Atheist billboards in Atlanta

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Sigh, there were written records, you and a minority of scholars disgree with them.

That's nice. I'm apparently going to have to take your word for it.

You are using the common slipperly slope fallacy here...

What slippery slope? I presented no such thing.

Rubbish.

There's one particular passage in the wikipedia entry for "Dark Ages."
Here:

During the 17th and 18th centuries, in the Age of Enlightenment, many critical thinkers saw religion as antithetical to reason. For them the Middle Ages, or "Age of Faith", was therefore the polar opposite of the Age of Reason. Kant and Voltaire, among others, were vocal in attacking the religiously dominated Middle Ages as a period of social regress, while Gibbon in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire expressed contempt for the "rubbish of the Dark Ages". Yet just as Petrarch, seeing himself on the threshold of a "new age", was criticizing the centuries until his own time, so too were the Enlightenment writers criticizing the centuries until their own. These extended well after Petrarch's time, since religious domination and conflict were still common into the 17th century and beyond, albeit diminished in scope.

Here's another one:

Despite the religious conflicts, the period of the Dark Ages was seen as an age of faith. Men and women sought after God; some through the staid rituals of the Catholic Church, others in Protestant forms of worship. Intellectuals view religion in any form as, itself, a type of “darkness.” These thinkers assert that those who followed religious beliefs lied to themselves, creating a false reality. They were dominated by emotions, not fact. Religion was seen as contrary to rationality and reason, thus the move towards enlightenment -- a move away from “darkness.” Science and reason gained ascendancy, progressing steadily during and after the Reformation and Age of Enlightenment.

Here's another one:

After the dissolution of the Roman Empire, the idea arose of Europe as one large church-state, called Christendom. Christendom was thought to consist of two distinct groups of functionaries: the sacerdotium, or ecclesiastical hierarchy, and the imperium, or secular leaders. In theory, these two groups complemented each other, attending to people's spiritual and temporal needs, respectively. Supreme authority was wielded by the pope in the first of these areas and by the emperor in the second. In practice, the two institutions were constantly sparring, disagreeing, or openly warring with each other. The emperors often tried to regulate church activities by claiming the right to appoint church officials and to intervene in doctrinal matters. The church, in turn, not only owned cities and armies but often attempted to regulate affairs of state.

Here's another one:

b.The entire Middle Ages, especially when viewed as a troubled period marked by the loss of classical learning. No longer in use by historians.

Here's another one:

In 1054 there was a split between the Eastern and Western Christian Churches prompted by arguments over the crusades. This split was called the Great Schism. The Great Western Schism occurred in in Western Christendom from 1378 - 1417. This was caused by an Italian pope called Pope Urban IV being elected and establishing the papal court in Rome. The French disagreed with this and elected a French Pope who was based in Avignon. The schism in western Christendom was finally healed at the Council of Constance and the Catholic religion was referred to as the Roman Catholic Religion.

Also, let's not forget...

The Crusades were a series of Holy Wars launched by the Christian states of Europe against the Saracens. The term 'Saracen' was the word used to describe a Moslem during the time of the Crusades. The Crusades started in 1095 when Pope Claremont preached the First Crusade at the Council of Claremont. The Pope's preaching led to thousands immediately affixing the cross to their garments - the name Crusade given to the Holy Wars came from old French word 'crois' meaning 'cross'. The Crusades were great military expeditions undertaken by the Christian nations of Europe for the purpose of rescuing the holy places of Palestine from the hands of the Mohammedans. They were eight in number, the first four being sometimes called the Principal Crusades, and the remaining four the Minor Crusades. In addition there was a Children's Crusade. There were several other expeditions which were insignificant in numbers or results.[/url]
Because nothing says 'Christianity is peace and love' like 'holy war.'

And as for the middle east's relationship with science and religion...
[quote=Why Does the Muslim World Lag in Science?Why Does the Muslim World Lag in Science?]Fundamentalist governments in Iran and the Sudan have shown no interest in developing a specifically Islamic science. They appear more concerned about pornography or women's attire than the teaching of quantum mechanics.

While religion isnt' the sole cause of this problem (or perhaps even the primary problem), it still isn't helping. Science in the middle east has stagnated there for centuries and a combination of their fundementalist authoritarian regimes and other factors have all contributed to this problem.
This is particularly distressing, because the arabic world, before their current orthodoxy took over, once allowed the creation of things like algebra and modern medicine.

Here is a video of astrophysicist Neil Tyson giving a professional speech on why Islam is the scientific dead zone it is today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIMifWU5ucU

Here's another one from Wikipedia:

In the early twentieth century ulema forbade the learning of foreign languages and dissection of human bodies in the medical school in Iran. The ulama at the Islamic university of Al-Azhar in Cairo taught the Ptolemaic astronomical system (in which the sun circles the earth) until compelled to adopt the Copernican system by the Egyptian government in 1961.

In recent years, the lagging of the Muslim world in science is manifest in the disproportionately small amount of scientific output as measured by citations of articles published in internationally circulating science journals, annual expenditures on research and development, and numbers of research scientists and engineers. Skepticism of science among some Muslims is reflected in issues such as resistance in Muslim northern Nigeria to polio inoculation, which some believe is "an imaginary thing created in the West or it is a ploy to get us to submit to this evil agenda."

Here's another one:

Slowly, the Islamic empire began to be whittled away in the 13th century by Crusaders from the West and Mongols from the East. Only a century after, Taqi al-Din,.the Ottomans and their Muslim contemporaries in Mughal India and the Persian Safavid Empire ceased to support scientific research and innovations. As a result, Islamic centers of learning began to lose touch with one another and with the West, leading to a gradual erosion in two of the main pillars of science — communication and financial support. This change was also due in part to the shifting priorities and educational systems of these empires. Not unlike Europe in previous centuries, groups wanting to protect the status quo became more powerful than those advocating growth and experimentation. Meanwhile, building on the earlier accomplishments of Muslim scientists, Europe’s scientific and industrial revolutions began to give the West a military and economic advantage over the Islamic world. At present, in the 21st century, sufficient oil, sufficient money, lack of communication, and conflict of opinions regarding Islam and science could be other answers for why Muslim science has declined.

So... another fun fact - the reniassance came to be in part due to building on Islamic science and not christian science.
Also from that same article:

This reality coincides with the conflict of belief between conservative or fundamentalism Muslim scientists and the so-called Westernized Muslim scientists who could separate out the science and religious.

There's also this article.

Among other sociological and economic factors, like the lack of a middle class, Dr. Hoodbhoy attributes the malaise of Muslim science to an increasing emphasis over the last millennium on rote learning based on the Koran.

''The notion that all knowledge is in the Great Text is a great disincentive to learning,'' he said. ''It's destructive if we want to create a thinking person, someone who can analyze, question and create.'' Dr. Bruno Guideroni, a Muslim who is an astrophysicist at the National Center for Scientific Research in Paris, said, ''The fundamentalists criticize science simply because it is Western.''

Other scholars said the attitude of conservative Muslims to science was not so much hostile as schizophrenic, wanting its benefits but not its world view. ''They may use modern technology, but they don't deal with issues of religion and science.'' said Dr. Bakar.

One response to the invasion of Western science, said the scientists, has been an effort to ''Islamicize'' science by portraying the Koran as a source of scientific knowledge.

Here's another one:

"You have the emergence of a new kind of religious figure who is not a cleric, and all of his authority is as a scientist," said Todd Pitock, who profiles Naggar in an article about Islam and science in the July issue of the magazine Discover. "The whole purpose of science for some Islamists is using it to reinforce faith; it really has nothing to do with science itself."

So yes, according to all of these professional historical, scientific, and journalistic articles (and one youtube video of a physicist's speech), the prominance of religion did little to further science. At best, you can argue that certain religions (Islam, in the centuries before its science-dead-zone days) was the foundation of many of the modern scientific concepts - including but not limited to algebra, modern medicine, and several other things I'm probably forgetting but as soon as they slipped into a church-ruled state, they become the opposite of an enlightened state - their own Dark Ages.
The Dark Ages of history - actually the early middle ages - had a number of causes but it was still an age ruled by superstition and religion. It was the time of conversion by swordpoint and christian religious wars and land ruled by the church hierarchy.

Now, in all fairness, I'm not about to tell you that being religious doesn't also mean you can't be scientific, but I will tell you that a perponderance of one is usually the detriment to the other. One never completely stops the other but I can't think of a single theocracy that allowed science to flourish - except possibly Islam in the centuries past when they viewed science as the same thing as getting close to god until they viewed math as the work of the devil. Though I can't say I know enough about the "golden age" of the Islamic world to say what effect Islam and the Koran has had on the deveopment of science during that time - in other words, I don't know if the Middle East was ruled by a theocracy or a heavily theocrataic government as it is today with a different outlook, or a more secular government (like most of the developed world today) that typically allows the sciences to flourish.

Even though, in places like the United States, a particularly religion administration (the Bush Jr. Administration) still gave what scientists refer to as the "Lost Years" consisting of Bush's 8 year term because of his own personal Jihad against science based on his own beliefs which he has acknowledged on multiple occasions is because of his faith.

After all, you can cite to me all day and night about Christians (or other scientists) who happen to follow a particular faith, but only with some rare exceptions can you cite to me scientific advancements which are directly responsible due to help from the church. Instead, you get instances where scientists propose something, the church refutes it as heresay (if in the past) or against the will of god (as religious leaders will often cite today) and after some struggle, the church eventually accepts it anyway.

I'm not even going to go into how far behind the churches have been in regards to human civil rights movements.

So, in conclusion after this long tirade, in response to your response of "Rubbish", I can defininitively say this (with the help of one Dr. Cox from the Scrubs television series):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

You claimed that I made and religion made large assumptions, we dont know how language 'evolved' so becareful mate.
Modern Science owes it existence to Christian Scientists. Period.

I claimed that religion and therefore you (due to your own personal religious beliefs) make large assumptions based on zero evidence.
You can claim how pertinent christianity is to science all you want. All it shows is ignorance to history.
Now, without going into the enormous perponderance of agnosticism and atheism is in the modern scientific community, I do know for a fact that modern science is absolutely not due exclusively to any one faith or even faith in general or even a particular nation.
Many of the greatest scientific achievements were done by individuals of their own accord or from public or private funding (also from individuals) throughout history due to necessity or simple human curiosity.

Your wrong. Religion has coflicted with science, however, science conflicted with itself. Did you know that human anatomy went unchallenged for 1300 years, it was only until a CHRISTIAN medical student decided to do autopsies on dead people, did he discover a completely different anatomy and it wasnt even taken seriously! (to start off). Louis Pasteur, another CHRISTIAN, developed vaccines and disporved spontainous generation. Who believed in Spontainous generation? SCIENCEITSTS!
Come on mate! You cant use this ridiculous argument. Science strangled itself. It was only until courageous men and women (Mostly Christian) who challenged science, did we get new theories and understanding of the world...

Really? This is the direction you're going in? You found a medical student who happened to be Christian, who made this discovery. Wow. You managed to find one of perhaps billions of instances where some random person makes a discovery that forces scientists to change their views on things.
Yes, solja247, that's how science works. Unlike Christianity (and most religions), the first scientist didn't come up a theory of everything by the one true word of science in a magical book that cannot be refuted with christianity making discoveries that refutes that book. That's what happens if you imagine the roles of science and religion being reversed.
Yes, reputable scientists have been wrong and have been wrong very often, but being right or wrong is irrelevant. The difference between religion and science in the field of the advancement of knowledge is that science is a naturally self-correcting process where religion has historically fought against any advancement or knowledge that has challenged their belief in any fashion. The best modern example I can think of involves stem cell research, evolution (a battle that's been waged for more than a century despite evolution being the basis for several branches of science that dominates much of modern society), and just about all of cosmology/astrophysics because it conflicts with creationism. The religious right (which is admittedly as much political as it is religious) is fighting a difficult battle against virtually all environmentalism as well as the idea of climate change because it conflicts with their world view.
I cant' think of any instance in modern times or history in which religion has saved science from 'strangling itself.' That idea is just completely wrong in every sense of the word.

Really?

Max Planck (Founder of Quantum Physics)
Erwin Schrodinger (Another founder of Quantum Physics)
Werner Heisenberg (Contributed greatly to Quantum Mechanics)
Robert Millikan (Won a Nobel prize in Physics)
Charles Hard Townes (Well known for his work with lasers and Physics)
Arthur Compton (Discovered the compton effect)
Arno Allan Penzias (Discovered the cosmic microwave background radiation)

You've given me a list of scientists who happen to have christian beliefs. What picture are you trying to paint? Are you trying to tell me that they became scientists because of their religion? Did they go into or recieve funding and/or jobs in scientific fields because of a particular church?
In other words, were their prominance in the scientific fields a result of a particular religion or a particular church? For example, Plank's wiki entry states him as being a "German Scientist" and not a "Christian Scientist."
Given the fact that I've already looked into a few of them, I can already tell you that you've obviosuly only pulled a group of names of scientists who happen to also be christians - which is different from a christian scientist. Hell, even most universities that are religious in nature still tend to teach science from a secular standpoint (I believe Notre Dame does this despite being a predominantly Catholic University) thanks to the fact that the Catholic religion has buckled down and accepted things like evolution, the big bang, the fact that the universe is billions and not thousands of years old, etc. (Despite only accepting such things decades and sometimes centuries after the rest of the planet and certainly the scientific community has already accepted these things.) Still, the college, like many others with similar religious connotions, generally do not research or accept certain fundemental scientific principles and thus limit the progress of science.

I think you get the picture

You've given me a picture of a group of people who've made wonderful and inexorable contributions to science who appear to have their own religious views (plank has a very different view of god than christianity does, despite apparently being a christian) and thus you've given me a group of very rational people with very rationalized irrational beliefs.

The majority of the world doesnt believe in evolution, doest that make it wrong???

Two things,
First, no. Facts are not democratically electable.
Second, the majority of the people of the world accept evolution.
The only places that have a perponderance of individuals who do not accept evolution are those who also tend to be scientifically illiterate. I should also note that the vast vast majority of scientists, even a majority of scientists who are not in the fields related to evolution accept it.