Christian didnt have such piles unless you add up several Christian regimes oifer centuries. For example if you add up all the Spanish inquisition over 450 years you come to about 20,000 executions.

The anti theist accusation that theists are hypocrites stands. No point saying they are wrong when we admit to being sinners. Better to explain that our aim far exceeds our reach but what do we do? settle for less or try for more despite failing?
ISAW your numbers game misses the point.

the point Christianity strayed from their own principles and made mistakes. Atheistic regimes slaughtered by the newtime when they "stayed the course".

marienbad wrote: »

This is just more repetition but now expanded to take credit for the Greeks and Romans !

I have quite clearly demonstrated how Hellinisation led to the roman Empire and that became enshrined as "logos" in Christianity which coupled it with "theos" and how the Eastern Roman empire was inextricable linked with the church and remained there until Constantinople fell fifteen centuries later. Athesim as an influence on this history had not part to play in building civilization at all. Clearly the Church was establkished and involved in running society since at least the third century.

It is onl;;y after the collapse of The Orthodox Empire that atheism becomes widespread in Europe as a philosophy to underpin running domains. Even since then in europe whenever it was tried society suffered. I don't claim all suffering was exclusive to atheism being adopted as a principle, but the worst run societies were atheistic.

You are just constantly repeating your premise- i.e Christianity builds civilisations - atheism equals decay. Would you care to lay out a logical proof ?

My reasoning is inductive. I freely admit it is not logically deduced. Nor was Newton's law of gravitation. Nor can I logically deduce the Sun will rise tomorrow.

Their are a fair few skulls in the back story of any civilization.
The anti theist accusation that theists are hypocrites stands. No point saying they are wrong when we admit to being sinners. Better to explain that our aim far exceeds our reach but what do we do? settle for less or try for more despite failing?
ISAW your numbers game misses the point.

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

Therefore when atheism get into control of a state the blame lies with their philosophy not with the fact that they are ion control.

Which is a direct contradition of the above. either it was all hitlers fault and the philosophy didnt have anything to do with it or it was Naziisms fault as well. Just because hitler was a bad guy is not need to use that as an excuse for these that came to this call.

Not just him. The whole atheistic "there is no god" regime which committed atrocities far in excess of anything the church did.

Yes. Their entire philosophy is to blame. You are making the mistake of assuming atheism is the offending component of their philosophy, and I have pointed out that plenty of atheists abhor the philosophies of people like Stalin and Pol Pot.

WE know Pol pot was and wh know what he did. Waffle don't change that.

Exactly. So why try and turn his tyranny into some contrived hypothetical about atheism?

I never said all atheism causes atrocities. I stated atheistic regimes i.r. there athes9ts take over society.

"Atheist regimes" and "A society of atheists" are not synonymous.

It doesnt have to say anything to enable such terrororistic thought.

The crazy philosophy of Aum is what "enabled terroristic thought". Japan is tolerant and peaceful. You are trying to depict Japan as morally paralysed, a charge clearly demonstrated as false with a simple look at Japan's reaction to the attack.

Bushes "invade Iraq" US was such a society.

And the leaders of WACO were killed. But that does not mean US society didn't enable the Branch Dividians to come about.

Bush's (and much of America's) philosophy is a moral objectivism and Christianity.

Okay then tell us straight - do you believe the concept of "good and evil" is meaningless or not?

No. I don't believe such concepts are meaningless.

Morbert wrote:

The change is from "Atheism causes atrocities" to "The meta-ethical consistency of Moral nihilism"

Meta ethical meaning "above ethics" That Nihilism is a better way above nmorality?
Do you believe atheism is also a better way?

Atheism is not a way. Meta-ethical means nihilism is a statement about ethical systems, not an ethical system itself. Just as nihilism can be a metaphysical statement about reality, but not a physical framework itself. The same goes for moral objectivism. This is in distinct contrast to normative moral relativism, which is a (self-defeating) ethical system stating we should always respect the morality of other cultures.

Again I think you may mean "there is not anybody who is arguing" and not "nobody" is.
There is not a "nobody" to argue.

The English language is robust enough to avoid the need for such circumlocution. Just as "Nothing is better than a pint of Guinnes" is understandable.

Rationalists using rational discourse have done so. A hammer can be used to build a house or attack another.

So if I, say, argue that there is no evidence for God, would you interpret that as an "attack" or just a statement you disagree with?

ISAW wrote: »

Yes.
I refer to Christianity in particular.
In 2000 years several entire civilizations were steeped in christianity.
From about 300 Ad the roman Empire was effectively christian and run by christians with the idea of Christ being god.
From about 400 till about 1500 the Eastern Roman Empire was linked to the Christian Church . the government law etc. were all heavily influenced or linked to the Orthodox christian church.
The feudal system in the rest of Europe was heavily influenced or controlled byt the church i.e. the Pope in Rome the local Bishop or Abbot.

Monks (who did what they did because of their Christian faith) throughout Europe but expecially at the finiges both in Byzantium and Britain and Ireland preserved the classical knowledge of antiquity. Some such as Roger Bacon developed science metallurgy etc. In fact Church education was the only education. Atheist schools were not developing anything. The REformation and counter Reformation was a movement brought about by basically "Christian" values being adopted into democracy and trade and fulled the Renaissance which would not have come about without the aforementioned Christian preservation of knowledge.

Western science and civilization was built on the "logos" of ancient Greece which was preserved in the Christian church.

What did the atheists do all this time? What did they build? Who did they help?
Atheism as a philosophy when put in charge or made central to any state led to nothing but decay,

This is just more repetition but now expanded to take credit for the Greeks and Romans ! You are just constantly repeating your premise- i.e Christianity builds civilisations - atheism equals decay. Would you care to lay out a logical proof ?