Will the decline in Christianity result in the demise of civilisation?

[arthur]

Originally Posted by UncleAl

1) Dark Ages - If only the One True Church had devoted a bigger budget and more time to return Christ to Earth.
2) Protestant Reformation then the Industrial Revolution, rise of capitalism - No popery!
3) Manhattan Project. More than 1/3 of Nobel Laureates since 1900 are Jewish.

The Church of Rome is virulently anti-science; brutal, vicious, and lethal; and obscene. The Trinity's dominion is poverty, hunger, disease, filth, death, and silk-clad priests with whips. Test of faith! If you want progress, if you want technological civilization have WASPs mildy oppress secular Jews.

Tommy Aquinas proved the existence of god five ways. Baruch Spinoza killed god. Spinoza had a day job grinding lenses. He didn't need to kiss grant funding butt.

supposing that all of that is true, what has it to do with my proposition???

..arthur..

[Zythryn]

Arthur, if you are looking to objectively review your proposition, why did you not respond to my post (http://hypography.com/forums/silly-c...l#post280358)?
The very basis of your position seems faulty. Would you like to discuss that point, or were you not interested in debate or discussion.
And if you are not interested in talking about your proposition, why post and ask for objective discussion?

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by arthur

what statement???


..arthur..

THIS STATEMENT ARTHUR!

the basis of the proposition is that this sophisticated civilised society exists only because of roman catholicism and christianity and that roman catholicism and christianity permeates, directly or indirectly, virtually every aspect of this sophisticated civilised society to the extent that the "religions" and society are so intertwined as to be inseparable.

You need to support it, I have already given an example of a civilization not influenced by Christianity. Not to mention the way that Christianity suppressed both morals and science for many centuries and suppressed any real civilization. Your contention is totally unsupportable.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by arthur

supposing that all of that is true, what has it to do with my proposition???

..arthur..

If you can't see that then you obviously have a problem seeing past your own beliefs.

Your church of Rome not only suppressed civilization it suppressed morals by supporting the virtual slavery of the entire population of Europe and then shifted that to the New world by destroying all evidence of other religions and other civilizations. We have only in the past few hundred years began to rise up out of the fog created by Christianity to see the real world and start to really become civilized.

[sanctus]

Originally Posted by arthur

what statement???


..arthur..

As an admin:
Please refrain from writing big, it looks like you are really upset about it while I think you really just want to ask which statement. Maybe, to make it clearer, writing in big (or also all in capital letters) on these forums is seen as equivalent to yelling...

Ok, now as a normal member and not an admin:
he means the statement he quoted of you and requoted by moon...

It is a statement because you say even stronger later on:

It is because of these tenets that, Sophisticated Civilised Society exists

.

This is where it seems to me already most of us don't agree with you, I at least don't at all. It is (as already Zythrin said I think) not the same to say that "Sophisticated Civilised Society exists because of the historical roots in the Christianity" and "our society has been influenced from Christianity". The former (which you say) implies that a society which has not had a christian past like our will never be civilised and sophisticated. The latter is just a statement of facts, that the present times are influenced from the past.
I think you agree that this is a huge difference.

If you really want to say the former, then you have to try to bring forward facts/evidence/arguments/etc. that this is the only way. Good luck in that case ;-), but I would look forward how you try to support it in case it is what you want.

[arthur]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

If you can't see that then you obviously have a problem seeing past your own beliefs.

Your church of Rome not only suppressed civilization it suppressed morals by supporting the virtual slavery of the entire population of Europe and then shifted that to the New world by destroying all evidence of other religions and other civilizations. We have only in the past few hundred years began to rise up out of the fog created by Christianity to see the real world and start to really become civilized.

May be that is all true, but still, what does it have to do with my proposition??

I have just received an e-mail from a friend in Atlanta GA, Quote: "Have just received a transcript from police dept saying if it wasn’t for the night shelters, rehabs etc, they could not maintain order, more later. rick." when I receive more I might post it.

The following is a post from else where which I think 'might' help you understand the proposition. And even understand why it is amongst the silly claim forum.

I have no religious affiliations and I am astounded by the amount of religious prejudice and bigotry displayed by people who almost certainly have experienced, directly or indirectly, Christian good will by people who either are Christian or have been influenced by Christianity to become doctors and nurses, aid workers, home and abroad. Virtually every do good organisations in the 'western world' are run by volunteer Christians, hospitals, clinics, Aid's, drugs, drink, homelessness, marriage guidance, centres. Orphanages, youth centres, sports clubs, hostels for battered wives, wayward children, free food 'kitchens' and family free food distribution centres, the enormous number of educators of children were trained, as were many doctors, social workers in Christian colleges built run and financed by Christian donations and churches it goes on and on and on.

If anyone is still in doubt they should just consider the influences that resulted in the ethos of the UN and WHO and other global organisations, including organisations for human rights and 'Save the Children'. And if any one is still in doubt as to the influences of Christianity consider the influences of Easter and Christmas present production on global fiscal distribution in, for example China and the far east who manufactured more that ¾ the worlds 2007's Christian religious festival presents. and consider the subsequent industrial development, and then consider how many, for example, Chinese citizens have been affected indirectly by the effects of Christianity and it goes on and on and on.

As you know one does not have to like some thing to recognise its important. All that is needed to understand my proposition is the display of common decency of treating me with, at least, the respect that I expected from this forum as in my request for *just and honest, sensible, unbiased and rational consideration as to its merits.* Not for one moment did I expect the displays of silliness and bigotry shown by people who couldn't either be bothered to read or to try to understand what I wrote. And I didn't expect so many "experts" on a subject that they had never formerly considered.

So should they now consider whether children should be encouraged to learn the truth and not that religious clap trap and learn that to keep their civilisation together understand that all they are are just self programming independent biological machines, and that they have no inherent purpose for existing? Should they be given to understand the "scientific" reality is that any roles or aspirations, that any rhyme or reason for their being here will have to be psychologically contrived in the future? Should they be given to understand they are only an assembly of lifeless chemicals which as the result of a few spontaneous electro-chemical reactions develop in them a delusion of 'self'? AND, Should children be encouraged to understand that the way to maintain their delusion of self should be no more that the pursuit of anything, using any expedience what so ever, that might appease the biological stresses which are caused by the spontaneous effects of particular chemicals in them responding to environmental influences thereby promoting activity for self gratification at any expense as the Dawkinites, his acolytes and disciples overtly encourage, and, as a great many other, supposedly intelligent, people who through ignorance or lack of concern inadvertently encourage? Then having so educated the children should we, that is you and I, who have this decency and morality thing as an integral aspect of our being (intellectually??) question, why 'they' act as they do?

I will also add a list of a few of the scientists who had religious convictions and who's work has had an influence on you, in case you jump onto the suppression of science tack in your attempt to avoid giving me a just and honest, sensible, unbiased and rational consideration as to its merits, primarily, in regards to offering an explanation of the importance of "Christian" (note the "") related religions to the development of, and to the survival of 'this sophisticated civilised society and not to your own propositions.




Some Famous Scientists who were Christians

John Philoponus late 6th Century Aristotle's early Christian critic
Hugh of St. Victor c. 1096-1141 theologian of science
Robert Grosseteste c. 1168-1253 reform-minded bishop-scientist
Roger Bacon c. 1220-1292 Doctor Mirabiles
Dietrich von Frieberg c. 1250-c. 1310 the priest who solved the mystery of the rainbow
Thomas Bradwardine c. 1290-1349 student of motion
Nicole Oresme c. 1320-1382 inventor of scientific graphic techniques
Nicholas of Cusa 1401-1464 grappler with infinity
Georgias Agricola 1495-1555 founder of metallurgy
Johannes Kepler 1571-1630 discoverer of the laws of planetary motion
Johannes Baptista van Helmont 1579-1644 founder of pneumatic chemistry and chemical physiology
Francesco Maria Grimaldi 1618-1663 discoverer of the diffraction of light Catholic
Blaise Pascal 1623-1662 mathematical prodigy and universal genius
Robert Boyle 1627-1691 founder of modern chemistry
John Ray 1627-1705 cataloger of British flora and fauna Calvinist (denomination?)
Isaac Barrow 1630-1677 Newton's teacher
Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 1632-1723 discoverer of bacteria
nnNiels Seno 1638-1686 founder of geology
dJames Bradley 1693-1762 discoverer of the aberration of starlight
Ewald Georg von Kleist c. 1700-1748 inventor of the Leyden jar
Carolus Linnaeus 1707-1778 classifer of all living things
Leonhard Euler 1707-1783 the prolific mathematician
John Dalton 1766-1844 founder of modern atomic theory
Thomas Young 1773-1829 first to conduct a double-slit experiment with light
David Brewster 1781-1868 researcher of polarized light
William Buckland 1784-1856 geologist of the Noahic flood
Adem Sedgwick 1785-1873 geologist of the Cambrian
Augustin-Jean Fresnel 1788-1827 the physicist of light waves
Augustin Louis Cauchy 1789-1857 soulwinning mathematician
Michael Faraday 1791-1867 giant of electrical research
John Frederick William Herschel 1792-1871 cataloger of the Southern skies
Matthew Fontaine Maury 1806-1873 pathfinder of the seas
Philip Henry Gosse 1810-1888 popular naturalist
Asa Gray 1810-1888 influential botanist
James Dwight Dana 1813-1895 systematizer of minerology
George Boole 1815-1864 discoverer of pure mathematics
James Prescott Joule 1818-1889 originator of Joule's Law
John Couch Adams 1819-1892 codiscoverer of Neptune
George Gabriel Stokes 1819-1903 theorist of fluorescence
Gregor Mendel 1822-1884 pioneer in genetics
William Thomson, Lord Kelvin 1824-1907 physicist of thermodynammics
Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann 1829-1907 the non-Euclidean geometer behind relativity theory
James Clerk Maxwell 1831-1879 father of modern physics
Edward William Morley 1838-1923 Michelson's partner in measuring the speed of light
Pierre-Maurice-Marie Duhem 1861-1923 the physicist who recovered the science of the Middle Ages
Georges Lemaitre 1894-1966 the prist who showed us the universe is expanding
George Washington Carver c. 1864-1943 pioneer in chemurgy
Arthur Stanley Eddington 1882-1944 the astronomer who ruled stellar theory


Looking forward to your unbiased and sensible comments.
with regards..arthur..

[sanctus]

And i am waiting for a reply of yours to my post ;-)

[Zythryn]

Likewise I am waiting for a reply to mine.
Arthur, again you fail to discuss. You are the one that asked for objective discussion, yet you only respond to those you feel are being unobjective. How about the others?
If you feel my post and question were not objective, please tell me how.
Right now, with your refusal to respond to objective responses you are the one that appears not to be objective.

[Moontanman]

Much of what you talk about is only slightly affiliated by the Christian religion, mostly for tax proposes. Many of the so called save this or that by religious are nothing but an attempt to proselytize the religion and huge amounts of funds go into nothing but the religion it's self. Far more help could be done if the religions didn't siphon off so much of the money to spread the word, often by building huge churches and multi-million dollar homes for the big wigs in the churches. To simply look at these organizations and say look what good they are doing is simplistic at best. Do these people do good? yes they do but to attribute it to religion is simply wrong. I am an atheist but I often cook for the homeless and do my best to help. The main reason religion dominates such efforts is the if an atheist organization tried to do the same they would be subject to huge amounts of resistance by the government due to taxes and a need to show where every dime goes, something the anyone who claims to be affiliated with a religion doesn't have to do. Not to mention the the slander religions try to give to anyone who isn't a believer. Most atheists are willing to help it's just harder for us to do it as a organized group. Another reason religion keeps a strangle hold on "helping" is that they make huge sums of money off these efforts, they claim most money goes to the people they help but common sense says otherwise when you see how much they spend on themselves. The key is that religions do not have to account for their money. the government allows them to claim anything with no proof no accountability.

[arthur]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

Likewise I am waiting for a reply to mine..

Hi Zythryn.

The reason I didn't respond to your first post was because of your use of the words, "I believe that statement is false" and "mine come from the 'golden rule' which came about long before Christianity used it." And the reason that I am responding now is because of "The very basis of your position seems faulty"

I have been sucked into responding to posts in the past only to be gratuitously abused, misquoted, and suffering the tedium of reading inaccurate tirades of bigotry etc after spending a great deal of time and effort on the responses. As can be seen in this forum, and by having this put into Silly claims and having an administrator display crass disrespect and rudeness to me with their Bla Bla post.

I am interested in any one is willing to politely give me any genuine and objective logical evaluation with good will of any thing I say or write. I am not interested in discussing or arguing things subjectively /emotionally and I really only want to discuss what, in reality, is my extremely academically profound concept.

An important axiom for understanding, not only my proposition, but a great many other things is that 'all of biology, which includes humans, is the product of how it responded to its perceptions of it environments'

So Zythrin ask away, and let me know what you feel is faulty.

my regards. …arthur..