Atheists: "Thank you for Christianity"

[_dartagnan]

Kevin quite simply post where you acknowledge Spencer as the source behind your Aquinas quote and your Stark quote.

Behind the quotes??? Getting desperate are we? Now that I proved I referenced them in teh same post you weren't really paying attention to (remember, you foolishly attributed to me something Dr. Shades had posted, and then proceeded to accuse me of plagiarism based on what he posted!) essentially demolishing yoru plagiarism charge, you want to pretend the exact location of the references means a hill of beans?

Your entire case rests on the assumption that I "implied" the ideas were mine and mine alone. What a stupid implication that would have been. I mean who in the hell really thinks that anything of educational value posted on these forums, by any poster, is not a result of knowledge gained from other sources?

And post where you acknowledge Spencer and the source behind the thrust of your argument.

Spencer served to revitalize this which is something I had been kicking around for quite some time. I had seen this published by other authors as well, so no, it didn't begin and end with Spencer or Stark.

I've established that you essentially use all of Spencer's sources, his ideas, and quotes.

And you have ignored or downplayed the fact that I referenced all three sources and that my paste was from notes I had taken. The fact that you cannot find an exact citation, which isn't presented as a citation, is proof of this. The final lynchpin of your argument rests on your gripe that all three sources can also be found in Spencer's book.

But so what? This doesn't change the fact that I referenced all three sources independently.

Would it have made any difference had I said, "Stark, according to Spencer, argues..." instead of simply saing "according to Stark"? Who in the hell, I wonder, really thinks I was trying to pull one over on the audience by "implying" this stuff just came to be in a vacuum?

You've not yet established given him acknowledgment for his work you used.

Your problem is that you overstate his importance and your unfamiliarity with this subject makes you a simpleton who doesn't have the basic tools to comprehend the subject matter. This is teh same criticism you received from Gad and Tarski when you ran to JAK's blind defense a few months ago. I refereced Spencer only because that was from my notes, but I do not rely strictly on Spencer. Spencer simply wrote about something I had already known from previous readings. But you wouldn't know anything about that since you and your internet man are confined to internet "learning." You can't even verify what's in a book by actually reading the book. You have to find out by googling.

[_dartagnan]

All you have done kevin is attack..you've presented no argument as usual.

As usual! Yea, I'm really known for presenting no arguments, huh? I stated a fact. There is no reason to present an argument unless there is someone who can be argued with, now is there?

The fact is Dawkins knows nothing about Christianity, yet he wants to employ Christian jargon as if he has any understanding of their meanings. He knows nothing about social science, yet he wants to pontificate as an authority as to why humans behave a certain way. He knows nothing about psychology, yet he wants to pontificate as an authority as to why humans think a certain way. Further, when it comes to Christianity, he builds one straw man after the other. He doesn't even understand what faith means. For him, he says it means believing something with no evidence. What an idiot. The historic traditional understanding of faith has never been an understanding that rejected evidence. In fact it depends on it. But of course, one would have to understand what the word means in biblical Greek, which of course, our atheist zoologist has no interest in that.

He doesn't even have a decent understanding of the word religion, as he ran back to the 19th century for a source (Frazer) who has since been considered obsolete in scholarship.Why? Because that was the only definition that served his agenda.

I can understand now why the people at MAD got rid of you, you are intellectually dishonest it's that simple.

Well you're the only one who thinks so, except for maybe a few of your nutjob followers. I'm happy to know that.

Kevin, practically everyone back in the 1500 to 1800s were Christian

So why did science explode out of Christian civilization instead of, say, Chinese civilization? I asked JAK this a while back and he never answered.

they had little other choice.

People were not forced into Christianity. This is more drivel from Dawkins that you accept uncritically. You know virtually nothing about Christian history, so stop pretending you do. At least JAK has the sense to jump ship when he started to scratch the surface of this topic with wiki citations. That was the extent of his knowledge.

I mentioned the printing of the Bible ..the Church wouldn't allow it to be printed in English and they burned at the stake Tyndale for doing so.

So what? Here you are just pulling a Dawkins maneuver again. This is what JAK does too. You pretend to be arguing X and then immediately mention some negative anecdote that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. So teh Church was overly sensitive about how its own religious texts were published. Big deal. How does this help prove Christianity and science are at odds?

The church inadvertently helped by educating certain people within the heirarchy for their own purposes and by making sure bibles were copied and available to Church leaders. But that was never with the intent of promoting education for the masses that was simply a by-product of an interest in promoting and maintaining their power over the masses.

And what is your source for this crapola?

Quick, go wiki something. Or better yet, get JAK to help you navigate sekptic.org.

[_marg]

All you have done kevin is attack..you've presented no argument as usual.

As usual! Yea, I'm really known for presenting no arguments, huh? I stated a fact. There is no reason to present an argument unless there is someone who can be argued with, now is there?

Must I go back to show the development of what was said. You line to me was an insult and you argued nothing of substance. I am noting that more and more with the more posts I read from you.

The fact is Dawkins knows nothing about Christianity, yet he wants to employ Christian jargon as if he has any understanding of their meanings. He knows nothing about social science, yet he wants to pontificate as an authority as to why humans behave a certain way. He knows nothing about psychology, yet he wants to pontificate as an authority as to why humans think a certain way. Further, when it comes to Christianity, he builds one straw man after the other. He doesn't even understand what faith means. For him, he says it means believing something with no evidence. What an idiot. The historic traditional understanding of faith has never been an understanding that rejected evidence. In fact it depends on it. But of course, one would have to understand what the word means in biblical Greek, which of course, our atheist zoologist has no interest in that.

Excuse me, are you sure you are addresssing the issues in this thread? I didn't bring up Dawkins, I'm not arguiing for or against Dawkins. What exactly have I said that you are responding to?As far as the rest of your comments dealing with Dawkins..I don't see the relevance to Christianity being the cause of modern science.

.
previous; I can understand now why the people at MAD got rid of you, you are intellectually dishonest it's that simple.[/quote]

Well you're the only one who thinks so, except for maybe a few of your nutjob followers. I'm happy to know that.

I don't know Kevin when you speak on behalf of everyone in praise of yourself it sounds rather pretentious.


previous: Kevin, practically everyone back in the 1500 to 1800s were Christian[/quote]

Kevin:

So why did science explode out of Christian civilization instead of, say, Chinese civilization? I asked JAK this a while back and he never answered.

Well one has to look at what were the catalysts. The printing press, literature from ancient Greeks available, Bibles copied and produced in quantity for Church authorities, universities, an economy in which people got resources in order to pay for books and education. The church sponsoring education and universities at least for a select few. The monarchies taking control away from the Church and not motivated to keep people ignorant. Keys tools, invented by some extremely creative minds which were allowed to experiment and flourish, micrscope, telescope.. Key ideas presented by extremely intelligent individuals. Rich people, secular, ie. the Medici's who helped sponsor secular art and learning. There are a pile of reasons which have little to do with Christianity. If Christianity was the catalyst then wouldn't it make sense that the the priests and bishops, the leaders in the church, would be the leading scientists? Since they have the most knowledge of Christianity? That is if the religion itself was a cause of the effect of modern science.

previous: they had little other choice.

People were not forced into Christianity. This is more drivel from Dawkins that you accept uncritically.

Look Kevin I've not even read Dawkins. Where I got that information from is a history course and unfortunately I remember some of it but a large part I don't. I could review and give more information which I might do if I'm motivated, that is I see a reward in doing so.

You know virtually nothing about Christian history, so stop pretending you do. At least JAK has the sense to jump ship when he started to scratch the surface of this topic with wiki citations. That was the extent of his knowledge.

Kevin you are attacking me again. What did I say contradict history? I readily admit I don't have great knowledge on history but was i've presented so far is not out of whack. What you have presented is apologies for Catholicism which want to counter the historical evidence that it hindered in many ways the education and progress of people.

previous: I mentioned the printing of the Bible ..the Church wouldn't allow it to be printed in English and they burned at the stake Tyndale for doing so.

So what? Here you are just pulling a Dawkins maneuver again. This is what JAK does too. You pretend to be arguing X and then immediately mention some negative anecdote that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. So the Church was overly sensitive about how its own religious texts were published. Big deal. How does this help prove Christianity and science are at odds?

What? They burned at the stake a man who wanted to publish the Bible in english and you think this is a small anecdote, not indicative of evidence of the church wanted to keep people ignorant.

kevin, why didn't the church itself help to finance and get the Bible into the hands of the masses and into the language of the masses. kevin why do think the catholic church held servies in latin rather than english? Perhaps you can tell me when they stopped doing that, because I don't know. I have a feeling it is probably quite recent.

previously: The church inadvertently helped by educating certain people within the heirarchy for their own purposes and by making sure bibles were copied and available to Church leaders. But that was never with the intent of promoting education for the masses that was simply a by-product of an interest in promoting and maintaining their power over the masses.

And what is your source for this crapola?

My memory from a history course put out by the Teaching company. But it's been a while and I'd have to review plus I'm not certain which course or lesson,

Quick, go wiki something. Or better yet, get JAK to help you navigate sekptic.org.

I don't see a problem with finding back-up from the Net. Obviously it can easily be verified. And particularly if one has some knowledge in that area and is comfortable with the information. I don't know why you have such a fixation on JAK. I'm discussing with you and JAK's not involved and yet you still bring him up. It's not me focussing on him it's you!.

[_dartagnan]

Excuse me, are you sure you are addresssing the issues in this thread? I didn't bring up Dawkins, I'm not arguiing for or against Dawkins. What exactly have I said that you are responding to?

You and JAK both reiterate some of the same exact things proposed by Dawkins and you fall into the same exact traps. (Gee, if I followed your logic I could accuse you of plagiarism! But I know better) You just made a dogmatic statement about Christianity when you're not an expert on Christianity. I simply stated as much.

I don't see the relevance to Christianity being the cause of modern science.

Of course you don't. You're too busy using negative anecdotes to reinterpret them to mean something entirely different from what they actually imply.

Well one has to look at what were the catalysts. The printing press, literature from ancient Greeks available,

The Chinese invented printing and even paper. Europe got priniting technology from the Arabs, who got it from China. So that isn't a good reason why science didn't emerge from China.

Bibles copied and produced in quantity for Church authorities, universities, an economy in which people got resources in order to pay for books and education.

Wait a minute, you think the distribution of Bibles was important for education and the promotion of scientific progress? You're not making any sense here. That is the antithesis of the athiest argument.

The church sponsoring education and universities at least for a select few.

Yes, you're on to something here, but you refuse to see it because you cannot ackolwedge the Church's role in promoting and sponsoring scientific investigation.

The monarchies taking control away from the Church and not motivated to keep people ignorant.

Huh? The question was why modern science didn't emerge from China. Your reiterated theme about the Church trying to "keep the people ignorant," is just a trendy slogan without substance.

Keys tools, invented by some extremely creative minds which were allowed to experiment and flourish, micrscope, telescope..

Exactly, Christian scientists were able to flourish in Christian society. The same isn't true in Arabia or elsewhere.

There are a pile of reasons which have little to do with Christianity. If Christianity was the catalyst then wouldn't it make sense that the the priests and bishops, the leaders in the church, would be the leading scientists? Since they have the most knowledge of Christianity?

In many cases they were, but priests don't generally make science their business.

What? They burned at the stake a man who wanted to publish the Bible in english and you think this is a small anecdote, not indicative of evidence of the church wanted to keep people ignorant.

If you understood the history, you probably wouldn't be drawing these silly conclusions. Tyndale was killed for heresy. There was a law established by the state that Bibles should only be produced in Latin. Translations meant an opportunity for mistranslation, and apparently the Church wasn't prepared to have the scriotures translated in languages the Pope could not understand, hence, approve. It was more practical, therefore, to keep the Bible in one language as to keep misinterpretation and mistranslation down to a minimum. So this had nothing whatsoever to do with "keeping the people ignorant."

In fact, the result was that Christians everywhere in every part of Europe were encouraged to learn Latin so they could read the Bible. And many of them did. Knowledge of latin was very common, even among some of the founding Fathers of the USA.

Secondly, shouldn't you be arguing that the Bible is a product of ignorance, instead of a source for scientific knowledge? That is the point after all. I said the Church promoted scientific progress and you responded with this nonsense about Tyndale and how it proved the Church wanted to keep people ignorant. Ignorant of what? English? The Bible? We were talking about science.

kevin, why didn't the church itself help to finance and get the Bible into the hands of the masses and into the language of the masses.

Why do you think the Bible is a science guide that would have "educated" the people in any way?

[_CaliforniaKid]

The Roman Empire was not co-opted by Christianity. Constantine made Christianity a state religion probably because with one God, was beneficial for any ruler to use as a power mechanism. More than one God dilutes the power anyone can gain from using that God as an authority.

You need to read Rodney Stark and Roger Finke's The Rise of Christianity. Constantine was a monotheist well before his encounter with the Christian God. He was a worshipper of Sol Invictus, the sun god. He adopted Christianity as his state religion not because it was monotheistic, but because it was already well on its way to becoming the dominant religious force in the empire. It was growing extremely quickly, especially among elites, and Constantine saw its potential as a unifying force if he could just accelerate the process of its proliferation. He may also have had some kind of real spiritual experience wherein he believed he had actually witnessed the power of the Christian God. To some extent, Constantine merely recognized the religious reality that already existed in the empire-- that it was being co-opted by Christianity-- and embraced it rather than trying to stamp it out as several of his predecessors had done.

The argument presented by Kevin is that there is something within Christianity which sparked the development of science. That the Christian god adhered to natural physical laws, and was consistent. That is nonsense, the Christian God does not adhere to natural physical laws and is not consistent. The Christian God has the power to do whatever he wishes.

There has been a historical pairing in Christianity of God with a natural order. But my argument in my previous post was that that is more due to the fact that in order to co-opt the empire Christian thinkers had to express their message in rational Hellenistic categories than it is to something inherent to Christianity. (Arguably, Christianity itself is a Hellenization of Judaism.) Islam, by contrast, did not have to co-opt an empire in order to effect its proliferation; Mohammad built his own army and spread his religion by conquest rather than by philosophy. In short, Christianity is conducive to science because its context demanded that it spread itself through reason. Islam is less conducive thereto because it has historically tended to spread itself through warfare. The exception was in Zoroastrian Persia, where after the initial Muslim conquest conversion happened only very gradually and by attrition. Here Islam had to make itself appealing to Persian thinkers, and so there emerged the venerable medieval Muslim philosophical tradition that the liberals have made so famous. In modern times Islam has sufficient sway in most of North Africa and the Middle East that it does not need to subject itself to science, philosophy, or religion anymore. It has therefore secured its hegemony by stifling thought rather than by promoting it, which is why they're all living in the stone ages.

Hope that makes sense.

-Chris

[_marg]

The Roman Empire was not co-opted by Christianity. Constantine made Christianity a state religion probably because with one God, was beneficial for any ruler to use as a power mechanism. More than one God dilutes the power anyone can gain from using that God as an authority.

You need to read Rodney Stark and Roger Finke's The Rise of Christianity. Constantine was a monotheist well before his encounter with the Christian God. He was a worshipper of Sol Invictus, the sun god. He adopted Christianity as his state religion not because it was monotheistic, but because it was already well on its way to becoming the dominant religious force in the empire. It was growing extremely quickly, especially among elites, and Constantine saw its potential as a unifying force if he could just accelerate the process of its proliferation. He may also have had some kind of real spiritual experience wherein he believed he had actually witnessed the power of the Christian God. To some extent, Constantine merely recognized the religious reality that already existed in the empire-- that it was being co-opted by Christianity-- and embraced it rather than trying to stamp it out as several of his predecessors had done.

California Kid, it is not particularly relevant what Constantine's beliefs are, what is critical are the beliefs of the Roman people. If the majority were pagan, having beliefs in many Gods, any ruler would have less power to gain if they acted as representatives of those Gods, than they would a single God. More than one God with equal stature means no one God has ultimate authority. I said that was probably a factor for him. According to my history book Christianity was making inroads into roman thought, but only 1 in 5 inhabitants of the Roman Empire were Christian, so the religious reality was that the Christians at the time of Constantine were far from being in the majority. Without Constantine making it a state religion it is anyone's guess whether Christianity would have become the success it is today. You had said Christianity co-opted the Roman Empire, as if Constantine was forced to assume Christianity a state religion...that is simply not so.

By the year 250 there were about 50,000 Christians in the city of Rome with a population of approx. 1 million. Christiantity was mainly attractive to the poor. It was particularly attractive to the wives of Roman leaders probably due to its emphasis on monogamy. Many brought their husbands into the church. Helena the mother of Constantine had churches built in Asia Minor and the Holy Land and traveled to Jerusalem seeking the cross on which Jesus died. (The World History by Spodek) As far as Constantine and his vision, it wasn't all that powerful apparently as he only accepted baptism on his death bed. The Romans were used to accepted other Gods, so why not hedge one's bet.

previous: The argument presented by Kevin is that there is something within Christianity which sparked the development of science. That the Christian god adhered to natural physical laws, and was consistent. That is nonsense, the Christian God does not adhere to natural physical laws and is not consistent. The Christian God has the power to do whatever he wishes.

There has been a historical pairing in Christianity of God with a natural order. But my argument in my previous post was that that is more due to the fact that in order to co-opt the empire Christian thinkers had to express their message in rational Hellenistic categories than it is to something inherent to Christianity. (Arguably, Christianity itself is a Hellenization of Judaism.) Islam, by contrast, did not have to co-opt an empire in order to effect its proliferation; Mohammad built his own army and spread his religion by conquest rather than by philosophy. In short, Christianity is conducive to science because its context demanded that it spread itself through reason. Islam is less conducive thereto because it has historically tended to spread itself through warfare. The exception was in Zoroastrian Persia, where after the initial Muslim conquest conversion happened only very gradually and by attrition. Here Islam had to make itself appealing to Persian thinkers, and so there emerged the venerable medieval Muslim philosophical tradition that the liberals have made so famous. In modern times Islam has sufficient sway in most of North Africa and the Middle East that it does not need to subject itself to science, philosophy, or religion anymore. It has therefore secured its hegemony by stifling thought rather than by promoting it, which is why they're all living in the stone ages.

I'm not going to argue with an argument which says Islam stifled reason ..hence science. I'd have to do further research to accept that argument because I don't buy into it, but for now I'm not going to argue with it. I do have a problem with an argument which says says Christianity used reason to spread itself. It was the ignorant and poor who were first attracted. They were not the critical thinkers of the day. And the same really applies to this day to a large extent. People generally become christian for reasons other than employing reason/critical thinking. It generally is the religion of their parents, and generally they are indoctrinated at a young age and factors other than the religious beliefs play into why people enjoy being part of that community. And once again I differ with you that Christianity co-opted the Roman Empire. And had it not been for constantine, one can not say just where christianity would be today. He withdrew official support of pagan churches, he funded Christian leaders and the construction of churches. He sponsored the Council of Nicea to establish theological doctrines but it also established a church organization for the Roman Empire. And at this time only 1 in 5 people were Christian. So it sounds to me like he was the critical factor behind Christianity's growth and success.

I have no idea what you mean by "There has been a historical pairing in Christianity of God with a natural order." Give me examples of what you are referring to please.

[_beastie]

I have refrained from commenting on these threads for various reasons, but will say this. First, as others have stated, there is no such thing as an "atheist agenda". Atheism is a lack of belief in god, period. Some atheists have agendas. There is no atheist dogma, there is no atheist "president".

My opinion is the atheists who dream of a world without religion are nearly delusional. Religion (and/or superstition, sometimes it's hard to tell the difference) is part and parcel of human nature. I believe it is due to the fact that our sentience leads us to be aware of how little control over our lives we really have, and religion is an expression of the desire to have control. You can't control whether your child dies from a disease or accident, but you can supplicate an all-powerful godbeing to exercise that control in your behalf. When theists say things like "there are no atheists in foxholes", they're revealing a crucial element of belief - the emotional comfort that such extended control offers. (to say nothing of the hope of seeing our loved ones again one day after death)

Yes, religion can encourage distorted or flawed thinking, but it is hardly alone in that aspect. I do think people are better off when we discipline our thoughts, but that's another pipedream, by and large.

What IS potentially dangerous about religion is, again, not exclusive to religion - it is TRIBALISM. When religion has endangered others it is due to the tribal aspect of religion. This is also universal in human nature.

in my opinion - religion did not CAUSE these problems, it is the RESULT of these inherent parts of human nature, and becomes the TOOL for the expression of these problems. And, again, religion is not the SOLE vehicle for the expressions of these problems.

I think those who would like to improve our lot as human beings would be better served by focusing on the specific traits that are problematic - like the distorted thinking some religious claims require - and the danger of tribalism, rather than attacking religion as the CAUSE of these problems. WE are the cause of these problems. If all religions were eradicated overnight, within a week we'd have new ones with the same problems.

in my opinion, of course.

[_Ren]

As usual, very well said beastie.
I totally agree.

[Guest]

Do atheists appreciate the fact that they have so much to be thankful for in Christian civilization?

If Islam had succeeded in taking over Europe - which it very nearly accomplished - then the modern world today would be in the same situation as the Muslim world; scientifically fruitless and technologically dead.

Observe how atheists fare in Muslim lands and contrast this to those in the West, a product of Judeo-Christian civilization. In the former, atheists fear for their very lives. Under Islam unbelief warrants your death, period. In the latter, atheists are tolerated and an environment conducive to scientific progress is developed.

Historically, the world has been predominantly theistic since its very beginnings, and I submit that only in Christian civilization could science have flourished as it has, thus providing the vehicle for atheism to spread; riding on the coat tails of scientific progress.

There is a reason why science has flourished in Christianity and come to a complete halt under Islam.

Does anyone know what that reason is?

Have you read Guns, Germs, and Steel? I think that makes a pretty good case for technological progress vis a vis Europe and Asia. I'm not sure Christianity had anything to do with it. I think trade and interaction (violent and otherwise) had more to do with progress than anything else.

Besides, there are pockets of the Islamic world that is extremely advanced and its outpacing, right now, the rest of the world in architecture, clean energy commitments, and cultural resourcing (education and health).

[_marg]

previously: kevin, why didn't the church itself help to finance and get the Bible into the hands of the masses and into the language of the masses.

Kevin:

Why do you think the Bible is a science guide that would have "educated" the people in any way?

Kevin having a book to read does not make it a science quide. Please answer my question.