(September 8, 2014 at 8:28 pm)Polaris Wrote: The Dark Ages argument and the Bronze Age argument....really not so much arguments but one-line sayings that too many atheists have used online that show they have little grasp of history. Whenever I see an atheist use those statements, I see that there isn't really much value in their intellect. Frankly, they have so much better material they could use if they weren't so lazy to research.

What's the Dark Ages Argument? That we don't want religious fanatics to lead us back there?

(September 8, 2014 at 8:34 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: What's the Dark Ages Argument? That we don't want religious fanatics to lead us back there?

It is said by some that the "Dark Ages" is often a caricature of what really happened. See this for reference:

http://www.bede.org.uk/university.htm

(September 8, 2014 at 8:34 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(September 8, 2014 at 8:28 pm)Polaris Wrote: The Dark Ages argument and the Bronze Age argument....really not so much arguments but one-line sayings that too many atheists have used online that show they have little grasp of history. Whenever I see an atheist use those statements, I see that there isn't really much value in their intellect. Frankly, they have so much better material they could use if they weren't so lazy to research.

What's the Dark Ages Argument? That we don't want religious fanatics to lead us back there?

Presumably it's the statement of, "there was a time when Christianity ruled Europe - it was called the Dark Ages."

(September 8, 2014 at 8:34 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(September 8, 2014 at 8:28 pm)Polaris Wrote: The Dark Ages argument and the Bronze Age argument....really not so much arguments but one-line sayings that too many atheists have used online that show they have little grasp of history. Whenever I see an atheist use those statements, I see that there isn't really much value in their intellect. Frankly, they have so much better material they could use if they weren't so lazy to research.

What's the Dark Ages Argument? That we don't want religious fanatics to lead us back there?

About the Dark Ages being when religion ruled the world (they probably mean Europe)...doesn't resemble the actual historical record and the worst religious issues in Europe actually occurred later on during the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods though that would likely be a non-sequitur.

(September 8, 2014 at 8:45 pm)Polaris Wrote:

(September 8, 2014 at 8:34 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: What's the Dark Ages Argument? That we don't want religious fanatics to lead us back there?

About the Dark Ages being when religion ruled the world (they probably mean Europe)...doesn't resemble the actual historical record and the worst religious issues in Europe actually occurred later on during the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods though that would likely be a non-sequitur.

Though you wouldn't dispute that within Christian Europe, to openly think critically about the faith meant certain ruin and sometimes death, right?

(September 8, 2014 at 8:49 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(September 8, 2014 at 8:45 pm)Polaris Wrote: About the Dark Ages being when religion ruled the world (they probably mean Europe)...doesn't resemble the actual historical record and the worst religious issues in Europe actually occurred later on during the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods though that would likely be a non-sequitur.

Though you wouldn't dispute that within Christian Europe, to openly think critically about the faith meant certain ruin and sometimes death, right?

It was really Christian Europe until they united after the Moorish Invasion of France during the 8th century CE. When the European rulers united under the banner of Christianity, the Dark Ages were pretty much ended.

Christianity actually has a lot to thank for the Moslems invading Europe...it did wonders to foment the power of the Catholic Church.

I've found the least effective arguments I've made involve discussing the morality of God. If you make your case to other non-believers, they'll agree with you, but you're basically preaching to the choir. If you make these arguments to believers, you'll find them make some very creepy-sounding excuses for why God drowns babies, lets us harm each other in the name of free will, killed the first born in the tenth plague, isn't responsible for Original Sin, or isn't going overboard with the whole eternal torture thing. You end up with a worse impression of the apologist, but they will ultimately be unmoved.

(September 9, 2014 at 8:42 am)RobbyPants Wrote: I've found the least effective arguments I've made involve discussing the morality of God. If you make your case to other non-believers, they'll agree with you, but you're basically preaching to the choir. If you make these arguments to believers, you'll find them make some very creepy-sounding excuses for why God drowns babies, lets us harm each other in the name of free will, killed the first born in the tenth plague, isn't responsible for Original Sin, or isn't going overboard with the whole eternal torture thing. You end up with a worse impression of the apologist, but they will ultimately be unmoved.

I don't even think that argument works with most non-believers.

To quote Michael Martin in his TANG (Transcendental Argument for the Non-Existence of God): "[Science] presupposes the uniformity of nature: that natural laws govern the world and that there are no violations of such laws. However, Christianity presupposes that there are miracles in which natural laws are violated. Since to make sense of science one must assume that there are no miracles, one must further assume that Christianity is false."

I see this line of thinking as fundamentally flawed. First, natural laws are not commandments, they're simply descriptions for observed regularities. While miracles could be interpreted as mere irregularities and vice versa, I see no logical impossibility in one presupposing regularity for the sake of doing science while also allowing for violations, or divine intercession, from time to time, particularly if there was such persuasive evidence for an irregularity so peculiar (such as a resurrected body) that appeal to an outside power appeared to be the most probable solution.

The Dark Ages are most certainly a black eye on Christianity, the losses during that time can not be calculated properly. That time period is a testament of what the world looked like when Christianity was in command. Also, I have to disagree with those saying biblical contradictions aren't a good thing to bring up. For instance, my favorite thing to bring up with a Christian specifically is that, if Evolution is true, it would imply that the events that lead to biological life in Genesis (Adam & Eve) is bullshit. From my experience, if a Christian keeps wanting to point to the bible, then the bible must be called into question at some point.