Heimdall

[Heimdall]

Sounds like this person has a very limited view of the world.

You gotta realize that the individual is from Belfast Ireland (most of our English/Scot members will understand what I mean by that), He is actually Irish, with all the connotations! Okay, Okay, I am being cruel. Actually Irish is a relatively educated and intelligent guy (we correspond by email and PM) and except for religion, we agree on a lot. We even swap Irish and Scot (I am American Scot) jokes. Ours is a relationship of tolerance, I tolerate his Christianity and he tolerates my Deism and skepticism. I figure that he just hasn't thought this out and will eventually come back and either revise his statement or agree that I am right (as usual - lol) - heimdall

[Ouroboros]

I was thinking about this subject last night (I couldn't sleep of unknown reasons) and this is (I think) one of the problems with religious people, regardless of the arguments they use.

 

They tend to use broad sweeping generalizations based on a limited experience and limited view of their surroundings.

 

Ireland is a mix of protestants and catholics. So this person only thinks in terms of "here I am, we are Christian, so everything I am and we are has to do with that we're Christian".

 

Or Chris De Vidal that argues that we were never true Christians, that we got taught this and that, but not something else and that we deconverted because of our wish to sin etc. Plenty of broad generalizations.

 

And I see this with the fundamentalists in US too. The more narrow their perspective and experience is, the harder they paint things in black and white.

 

It's difficult to explain things to these people because they have such small frameworks to relate to.

[Vigile]

This question/comment was posted on another forum, by one of my antagonists. I have already answered it, but thought you guys (and gals) might want a chance at rebutting it:

 

I have a serious question for everyone. Why do you think it is that all the financially strong, politically stable and most desired places in the entire world to live are all predominantly Christian countries? It is a fact! But is it just a coincident? What do you think?

Irish

 

I'll check back tommorrow and see what y'all think - heimdall

 

China and Japan are not xtian. Most European countries are very liberal and have heavy atheist populations.

 

On the other hand, many African countries are xtian as are most of the SA countries.

 

Meanwhile, it's no surprise that countries who used xtianity to propagate a ruthless colonial system still control a major portion of the world's wealth. The question is, is xtianity the cause of this wealth? I think there is something to be said that Calvinism is beneficial for wealth accumulation. So? What's the point?

 

Didn't Jesus say it is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than to go through the eye of a needle, or some tripe like that?

 

most desired places in the entire world to live are all predominantly Christian countries...

 

Desired is a pretty big word. I can think of a lot of places in the world that I would rather live than the American bible belt. It's an American myth that the US or even the west is the most desirable place to live.

[Ouroboros]

I have another argument. Let's compare the states in America.

 

Which state is the most religious, Christian, state? (Texas or Alabama?)

 

Which state is the most financially strong? (California)

 

If these two doesn't match, and if "Christianity" is the magical formula for success, then the question is why isn't the most religious state also the most financially strong?

[Vigile]

Finland is also a very nice country, and not at all Christian.

 

Helsinki is one of the cleanest cities I've ever seen. They literally scrub the streets with a water truck every day. It is also the safest place I've ever been. Cross walks are something like 20 meters wide and the drivers are given several warning lights as they approach. Drivers are so courteous there as well. Taking the train from St Pete to Helsinki is like driving from Tijuana into SD.

 

It's very expensive there though. And Hans is right, there is a distinct lack of churches.

[Vigile]

They tend to use broad sweeping generalizations based on a limited experience and limited view of their surroundings.

 

Exactly Hans. The masses could use a good course in statistical correlation. They constantly see connections where there are none and they constantly describe their surroundings in the broadest terms. They do this at the expense of alternative explanations because they have predetermined views. This is why the majority of traders lose their shirts in the stock market as well.

[Guest celsusthepagan]

I think we're confusing two issues here - whether Christianity TODAY has any influence in keeping nations/states/whatever prosperous, and whether it might have played some difference historically and whether or not its loss might make some sort of difference 500 years from now. You have to view societies in evolutionary terms, not looking at their present beliefs but also past and future ones.

 

I agree that there's little correlation today between the Christianization of a nation and its relative wealth. However, historically, I would argue that there IS a correlation. Again, this does not make Christianity true, but it is an interesting idea that perhaps some things about Christianity (maybe even the things we would consider personally "bad" for us) could have been good for the society as a whole.

 

Changes in religion/worldview take a long time to permeate a society as a whole and change the way it acts. But those changes do come eventually. Europe is now starting to feel some of the potentially negative effects of its dechristianization. Because of the lowered appeal of "family values", birthrates among natives in Europe have dropped off dramatically. Much population growth in European nations is occurring through Muslim immigration. Europe became very "tolerant", but that tolerance expressed itself in apathy that a completely new group of people with much more dogmatic views were populating their countries. Now as a result there is uproar in Europe over cartoons depicting Mohammed and riots in Paris. It could very well be that Europe becomes majority Muslim in the next 100 years - something that will have HUGE cultural implications.

 

Again, I don't think that Christianity is true, but it can have some effects on how a civilization develops.

[cathuria]

Europe is now starting to feel some of the potentially negative effects of its dechristianization. Because of the lowered appeal of "family values", birthrates among natives in Europe have dropped off dramatically.

 

Hmm... are you an agent planted here by the 700 Club? If not, you've still got some deprogamming to do.

 

I've heard that nasty argument before... somewhere else on the internet some lady was all horrified that Europe was losing its Christian faith. As the only example of why this was bad, she quoted their declining birth rate. Your argument not only ignores the possibly catastrophic dangers of overpopulation, but is a tad racist as well.

 

And WTF... just how does slipping "family values" reduce pregnancies? I believe your mind is still trapped in the "Christianity is the only source of true morality" bald-faced lie that is being pounded into kids' heads by the church. Open your eyes, friend.

[Guest celsusthepagan]

Europe is now starting to feel some of the potentially negative effects of its dechristianization. Because of the lowered appeal of "family values", birthrates among natives in Europe have dropped off dramatically.

 

Hmm... are you an agent planted here by the 700 Club? If not, you've still got some deprogamming to do.

 

I've heard that nasty argument before... somewhere else on the internet some lady was all horrified that Europe was losing its Christian faith. As the only example of why this was bad, she quoted their declining birth rate. Your argument not only ignores the possibly catastrophic dangers of overpopulation, but is a tad racist as well.

 

And WTF... just how does slipping "family values" reduce pregnancies? I believe your mind is still trapped in the "Christianity is the only source of true morality" bald-faced lie that is being pounded into kids' heads by the church. Open your eyes, friend.

 

I'm not saying that having more children is more or less moral than having less children. Sheesh. It has become apparent that in addition to my "deprogramming", I must also be "reprogrammed" to believe that Christianity has done nothing but crush people under its boot and has nary one positive effect on civilization, even accidentally, for nearly its two thousand years. I'm sorry, but I'm more of a freethinker than that, and part of being a freethinker is being able to imagine that some things you personally consider false may have actually had at least SOME good effect on society, despite its falsity.

 

My argument about Europe is as follows: its traditional Christian faith preaches against birth control and in favor of family life as an end less selfish than single or married without children life. You may agree or disagree with that theology - it doesn't matter to the argument. As Europe has rejected Catholicism, wonder of wonders, birthrates have gone down among Europeans and less and less people are having fewer and fewer children. Religion HAS an impact on childbearing rates - explain why secular societies have much lower childbearing rates than religious ones. . .

 

Muslim immigrants, recognizing prosperity in Europe, and also tolerance in the post-Christian society there, have immigrated in droves, bringing their own cultural ideas often at odds with the prevailing Christian notions. They are gaining power in Europe day by day and are having more children than native Europeans. My question is: will this be a good, prosperous result for Europe or not? I don't care if Christ is God or Allah is God or there is no god. . .will this drive European culture and civilization forward or backward?

[Antlerman]

This question/comment was posted on another forum, by one of my antagonists. I have already answered it, but thought you guys (and gals) might want a chance at rebutting it:

 

I have a serious question for everyone. Why do you think it is that all the financially strong, politically stable and most desired places in the entire world to live are all predominantly Christian countries? It is a fact! But is it just a coincident? What do you think?

Irish

 

I'll check back tommorrow and see what y'all think - heimdall

Getting back to this first question, I had a rhetorical response: Why were the Greeks dominant? Why were the Romans dominant? Why were the Muslims dominant? Will Christianity remain dominant? What's the point?

[Ouroboros]

Again, I don't think that Christianity is true, but it can have some effects on how a civilization develops.

It did have an effect into how our modern society in the western world developed, but it's not the only dominant or prosperous society in history. It only happens to be the current one. 100-1000 years from now, maybe the Realians have dominance.

 

Christianity had most effect on the western world when Martin Luther came into the picture. Before that there was not any huge progress or any development of civil liberties. Martin Luther introduced the Protestant Christianity, and was the beginning to the break-up of the Church. Before that there were only a few major versions of Christianity. Before 300 CE there were many, but the Orthodox Church streamlined it, until Martin Luther broke it up again. When the secularization of the western world happened, that's when the prosperity came. The British Revolution, which was the technological revolution, which in turn was based on the scientific and skeptic mind and not the religious mind. You can see that the connection between prosperity and social development was from a willingness to break away from the Christian mindset, not to go deeper into it.

 

For a while even the Islamic world was strong, it was a powerhouse under the ottoman empire. Did you know for instance that the idea of zero, the number that stands for "none", was invented by the Muslims? Did you know they had a lot of philosophers during the time Europe were in the dark ages? For a while Europe did not evolve or develop any new ideas, and during that time the Islamic world evolved.

 

You still compare our current situation to your current knowledge, instead of looking into how history have evolved and how other cultures, religions and countries have been powerhouses in the past. There even was societies with democracy and freedom before 1 CE, so what we have today is nothing new. The only difference today is that we have technology and science that goes far beyond any culture in history. But science has been built on the skeptic and critical mind, not the religious. What we have is built on humans breaking out from Christianity, rather that depending on it.

 

 

Getting back to this first question, I had a rhetorical response: Why were the Greeks dominant? Why were the Romans dominant? Why were the Muslims dominant? Will Christianity remain dominant? What's the point?

Exactly. Just look at the Persian Empire, or the Egyptian (how long was that, how many dynasties?) or the Chinese dynasties.

 

500 years from now the Raelians will be the dominant religion, and they will of course say "Look, because of the Raelian religion our country and all the other countries are prosperous, successful and free, so it proves that Rael was right!"

 

Then 1000 years from now the Xyzkorgs will say the same thing.

 

Then 2000 years from the the Quarkianists will say the same thing.

 

etc, etc, etc...

[cathuria]

part of being a freethinker is being able to imagine that some things you personally consider false may have actually had at least SOME good effect on society, despite its falsity.

 

Granted. However, that does not change my opposition to your conclusions, which I believe to be entirely unwarranted. It's the clarity of the thinking that I am arguing on.

 

You call the drop in birth rates a result of the rejection of catholic doctrine. This is an extravagant claim and needs support. Especially since great chunks of northern & eastern Europe haven't been beholden to catholic doctrine for a few centuries now.

 

I have a degree in history and I believe that you are ascribing far too much credit to the church for these and other elements in society. I think you are simply mismatching cause and effect.

[woodsmoke]

You call the drop in birth rates a result of the rejection of catholic doctrine. This is an extravagant claim and needs support. Especially since great chunks of northern & eastern Europe haven't been beholden to catholic doctrine for a few centuries now.

 

Really, this is what it boils down to, Celsus. You've made a number of bold claims in this thread, and every time we ask for supporting evidence you simply ignore it and move on to something else, or repeat the claims as if the challenge had never been issued.

 

At the risk of coming off more harshly than I'd like, it's time to put up or shut up.

[Guest celsusthepagan]

You call the drop in birth rates a result of the rejection of catholic doctrine. This is an extravagant claim and needs support. Especially since great chunks of northern & eastern Europe haven't been beholden to catholic doctrine for a few centuries now.

 

Really, this is what it boils down to, Celsus. You've made a number of bold claims in this thread, and every time we ask for supporting evidence you simply ignore it and move on to something else, or repeat the claims as if the challenge had never been issued.

 

At the risk of coming off more harshly than I'd like, it's time to put up or shut up.

 

What would constitute for you evidence that Christianity had a positive influence on the development of culture/civilization?

[Amanda]

What would constitute for you evidence that Christianity had a positive influence on the development of culture/civilization?

 

Hi Celsus the Pagan, I do see evidence that Catholicism is waning in Europe! Having visited Spain a few years ago, I find these reports of its obvious turn from these traditional beliefs remarkable! The Washington Post makes some claims here.

 

But just as the Catholic Church has seen its political and moral influence waning across an increasingly secular modern-day Europe, so, too, has Spain -- intensely Catholic Spain -- been slowly but steadily shaking free of the church's once ironclad grip. Spanish society is changing, and the new Socialist government, in power for one year, has been pushing through a series of new policies -- from easing restrictions on divorce and abortion to recognizing gay marriage -- that it says reflects those changes.

 

And despite the Vatican's official ban on contraception, Spain has one of Europe's lowest birth rates.

 

I haven't really read where there are a lot of negative influences. It does state that divorce is up, abortions are up, gay and lesbian acceptance is up... however, I believe these to be good signs. People don't need to stay in a contemptuous or unhappy marriage, nor go to back alley doctors to solve unwanted births, and it's time that gays and lesbians get to lead a fulfilling life.

 

It seems obvious that European birthrates will be down. However, it's interesting how you suggest that the Muslim population may infiltrate with their beliefs producing high birth rates. What do you speculate will happen... they will become fundamentalist Muslim?

[♦ ficino ♦]

The Roman Empire was a happier place in the early second century A.D. under pagan leadership than in the late 4th century and onwards under Christian emperors. I agree with those who answer that a strong secular society is the key, not a christian society.

 

To say that the Enlightenment could not have happened except for the preceding christian-dominated centuries is useless counterfactual game-playing. Who knows how much earlier the enlightenment might have happened had Europe never become christian. Many of the advances of the ancient Greeks were lost in western europe under christianity.

 

Western Europe had the advantage of a separation between church and state fairly early, but it was not the genius of christianity that arrived at that balance; it was a string of historical accidents.

[Heimdall]

What would constitute for you evidence that Christianity had a positive influence on the development of culture/civilization?

 

Actually, I don’t think you can show any evidence that Christianity had a positive influence on the development of culture or civilization. For centuries prior to the birth of Christianity viable strong cultures/civilizations existed in several different parts of the world. In the Mediterranean area, the Greek society was in many ways on a par with our current world culture. True they weren’t as advance scientifically, but had Christianity not destroyed all material they perceived as detrimental to the religion, the Greeks might have come close to where we are now in a matter of a few centuries (instead of the few millennia that it actually took). The Romans took over from the Greeks and embraced their philosophy and scientific endeavors and if left alone could very well taken the Greek school of thought even further. Christianity introduced two very detrimental concepts into the world. The first and most destructive was the concept of religious war, that is, wars conducted in the name of a god and with the intent of pushing that god upon other peoples. The second concept was “Greed”. Greed had existed prior to Christianity, but the church made greed a matter of policy. A policy that carried over into the lay community and was the engine that powered the total subjugation of the Americas, Africa and the other colonial outposts of Europe. So to recap, the development of culture and civilization is not a product of Christian influence, they both existed long before Christianity. Culture and civilization exists despite Christianity. You can attempt to show me evidence of any type that Christianity had any positive influence on culture/civilization, if you so desire. - Heimdall

[Ouroboros]

To be somwhat nice here, sure Christianity had influence on our society and culture we have today, but it also can be said that Greek philosophy, Roman governments, secular philosophers, Einstein and even Islam have been part of forming and shaping our modern culture. It just happens at the moment to be some Christian influence countries in the forefront. But in the 1900 century, England was the leader of the pack, but was it really for the Angelican Church from the earlier centuries or was it the technological revolution? I'm keep on coming back to that.

 

Actually the Persian empire, Roman empire and even the Egyptian, all of them were strong because of their technology that was better than the other countries. The Roman was more resourceful and more advanced in warfare, and that was the reason they could take other countries.

 

Another reason why America has been successful is because it is physically isolated from the rest of the world. 9/11 is considered the first attack on the homeland. During WWII the threat was there, but it wasn't as direct as it was for England that had the bombs dropping over their heads on a weekly basis. There are so many parameters to account for when you look at the reasons why a country is on the top.

[Amanda]

 

Heimdall, I'm curious if you believe that the current popular identification of the 'Christian' movement, is alligned with the original teachings of the character Jesus?

[Heimdall]

Since it is my belief/opinion, albeit one strongly backed by lack of evidence for the other party, that there never was a historical Jesus of Nazareth and since the gospels (supposedly the only true record of his teachings) weren't written until decades/generations after the supposed occurances. I would say that they don't because what is practiced todays is what the church/churches have set up over the millenia. That there is no way of knowing what the hypothetical Jesus actually taught and that Christianity is probably an imitation of the older savior god religions, with a little (very little) Judiasm thrown in to attract gentiles (during the period, many gentiles were intrigued with Judaism). - Heimdall

[Hero of Hyrule]

Another reason why America has been successful is because it is physically isolated from the rest of the world. 9/11 is considered the first attack on the homeland.

 

I like sidetracking intresting threeads with insignficant notes.

 

In WOII a Japanse ignored his orders and planned to start huge forest fires in California by crashing into some forest.The plan failed, the japanese man died, and the fire was quenched in no time.

 

You can attempt to show me evidence of any type that Christianity had any positive influence on culture/civilization, if you so desire.

 

Christians for Christian reasons invented a mechanical clock in the middle ages. Monasteries preserved GREEK and Roman documents from barbarians. The eastern Roman Empire, the Islamic World, and Western Europe mainly followed only one greek phiosopher. What happened in the renasance that those three great philosophers were brought togheter, not that they didn't exist before in Europe.

 

Instead of argueing that christianity was what kept western europe 'stupid' in the dark ages...Maybe it was the art of ship builing and the absence of good trade routes. Arabia had connection with India, an advanced culture, and Chine because of the silk route.

The Byzantine Empire was never destoyed and benefitted from earlier knowlege of building ships and trade with the East. Western Europe had vikings in the 900s who could sail the Oceans, but they alwayes trades with other relatively poor countries...Russian planes and Newfoundland are not nearly as good places to trade with as China and India. When Trade started, wealth started, wich brought power in the renaisance.

 

And those Crusades...People here tend to see them as stupid people fighting for some kind of God and introducing religious wars...Aztec wars to get sacrifises were far more religious than the Crusades...Would lords really be persuaded to go on a crusade if it wren't for the promise: "Everything belonging to the infidels will belong to you!'

A lord becoming king is a much better reason for him to wage his life than God.

Religion in the crusades was only part of it all...I'd guess that it had about the same purpose as Nationalism in later Eras.

 

Actually the Persian empire, Roman empire and even the Egyptian, all of them were strong because of their technology that was better than the other countries.

 

I don't really agree with that...Egyptians mainly had their Nile valley, a Sea and a Desert to protect them. Fertiale soil...They didn't change much or advance their technology in Thousands of years.

Persi was strong, but not that strong in comparson...They got beaten a lot, even by barbarians from the near Caspian Sea.

Rome was advanced...but the Greeks were more advanced and still they lost. It was more their training than their weaponry. Of course thechnology helps, but it's not they key to everything.

 

A bunch of horse Archers founded the largest Empire in History in Temrs of land mass conquered, and they defeated much more advanced countries.

 

All of history is tied toghter, and it's hard to argue any 'if' in history. If it hadn't been for Christianity, we might have traveled to the moon in the 1800ds...or maybe we would still be having wars waged by warlord over tiny scraps of land.

 

Who really knows?

[Amanda]

 

 

Hero, I'm so lacking in history!

 

I really enjoyed the enlightenment from you, a follower of the great Red Panda!

 

Heimdall, do you think Buddha actually existed?

 

I know that's not his real name, however you know of whom I'm referring.

[cathuria]

If I can sneakily sidestep a bit back to the original topic...

 

 

all the financially strong, politically stable and most desired places in the entire world to live are all predominantly Christian countries?

 

 

Ya know, the whole implied assumption (Christian America being the best of all possible places) that this is based on is itself a flimsy bit of ethnocentric arrogance. We're rich, yeah, but we don't lead in many areas that are important to personal and societal health.

This was brought to mind when I read something by Sam Harris this evening...

 

Sam Harris, writing on TruthDig.com, wrote:

According the United Nations’ Human Development Report (2005), the most atheistic societies--countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom—are actually the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate and infant mortality. Conversely, the fifty nations now ranked lowest by the U.N. in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious. Of course, correlational data of this sort do not resolve questions of causality—belief in God may lead to societal dysfunction; societal dysfunction may foster a belief in God; each factor may enable the other; or both may spring from some deeper source of mischief. Leaving aside the issue of cause and effect, these facts prove that atheism is perfectly compatible with the basic aspirations of a civil society; they also prove, conclusively, that religious faith does nothing to ensure a society’s health.

 

source:

Sam Harris on TruthDig

[Ouroboros]

Sam Harris, writing on TruthDig.com, wrote:

According the United Nations’ Human Development Report (2005), the most atheistic societies--countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom—are actually the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate and infant mortality.

(snip)

But you know why the UN report show that, right? Because UN is Evil!

 

And to Hero, yes, you're right maybe the technology wasn't what make Persi and Egypt strong, but they were more advanced in something, maybe organization and government. Something made them stronger. Egypt to stay as a state for such a long time, and Persi to conquer and become a superpower in it's time. Neither of them could claim it was because they were Christian though.

[monsterfeets]

Egypt was fairly technologically advanced though. I'm not exactly educated in the area but I thought they were credited with some notable astrological and medical developments, as well as having mathmatical knowledge. There were also ofcourse advancements in mummification techniques. And then there is the architecture which is pretty damn amazing, and the buildings did evolve over time. The decorations became more elaborate, the designs of the pyramids changed, and eventaully they began to build the tombs underground. 3 thousand years is a long time and there is a whole lot about Egypt that is still being uncovered.