You see, Huggy, I don't shame you for writing goofy things because you're a Christian and so you have the excuse of being at least mildly brainwashed. 

Again, I'll repeat why asserting that Enlightenment comes from Christianity is fallacious:

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy:
1. "Sir Issac Newton believed in alchemy."
2. "Sir Issac Newton made great discoveries in physics."
3. "Ergo, Sir Issac Newton's belief in alchemy enabled his discoveries in physics."

Now replace  "alchemy" with "Christianity" and the fallacy is the same. I pointed this out and yet he still continues to claim that because some scientists and other thinkers of the Enlightenment were Christian, that Christianity is what led to the Enlightenment. If he his mind was addled by Christianity, I could understand this behavior. I don't know what his excuse is. 

It's kind of like how you wouldn't blame someone who lived in the Dark Ages for being a geocentrist. You also wouldn't blame a four year old for being a geocentrist. But if a grown man in today's age is a geocentrist and he's been educated but still insists on a different conclusion from remedial science, that's not a difference of opinion. That's shameful. 

It's also like how saying "Elvis is still alive" is not a matter of personal opinion. 






It's not that freethinkers can't have different opinions. It's that we don't have the excuse of our minds being addled by religious indoctrination. 

I wonder if the idea of separation of church and state was affected by Catholicism?
Usually religion is part of the state, but in Europe the Roman empire disappeared while the Roman religion remained.

I feel stupid asking this but what is the point of this argument? Min posted about some Christian terrorist groups. Those groups obviously exist. Nestor seems to be arguing that Islam is more violent than Christianity. Modern day Islamic extremism is violent. Is the debate about whether Christianity could be as violent as Muslim extremism?

---

(April 7, 2015 at 9:07 am)watchamadoodle Wrote: I wonder if the idea of separation of church and state was affected by Catholicism?
Usually religion is part of the state, but in Europe the Roman empire disappeared while the Roman religion remained.

Didn't different European Christian groups spend a lot of time killing one another in the name of religion?

(April 7, 2015 at 8:30 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: You see, Huggy, I don't shame you for writing goofy things because you're a Christian and so you have the excuse of being at least mildly brainwashed. 

Again, I'll repeat why asserting that Enlightenment comes from Christianity is fallacious:

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy:
1. "Sir Issac Newton believed in alchemy."
2. "Sir Issac Newton made great discoveries in physics."
3. "Ergo, Sir Issac Newton's belief in alchemy enabled his discoveries in physics."

Now replace  "alchemy" with "Christianity" and the fallacy is the same. I pointed this out and yet he still continues to claim that because some scientists and other thinkers of the Enlightenment were Christian, that Christianity is what led to the Enlightenment. If he his mind was addled by Christianity, I could understand this behavior. I don't know what his excuse is. 

It's kind of like how you wouldn't blame someone who lived in the Dark Ages for being a geocentrist. You also wouldn't blame a four year old for being a geocentrist. But if a grown man in today's age is a geocentrist and he's been educated but still insists on a different conclusion from remedial science, that's not a difference of opinion. That's shameful. 

It's also like how saying "Elvis is still alive" is not a matter of personal opinion. 






It's not that freethinkers can't have different opinions. It's that we don't have the excuse of our minds being addled by religious indoctrination. 

I didn't say that it was Newton's---or anyone's---belief in Christianity that led to their scientific discoveries, or that "Enlightenment comes from Christianity." Stop lying. You've already debased yourself enough. What I actually said was that "secular values were by and large borne out of Christian values," which I then elaborated upon (had you been paying better attention) by pointing out that certain "secular values" (as I take them to include), such as human equality and separation of church and state, were developed in the West in part by ideas that have a long tradition in Christian morality. My point about Christian thinkers that were pivotal in setting the ground and shaping the Enlightenment---philosophers such as Locke, Berkeley, Descartes, and Pascal, and scientists such as Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, and Newton, to name only a handful---is that they were influenced by their Christian faith in the idea that Reason reigns supreme and reveals a divine order in the cosmos, because the Creator would do nothing without a perfect or reasonable plan.

Moreover, I also meant by my original statement that this notion that there is a universal morality defined by objective goods, which was one of the projects that Enlightenment thinkers such as Bentham and Kant sought to rationalize in their formal ethical systems, preceded them as part of the Christian cultures that secular progress grew out of. I then conceded that "maybe I slightly overstated things" because I thought Pyrrho and some others made some fair points about the rediscovery of Greek culture and the goal of Enlightenment efforts to overthrow traditional and authoritarian-based faiths. I still might wonder what the Enlightenment would have looked like without the Reformation and the Renaissance, much of which Christian influence can hardly be denied. I'm not above being corrected and I think it's a legitimate debate worth having as cause and effect in historical reconstruction is notoriously difficult to untangle.

What I don't understand is your childish tendency to personalize every disagreement you have or the tactic you and others seem fond of employing by reducing every contrary view as mere claims of Christian apologists. Your inability to engage without resorting to simplistic false dichotomies and insults is anemic to healthy debate, and counterproductive to the progress that self-styled "freethinkers" such as yourself claim to adore. And I might ask what your excuse is, as the only thing I'm able to conceive is that you are literally are a child or that your mindset is still stuck in whatever dogmatism you were brought up in, but I don't really care either way. I think Huggy is absolutely right for once---there is a "groupthink" mentality on this forum, minus many who regularly offer truly appreciated insight. Sadly, I haven't seen much of anything insightful from you in a while.

---

(April 7, 2015 at 9:42 am)Nope Wrote: I feel stupid asking this but what is the point of this argument? Min posted about some Christian terrorist groups. Those groups obviously exist.  Nestor seems to be arguing that Islam is more violent than Christianity. Modern day Islamic extremism is violent. Is the debate about whether Christianity could be as violent as Muslim extremism?

My original point was that there is a direct line between the Qur'an, which every Muslim reveres, the history of Islamic conquests, and the violence of Islamists witnessed in the world today. I don't exclude the West and Christian or secular culture from similar criticism in the least bit, but my contention was that it's a false equivalence to compare basic Christian teachings as outlined in the New Testament with jihad in the Qur'an and hadiths and claim that they can both be equally invoked to justify terrorism.

(April 7, 2015 at 9:42 am)Nope Wrote:

(April 7, 2015 at 9:07 am)watchamadoodle Wrote: I wonder if the idea of separation of church and state was affected by Catholicism?
Usually religion is part of the state, but in Europe the Roman empire disappeared while the Roman religion remained.

Didn't different European Christian groups spend a lot of time killing one another in the name of religion?

That's true.
I'm not sure what I'm suggesting.
Why did the industrial revolution, the enlightenment, etc. happen in Western Europe? Why not Eastern Europe or China or the Ottoman Empire?

Separation of church and state was a novel idea. Gobekli Tepe suggests that religion was the impetus for agriculture and urbanization - not the reverse as people used to assume. Religion was the reason for the existence of early cities like Uruk. The population viewed themselves as slaves working on a plantation owned by their city's god. Originally these cities had no kings, but, even when kings did appear, they were viewed as caretakers in service of the city's god.

In Eastern Orthodox, the head of the church is usually tightly-coupled to the head of the state. In Roman Catholicism, there was more tension between religion and state. I'm not sure if this was a significant factor - just wondering.

Quote:I didn't say that it was Newton's---or anyone's---belief in Christianity that led to their scientific discoveries, or that "Enlightenment comes from Christianity." Stop lying. You've already debased yourself enough. What I actually said was that "secular values were by and large borne out of Christian values," which I then elaborated upon (had you been paying better attention) by pointing out that certain "secular values" (as I take them to include), such as human equality and separation of church and state, were developed in the West in part by ideas that have a long tradition in Christian morality. My point about Christian thinkers that were pivotal in setting the ground and shaping the Enlightenment---philosophers such as Locke, Berkeley, Descartes, and Pascal, and scientists such as Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, and Newton, to name only a handful---is that they were influenced by their Christian faith in the idea that Reason reigns supreme and reveals a divine order in the cosmos, because the Creator would do nothing without a perfect or reasonable plan.

The word you're looking for is "deism" not "Christianity". 

It is true that deism in its birth first went through a phase where it was a watered-down version of Christianity. It's full break with Christianity wouldn't happen until the late 18th century. The original deists, in an act of compartmentalization (or cynics might speculate simply the lack of a death-wish, since heretics were still being burned at the stake) did not deny the divinity of Jesus but still suggested looking to the order of the universe rather than scripture to understand God. Nevertheless, looking to the universe instead of traditional beliefs, scripture or priestly authority nonetheless represents a departure from Christianity, not a conclusion of Christianity. You are assuming that "God" = "Christian", which ironically would be an example of the black-and-white thinking you accuse me of. 

But it's not just your stubborn clinging to fallacies despite how you should know better that I find so irritating (it's true, that had you been a Christian I would probably just say "oh, a Christian" and not held you to such a high standard). What's so offensive about your claim is despite how Christian leaders burned intellectuals at the stake and Christianity itself has time and time again thrown up roadblocks to our progress both sociologically and scientifically, that now we should offer any credit for our progress to this ideology. After being dragged, kicking and screaming and with much human suffering, into the modern age, Christianity now has the gall to say, "Oh, I told you so all along. You're welcome."

And like it or not, this is boilerplate Christian apologetics. 

---

(April 7, 2015 at 10:22 am)watchamadoodle Wrote: That's true.
I'm not sure what I'm suggesting.  
Why did the industrial revolution, the enlightenment, etc. happen in Western Europe? Why not Eastern Europe or China or the Ottoman Empire?

I have a speculation on the matter I'd like to offer for consideration.

I've studied in business school that success leads to complacency while failure can sometimes lead to innovation. When corporations are successful, I've studied many cases where an atmosphere of arrogance and complacency settle in. The management becomes convinced of their invincibility, as if past success and current dominance of the market were any guarantee that old strategies will continue to work as they always have. They resist change and stop innovating because why rock the boat? The adoption of such an attitude often marks a turning point toward decline and fall. Meanwhile, "lean and hungry" businesses that are startups sometimes embrace new developments or changes in the market, take advantage of them and catch the complacent current champions of the market by surprise. Also, corporations that enter a phase of decline will sometimes be more open to new ideas and strategies. The panic that comes from loss sometimes forces management to re-think old ways.

After the Fall of Rome, European civilization had largely failed, certainly in comparison to its former glory. For all the romance about knights and castles, it was called "The Dark Ages" for a reason. With new trade routes opened to other worlds, Europe was confronted with how much better the rest of the world lived. The failures of European civilization forced it to open up to new ideas, which may have been what made industrialization possible. After all, the Industrial Revolution represented not just a breakthrough in technology but a social restructuring. Cultures that had been more successful, such as China or the Middle East, would be more inclined to stay with traditional values because it had worked so well in the past and thus wouldn't have made that shift. 

When these other cultures were confronted with a post-industrial Europe (along with its deplorable aggression and colonization), they reacted as some previously successful corporations do when confronted by younger challengers. Sometimes the reaction is to try to retreat "back to the good old days" and traditional values, as China did, while others embrace change, trying to learn from the west so we can fend off the west, as Japan did. 

Pain is an excellent teacher if we are willing to learn from it. I once heard a wise man say, "when people succeed, they tend to party; when they fail, they tend to ponder." 

This strikes me as a more compelling explanation than either race or religion but I'm open to rational arguments to the contrary. 

(April 7, 2015 at 10:22 am)watchamadoodle Wrote:

(April 7, 2015 at 9:42 am)Nope Wrote: Didn't different European Christian groups spend a lot of time killing one another in the name of religion?

That's true.
I'm not sure what I'm suggesting.  
Why did the industrial revolution, the enlightenment, etc. happen in Western Europe? Why not Eastern Europe or China or the Ottoman Empire?

Separation of church and state was a novel idea. Gobekli Tepe suggests that religion was the impetus for agriculture and urbanization - not the reverse as people used to assume. Religion was the reason for the existence of early cities like Uruk. The population viewed themselves as slaves working on a plantation owned by their city's god. Originally these cities had no kings, but, even when kings did appear, they were viewed as caretakers in service of the city's god.

In Eastern Orthodox, the head of the church is usually tightly-coupled to the head of the state. In Roman Catholicism, there was more tension between religion and state. I'm not sure if this was a significant factor - just wondering.

The answer to your question is not fully known, nor is what is known universally agreed upon.  However, here is an attempt at answering it; I will give the Wikipedia article first to give you the rough idea, but you might want to watch the show or read the book if you are very interested in the question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/

Even if one disagrees with Jared Diamond, it is something one should read and deal with, if one is serious about the subject.  It is certainly a more serious and intellectual reply to the question than what you would get from the typical member of the KKK or Neo-Nazi.


Your question reminds me of the question of why the ancient Greeks advanced civilization so much.  It, too, is a matter that is debated and is not fully understood.  Here is an introduction to the idea:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-31981.html

The impetus for agriculture..if I may be so bold here...is more appropriately termed "hunger" rather than "religion". Simple questions, simple answers. I think that calling religion the (or an) impetus for agriculture is some -seriously- long armed stuff.

(April 7, 2015 at 11:54 am)Pyrrho Wrote: The answer to your question is not fully known, nor is what is known universally agreed upon.  However, here is an attempt at answering it; I will give the Wikipedia article first to give you the rough idea, but you might want to watch the show or read the book if you are very interested in the question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

Thanks, that is a good book I read it a long time ago, but I should read it again. I read one of that author's more recent books about environmental disasters that was also good ("Collapse").

(April 7, 2015 at 11:54 am)Pyrrho Wrote: Your question reminds me of the question of why the ancient Greeks advanced civilization so much.  It, too, is a matter that is debated and is not fully understood.  Here is an introduction to the idea:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-31981.html

That's true. The ideas of the Greeks are even more surprising. Maybe it is simply that Greek ideas were better preserved due to the dominance of Hellenism later. I guess I should read the thread.

---

(April 7, 2015 at 11:55 am)Rhythm Wrote: The impetus for agriculture..if I may be so bold here...is more appropriately termed "hunger" rather than "religion".  Simple questions, simple answers.  I think that calling religion the (or an) impetus for agriculture is some -seriously- long armed stuff.

God's get hungry too.

(April 7, 2015 at 12:51 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote:

(April 7, 2015 at 11:54 am)Pyrrho Wrote: The answer to your question is not fully known, nor is what is known universally agreed upon.  However, here is an attempt at answering it; I will give the Wikipedia article first to give you the rough idea, but you might want to watch the show or read the book if you are very interested in the question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

Thanks, that is a good book I read it a long time ago, but I should read it again. I read one of that author's more recent books about environmental disasters that was also good ("Collapse").

(April 7, 2015 at 11:54 am)Pyrrho Wrote: Your question reminds me of the question of why the ancient Greeks advanced civilization so much.  It, too, is a matter that is debated and is not fully understood.  Here is an introduction to the idea:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-31981.html

That's true. The ideas of the Greeks are even more surprising. Maybe it is simply that Greek ideas were better preserved due to the dominance of Hellenism later. I guess I should read the thread.  

...

These kinds of questions are very complex and troublesome, not the kinds of things that give easy answers, at least not easy answers that are reasonable.  Certainly, the ancient Greeks had a lot to do with the Enlightenment, as their ancient texts were "rediscovered" and valued by European intellectuals.

The simple, racist ideas are obvious nonsense.  The Greeks have not done anything as influential in the past 1000 years as the ancient Greeks did, and at the time of the ancient Greeks and the even earlier civilizations, the white people in Europe were wearing animal skins and scratching themselves.  The white people of those times were primitive and backward.  The earliest civilizations were in Mesopotamia (Iraq), Egypt, India, and China.  Or in other words, people who are not "white."  It is not that one "race" was ahead all the time.  In the case of the earliest civilizations, they all flourished near a major river(s) that was an essential ingredient, but that is only one piece of the puzzle.  Simple, complete, and accurate answers to these kinds of questions are not possible.  It is the stupid BS answers that are simple.

My guess is, if you spend the rest of your life on this question, you will never get a complete answer, even if you are particularly clever.  But you will probably get some good ideas about the matter.