Atheists: "Thank you for Christianity"

[_dartagnan]

I am thankful to Christianity...
...for coming into existence a handful of centuries before Islam, and therefore having that little extra 'growing up' time...

What so many don't get is this. If it were not for Christianity, we would all probably all be saying our prayers five times a day in Arabic, engaged in polygamy, and commiting every human rights violation known to man. I say this because people have a tendency to become products of their environments. Christians beget Christians, Catholics beget Catholics, Mormons beget future Mormons, etc. Of course people can change their faith today in western civilization, but under Islam you wouldn't be able to.

OK, I'll move the Islam stuff to another thread now.

If you feel the need to respond to the above, please do it in the other thread I'm about to create.

[_Moniker]

What I find so loverly about my answers are when they occur on the first page of a thread so everyone can be stunned by the beauty of them. :)

Clearly, your "shock and awe" method.

Yes. :)

[_huckelberry]

Kevin, I think your observation about the relationship of Gods nature and natural order is interesting but invites a bit of consideration. Aquinas is not the only system in Christianity. It is a system closely related to Aristotle. The Aristotle material was coming by way of Islam. So how is it the positive values of Aristotle, that early scientist found more lasting growth in Christian soil compared to Islamic soil? Both groups had access and interest in Aristotle. Islam had prior or more extensive access.

[_dartagnan]

Kevin, I think your observation about the relationship of Gods nature and natural order is interesting but invites a bit of consideration. Aquinas is not the only system in Christianity. It is a system closely related to Aristotle. The Aristotle material was coming by way of Islam. So how is it the positive values of Aristotle, that early scientist found more lasting growth in Christian soil compared to Islamic soil? Both groups had access and interest in Aristotle. Islam had prior or more extensive access.

Hey Huck,

It is not accurate to say Aquinas got this "by way of Islam." It seems that anything that ever took place under the banner of Islam, immediately is to be accredited to Islam, without anyone really paying attention to the finer details. For example, the fact that it was actually a Christian, Hunayn ibn-Ishaq who translated works by Aristotle, Galen, Plato, etc, into Syriac. His son later translated them into Arabic. I searched through several pro-Muslim websites and they mention this guy as a "Muslim philosopher" when he was no such thing at all. He was a Nestorian Christian, yet, no matter what he did, "Islam" gets the credit.

But the more important point is this. While these works were available to the Arabs, they did little to nothing with them. At least in as much as the natural laws were concerned.

[_huckelberry]

Kevin, you are restating what I was intending to point out. (I guess that means I should have been clearer)

I meant only that Islam had access to the same set of ideas in Aristotle not that that was some accomplishment of Islam.

I think your general assessment of Islam is correct.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Now that you asked for it; I am really grateful Christianity taking over converting whole South America & destroying
everyting on their path.
I am very grateful for Columbus also.

(Don't forget North America)

You got that right, but I have a Q for you;
You're a Mod, right?
How come those MAD&D mods wanna look like "Fat & mean Judges"?
And you a "Trim James Bond"?
What's the catch?

Yeah I'm a mod. And I really don't even want to start trying to figure out the MAD mods...I gave up long ago.

(I wish I was a bit slimmer, but maybe my trim avatar suggests that I don't carry as much baggage as the MAD mods.)

[_Yong Xi]

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?

I have just purchased a book by Charles Freeman, "The Closing of the Western Mind". So far, I have merely read part of the intro. Freeman's thesis is that the rise of Christianity led to the fall of reason, beginning with the conversion of Constantine. Apparently, Freeman appears to be arguing that Christianity brought about "unreason" and the beginning of the Dark Ages. If true, how does this square with Christian scientific achievement?

I wish I could share more of his thoughts, but have not read enough to provide anything substantial.

[_dartagnan]

yea I want to get a copy of that one too. Here is a review of it online: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A9629C8B63

[_Dr. Shades]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one, dartagnan.

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

It depends on whether you mean "Christian civilization" as in a civilization wherein Christian principles are practiced, or "Christian civilization" wherein there's no separation between church and state.

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.

Then I thank the soldiers who repulsed the Muslim hordes. I don't think it matters what their religion was.

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.

I disagree. Atheists didn't fare well for many centuries under Judeo-Christian civilization. It was only when the separation between church and state was invented that atheists began to prosper. I.e., less religion was what allowed atheists to flourish, not more Christianity.

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.

I disagree. As I said, less religion is what has allowed science to flourish, not more Christianity. Otherwise the Dark Ages--when Christianity held complete and utter dominance--would've been far more scientifically fruitful than what we see today.

[_huckelberry]

dark ages, a period when central government disappeared, trade came to a virtual halt resulting in poverty. A period where population was decimated by plague and invading barbarians. Result a period with no learnin no trade limited manufactoring and poverty.

None of this has anything to do with Christianity. What kind of historical dark age are our atheists mired in?