Did Christianity cause the Dark Ages or not?

Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Did Christianity cause the Dark Ages or not?

In the latest debate in the science blogosphere about 'accommodationism', the accommodationists have been digging deep to find reasons to defend religion as being compatible with science. One argument is that not only are they compatible, but religion (specifically Christianity) was fundamental to the development of science itself. Here is an example of such an argument (from Science in the “dark ages”:

Quote:
God struck down my internet last night, or I’d have posted this sooner: Thony Christie, who has guest blogged here, now has his own blog, The Renaissance Mathematicus. Responding to a comment on the Accommodationism thread, Thony takes down the claim that religion caused the dark ages, when it was more likely that the marauding northern tribes, internal political conflict, and a breakdown in the economic and administrative functions of the empire caused the dark ages, which nevertheless managed to generate the Carolingian empire, a time of learning and political stability in the 8th and 9th centuries.

That notwithstanding, Thony shows how the “dark ages” were, like most periods of history, a time of learning and science, and moreover how religion played a critical role in its progress and dissemination. Go read it.

Now, here is my question: Can someone please point me to any current historians who support the idea that Christianity per se played a major role in the fall of Rome, the suppression of early pre-science, and the coming and perpetuation of the so-called Dark Ages (or Early Middle Ages)?

I'm looking for someone who makes a strong case. Someone like a Richard Carrier (who makes a strong case for Jesus Mythicism) of religion-caused-the-Dark-Ages-ism.

Specifically, I want to see if there *is* a strong case, or if there isn't.

So far, in my quick internet researching, I only find assertions on both sides. I find people saying, "The Roman Empire was already failing, and Christianity merely rose to fill the gap," but they neglect to consider the case that Christianity itself had already taken control of the Roman Empire, and could very well have been a major factor in its downfall. And on the other side, I find people saying, "Well of course Christianity shunned learning and it was the cause," but they do not directly address the argument that Rome was already falling, and Christianity could have simply been filling the void.

So, which is it? Was Rome already failing, or did Christianity play a major role in causing the failure? What are the arguments? What is the evidence? It would be nice to find a historian who makes a strong argument that religion (Christianity in particular) caused the Dark Ages.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Well, the thing is, The Dark

Well, the thing is, The Dark Ages are called such because (as well as being a grim portion of history), it is difficult (in some cases, outright impossible) to dig-up evidence as to what happened during and immediately before or after them. Records were often destroyed or simply weren't kept.

Lots of thing contributed to Rome's downfall. It had made enemies of every neighboring state, it was not equipped to deal with the vicious outbreak of the plague that struck during it's final years, the Legio Roman was becoming matched by rival armies who were catching-up to their methodologies and technology, and yes, the orthodox religious institutes (Christianity among them) did nothing but exacerbate these problems by insisting only on hocus pocus rather than real, practical solutions (for example, insisting that the best way to combat the plague was for holy men to lay hands on the victims. Needless to say, not a terribly bright idea - especially at a time when washing one's hands was not common practice).

 

Rome was falling, and Christianity was a complicit part of that fall, but certainly not the entire reason for it. Rome should not have practiced chattle slavery, should not have spread it's army so thin in it's perpetual mission to expand it's borders and could not adequately protect itself from a plague epidemic.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 There was an argument put

 There was an argument put forward by... I think Stark... suggesting that early Christians had an advantage over the Romans with regard to the plague.  He claims that early Christians gave plague victims water and kept them comfortable while the pagan Romans sent plague sufferers out of town to die.  Stark claims that this difference in practice contributed to the survival of more Christians than Romans.  After all, even if only 10% of Christians survived, it would be more than 0% of Romans who had no food, water, or shelter.  This, he claims, contributed to the early spread of Christianity as clerics pointed out the "obvious" fact that God likes Christians more than Romans, and proved it by sparing more Christians from the plague.

The nasty part of this is that I can't find any first-hand evidence of his theory.  As near as I can tell, he's basing his predictions of Christians' behavior on much later documentation of Christian practices in subsequent episodes of the plague.  Furthermore, he doesn't demonstrate that the practice was widespread -- only that it probably occurred in some isolated areas.

This is kind of what KB was saying.  It's really hard to say whether he's right or not.  It's just speculation until and unless there's any reliable evidence one way or another.

Here's my take:  I think it's simplistic to say that X caused Y in this kind of historical setting.  Lots of things contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire and the coming of the Dark Ages.  Furthermore, the concept of blame needs to be examined.  Was the mindset of Christianity involved in the suppression of scientific advancement during the Dark Ages?  It would be hard to argue otherwise.  However, science was far, far from proven and widely understood as a method.   Even among early "scientists," belief in god(s) was quite common, and we can hardly blame the poor humans who simply had no idea how the natural world works.  

Early Christianity was an interpretation of a prevalent worldview.  The Romans had their gods.  The Greeks had theirs.  The Egyptians had theirs.  All the major civilizations that had preceded Christendom had filtered the world through some kind of god-filter.  Christianity added some new (and eventually destructive) concepts to the god(s)-centered worldview, but it's awfully focused to suggest that Christianity, among all the god-worldviews, was singularly responsible for anything at all.

Christianity was also clearly not opposed to some science.  The advances in architecture alone during the Dark Ages suggest that facts about the world were only a bad idea if they contradicted something in Christian dogma.  It would be naive to suppose that the Egyptians, Greeks, Babylonians, Mayans, and other religious civilizations were tolerant of dissention.  So, Christianity was not alone in this attitude.

I think what we're really asking about here is how long the Dark Ages would have lasted had humanity been scientific minded and tolerant of scrutinizing god belief.  I think this is kind of a pointless question, though.  How long would it have taken someone to figure out the true atomic structure of matter?  I have no idea.  Evolution?  Who knows.  A certain amount of prerequisite knowledge was necessary to understand evolution.  It's no coincidence that the Beagle went all over the world and that's what got Darwin thinking.

What I'm saying is that cause and effect in history are too complicated to say things like "Christianity caused the Dark Ages."  Christianity came to exist because of a complex set of circumstances that were already pointing culture towards a bad place.  Sure, some elements of Christianity reinforced it, but if humans invented a religion in the image of current society, can't we say that the shape of society itself was responsible for both the formation of Christianity and the coming of the Dark Ages?

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


DamnDirtyApe
Silver Member
DamnDirtyApe's picture
Posts: 666
Joined: 2008-02-15
User is offlineOffline
In a word, no.  We should

In a word, no.  We should remember that the pursuit of science and learning died primarily in the Western Empire, leaving the "barbarian" tribes of Western Europe to experiment with the nation-state while forgetting how to make cement and tasty lead gravy for their roast meat dishes (mmm-MM!).  The Eastern half of the Empire (or the rest of Christendom, that is to say) went much more slowly into the Dark Ages, repelling Turkish fleets with Greek fire and appreciating learning to a degree comparable with that of the sophisticated adjacent cultures.  When the Pope ordered his legions of barbarian crusaders (note I dropped the quotes) to sack Constantinople, shit started going downhill fast, but that wasn't until 1204, pretty close to the end of the Dark Ages.  That's not to say that Eastern Christianity wasn't guilty of shutting down the schools of philosophy in Athens, but I'd be remiss in not pointing out that Platonic essentialism was preserved by orthodox (small "o&quotEye-wink Christianity up until the time of Darwin; they were shutting out Aristotle in particular and basically taking credit for Plato.  Christianity as a reason for the fall of the Roman world into internecine fighting and all the rest just doesn't hold up that well.  

 

 

"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:He claims

Hambydammit wrote:
He claims that early Christians gave plague victims water and kept them comfortable while the pagan Romans sent plague sufferers out of town to die.

When was this plague you're referring to? What date(s)?

Quote:
Here's my take:  I think it's simplistic to say that X caused Y in this kind of historical setting.  Lots of things contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire and the coming of the Dark Ages.

...

What I'm saying is that cause and effect in history are too complicated to say things like "Christianity caused the Dark Ages."  Christianity came to exist because of a complex set of circumstances that were already pointing culture towards a bad place.

You seem to be asserting exactly the item under question. Was it really the case that the failings preceded Christianity?

Think of it this way for a moment to see where my question is coming from: A person gets infected with the HIV virus. For a while, he's fine, but the virus multiplies and begins to compromise his immune system. Eventually, the person starts getting ill more often. He coughs, has sores, etc. The virus continues to multiply. Still later, he contracts pneumonia. The pneumonia cannot be cured, and his immune system can't handle it. Eventually he suffocates in his sleep from the fluid in his lungs.

Now, strictly speaking, he died from drowning in his own fluids. A little more liberally, we can say that "Lots of things contributed" and his health was "already pointing ... towards a bad place".

I have no doubt that the Roman Empire experienced many symptoms of collapse before its final death. However, I'm asking if anyone has made a serious case that religion (in this case, Christianity in particular) was a *major* cause of the fall.

In the analogy, it would be like someone determining that, Yes, indeed, HIV causes AIDS. Now I realize you can't get that precise in study of history, and the Dark Ages in particular, but I can imagine that inferential arguments could be made, such as showing that the timing of events shows that the spread of Christianity to various regions at different times brought subsequent symptoms of collapse. Did the plagues occur early on, or was there a prior period where sanitation and irrigation deteriorated, and prior to that Christian politicians were corrupting the system from within causing loss of money to pay for infrastructure upkeep.

In the analogy, HIV does not even appear to be a cause. It's just 'along for the ride'. The person was already getting sick, and the final devastating blow came from a completely different infection. But absent the HIV virus, things would have gone much differently in the majority of cases. Surely there are some statistical tests that could be applied to look for connections between the spread of Christianity and the spread of decay of the Roman Empire.

Yes, I understand that the final blow was either plague or barbarians or both, or in combination with something else. But why the sudden susceptibility to these? Haven't there been plagues and barbarians pestering Rome (and other empires) before, with no imminent collapse?

Quote:
  Furthermore, the concept of blame needs to be examined.  Was the mindset of Christianity involved in the suppression of scientific advancement during the Dark Ages?  It would be hard to argue otherwise.  However, science was far, far from proven and widely understood as a method.   Even among early "scientists," belief in god(s) was quite common, and we can hardly blame the poor humans who simply had no idea how the natural world works.  

Early Christianity was an interpretation of a prevalent worldview.  The Romans had their gods.  The Greeks had theirs.  The Egyptians had theirs.  All the major civilizations that had preceded Christendom had filtered the world through some kind of god-filter.  Christianity added some new (and eventually destructive) concepts to the god(s)-centered worldview, but it's awfully focused to suggest that Christianity, among all the god-worldviews, was singularly responsible for anything at all.

To compare with my earlier analogy, I don't think it's unfair to say that one kind of religion might cause a collapse and another kind might be more or less harmless. In the parlance of my philosophy of wonderism, the key would be to what extent the religion tried to suppress our natural urge to wonder (i.e. ask questions and investigate things). Greek and Roman religion did not have such suppression as a major part of their theology, although Christianity did. (Or so it seems to me, anyway)

Also this could explain the difference in fates between the Western and Eastern Empires. They certainly had different versions of Christianity going on, and it is possible that an historian might be able to identify the relevant differences in the two theologies and test whether they fit the expected pattern.

This is equivalent to the idea that certain diseases are more virulent than others, and some (like the cold) are virtually harmless. The flu isn't so bad, unless it's the Spanish Flu, and then you're fucked.

I'm speculating a lot here, precisely because I'm not an historian. That's why I'm looking for one who attempts to make a strong case, who has done the research and might have some convincing arguments (whereas mine are just stabs in the dark).

Quote:
I think what we're really asking about here is how long the Dark Ages would have lasted had humanity been scientific minded and tolerant of scrutinizing god belief.

No, I don't agree. The Dark Ages are a discontinuity, and my primary question is, Why the sudden collapse? For me it's only a secondary question to ask what kept it going so long. Although that is also definitely a question I'm interested in.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
DamnDirtyApe wrote: The

DamnDirtyApe wrote:
The Eastern half of the Empire (or the rest of Christendom, that is to say) went much more slowly into the Dark Ages,

Some people die from the flu, others only get sick for a week (chance). Some flus are worse than others (the Eastern and Western Empires had different versions of Christianity). Some people are more prone to the flu than others (the underlying cultures were also somewhat different).

I still think it might be possible to do a historical analysis to correlate the spread of Christianity (and even specific kinds of Christianity) with the spread of the symptoms of collapse.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Natural, I don't have time

 Natural, I don't have time for a full response, but while this is on my brain, I want to say it.  It appears that we are already seeing a significant number of people who are quite resistant to the HIV virus.  If you happen to introduce the HIV virus into a population in which most individuals are resistant or immune, HIV will not cause a significant number of deaths.  

My point is that science and good critical thinking are the "immunity" for worldviews like Christianity.  The immunity simply didn't exist at the time in question.  Here's another way to look at it, with the same analogy.  Prior to the discovery of penicillin, the introduction of any one of hundreds or even thousands of pathogens into a human population could cause an epidemic.  If we look into a particular point in time and see that 2/3 of an entire population died of a pathogen, it's scientifically interesting to know that it was bubonic plague, but assigning the blame specifically to bubonic plague is missing the point that humans lacked the means to prevent any of a very large number of bugs that could have killed them.

In the same way, I am suggesting that the Dark Ages were the result of humanity's lack of immunity to not having modern science.  I know that's a nasty double negative, but I can't think of how else to say it.  The lack of modern science facilitated the belief in gods facilitated the suppression of science facilitated the belief in gods facilitated the suppression of science, ad nauseum.  Most of the mummies you're going to find are going to have lots of things wrong with them.  Sure, there was one thing that pushed the cart over the cliff, but when you've got twenty things wrong with you, and any one of them could potentially kill you, it's kind of pointless to point at one just because it happened to be the one that got there first.

Yeah, Europe was Christian during the Dark Ages, but Europe didn't need Christianity to come up with a lot of dumb things.  It also didn't need Christianity to be invaded by lots of scary naked men from the barbarian lands.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
I pretty much agree with

I pretty much agree with everything you said, but don't you see that that still leaves my question unanswered? Did religion/Christianity play a major role in causing the fall of Rome, or not?

For example, your analogy with immunity still leaves open the question, Did person X die of HIV or not? In other words, was he already sick, and the HIV was not actually a factor in his death.

This is what accommodationists and moderate theists are basically claiming here: Rome was already a goner. It was toast. It was going to die anyway. Nothing could have stopped it. The fact that it coincided with the rise of Christianity just shows that Christianity was filling a void left behind.

But, the typical new atheist will likely have the idea that, no, in fact, Christianity was a significant or major factor in actually causing the decline and fall of Rome. If Christianity had not been present, Rome would not have experienced so severe a collapse. It might have slowly withered and faded like the Eastern Empire, instead.

A man goes to the doctor and the doctor says, "You've got pancreatic cancer and you're going to die in 3 months." The man decides, Well, I'm going to die anyway, might as well have fun! So he goes on a sex and drug spree, and happens to catch HIV, which he has no immunity to. 3 months later, he dies of pancreatic cancer.

That's really the scenario under debate. One side, the accommodationists etc., argue that Rome already had a fatal disease and Christianity either played little to no part, or in fact it was crucially beneficial in the long run. The other side, the new atheists etc., argue that Rome may have eventually died of old age, or possibly some other disease/infection, but Christianity was one of the main illnesses that actually caused its downfall.

The fact that Rome had no immunity to Christianity, or other virulent religions, does not answer the question of whether Rome was already going to fall and Christianity just happened to arise at the same time, or whether Christianity really was the virulent religion that caused the fall.

It's ultimately a rhetorical point. When people say, "The idea that Christianity caused the Dark Ages is a myth," I want to know if those people stand on solid ground, or if there is a solid case to say, "No, you're wrong, it did in fact play a major role." Right now I still don't have an answer to that question, and still only have two sides making competing assertions with no strong arguments or evidence.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


manofmanynames (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote: In the

natural wrote:
 In the parlance of my philosophy of wonderism, the key would be to what extent the religion tried to suppress our natural urge to wonder (i.e. ask questions and investigate things). Greek and Roman religion did not have such suppression as a major part of their theology, although Christianity did. 

uhm...care to elaborate on this "natural urge of wonderism" is this the argument that goes we all have a natural urge to explore the sciences, that this is part of our biological makeup, and those that don' seem to have this awe and wonder have had it suppressed by things such as religion?

When I was a child, I thought science was the most boring subject around, so did most of the others kids in my class, we were hardly interested in learning about the subject, are you saying that we actually were biologically inclined to wonder and awe about the subject, but that this natural urge was suppressed by our upbringings?

Secondly, do you feel that Christians apply less doubt and scrutiny to their own world-views, and ideologies, than secular liberals, or humanist, or communist do to their own beliefs? And is it harder to reflect, doubt and question, beliefs that one holds as defining of one's character, that he is endeared to, regardless if that belief is theism, than in criticizing the beliefs of others we are not somewhat emotionally invested to? or  does theism get a special distinction here?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


DamnDirtyApe
Silver Member
DamnDirtyApe's picture
Posts: 666
Joined: 2008-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Guys, we don't need to go

Guys, we don't need to go into viral analogies here; they don't help.  My contention, as stated above, is that the Roman system that proceeded and held off the Dark Ages survived the rise of Christianity in the East but not in the West.  You can argue that the Christianities were different, but both halves of the Empire started off with the same system of law, the same military command structure and the same kind of Christianity.  Divergences happened later, obviously, but those were largely differences of organization, not of theology.  To this day, the Orthodox church believes in transubstantiation, maintains monasteries and recognizes saints--the primacy of Rome as a center of authority is the biggest difference between the two.  You simply cannot make the case that Christianity caused the fall of the Roman Empire and the subsequent Dark Ages.  

If you make the contention that the two halves of the Empire were significantly different places to start with and differently affected by Christianity, that's fine, but you can't ignore those differences as being important to the relative success of each half.  One might argue that the East was a substantially more Hellenized and sophisticated place than Western Europe and that the natives were more appreciative of a monolithic political system that could repel invaders and maintain law, which is exactly what the Byzantine Emperors did for a thousand years after the split, and with the exception of Julian the Apostate, they were all nominally Christians.  

"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:I pretty much agree

 

Quote:
I pretty much agree with everything you said, but don't you see that that still leaves my question unanswered? Did religion/Christianity play a major role in causing the fall of Rome, or not?

My point is that the answer to the question -- while it might exist in factual terms -- doesn't give us any meaningful information.

I tend to agree with DamnDirtyApe that what we call "The Dark Ages" wasn't a uniform existence across all of Europe.  It's a handy term that high school students can remember easily.  There were pockets of Europe where learning was preserved and even advanced significantly.  There were places where things really did regress a few hundred years.  There were biological pandemics.  It was a dynamic period during which Christianity was certainly not uniform in its conception, practice, or influence.

Quote:
For example, your analogy with immunity still leaves open the question, Did person X die of HIV or not? In other words, was he already sick, and the HIV was not actually a factor in his death.

If HIV, pneumonia, bubonic plague, and tuberculosis are all epidemic, does it matter if John Farquar dies of HIV or pneumonia?

Quote:
This is what accommodationists and moderate theists are basically claiming here: Rome was already a goner.

I agree with them.  I don't think you'll call me an accomodationist, will you?  I'm the guy everybody bitches at because I don't cut moderates any slack at all.  The thing is, the moderates happen to be right on this.  Granted, I'm not a historian, but all the history I've read seems to indicate that long before Christianity was a force of any social significance, the Roman Empire was bloated and threatened from without and within by powerful, focused forces.

It is the nature of Empires to do what Rome did.  

Quote:
Nothing could have stopped it.

You're better at arguing than this, Natural.  This is an irrelevant emotional tug.  Of course there were things that could have stopped the fall of the Empire.  There are things that could stop Global Warming, overfishing, and Japanese whaling fleets.  Are any of these things going to happen?  No.  They're not, because humans are humans.  

Quote:
 The fact that it coincided with the rise of Christianity just shows that Christianity was filling a void left behind.

Oh, come on, now.  You're just being silly.  Christianity didn't just magically appear.  It was a continuation of a tradition of monotheism and savior figures mixed with polytheism and warring gods .  What emerged in medieval monasteries and castles was the culmination of several hundred years of adaptation, merging, and copy errors.   It also didn't "fill a void."  It gradually overtook other belief systems.  There was never a void.

Quote:
That's really the scenario under debate. One side, the accommodationists etc., argue that Rome already had a fatal disease and Christianity either played little to no part, or in fact it was crucially beneficial in the long run. The other side, the new atheists etc., argue that Rome may have eventually died of old age, or possibly some other disease/infection, but Christianity was one of the main illnesses that actually caused its downfall.

Again, I'm not a historian, so you don't have to take me too seriously, but I just don't see the evidence for such a united, focused, and radically new influence during the first century or two of Rome's fall.  It just looks to me like a religious culture in transition to a new religion.

Quote:
The fact that Rome had no immunity to Christianity, or other virulent religions, does not answer the question of whether Rome was already going to fall and Christianity just happened to arise at the same time, or whether Christianity really was the virulent religion that caused the fall.

Even if Christianity did speed the fall, it could not, I think, have been the cause.  That means that Rome was going to fall, and it's just an argument about how much, if at all, Christianity contributed to the acceleration of the decline.  Again, I must point out that Europe is a very, very big place, and we really don't have a lot of comprehensive historical evidence from the period in question.

Quote:
It's ultimately a rhetorical point. When people say, "The idea that Christianity caused the Dark Ages is a myth," I want to know if those people stand on solid ground, or if there is a solid case to say, "No, you're wrong, it did in fact play a major role." Right now I still don't have an answer to that question, and still only have two sides making competing assertions with no strong arguments or evidence.

I think the whole thing is a Red Herring.  Anyone who says that is giving legitimacy to a claim that shouldn't even be talked about in those terms.  "Christianity caused the Dark Ages" is just not a reasonable claim to make.  It's simplistic and myopic.  Lots and lots of converging circumstances caused the Dark Ages.  Christianity was not the same religion it is today, nor was it likely to have been a single religion.  Like the rest of Europe, Christianity was splintered, isolated, and diverse.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote: You can argue that

 

Quote:
 You can argue that the Christianities were different, but both halves of the Empire started off with the same system of law, the same military command structure and the same kind of Christianity.  Divergences happened later, obviously, but those were largely differences of organization, not of theology.

You cross posted me.

When I wrote of early Christianity being far from uniform, I was talking about before the official "Fall," trying to address the question of whether Christianity could have caused the fall.  It seems to me that the political and military forces that would eventually destroy Rome were already in existence by as early as the second century CE.  I mean, yeah, that was kind of the height of Rome's power, but don't a lot of historians view the transformation from Republic to Monarchy as one of the precursors of destruction?

During the time of Julius and Augustus, Christianity was most certainly not a uniform religion.  It's hard to imagine how a little Jewish religious strife in a few backwater towns could have had a significant impact on the rise to Roman domination in the 200s.  Yet, it's pretty hard to deny that the Empire was overextended, and the simple logistical problems of holding together such an immense Empire were among the first threads to unravel as the Empire declined.

To me, that pretty much refutes the notion that Christianity caused the fall.

Sure, by the time of the two kingdoms, Christianity was pretty well established, but again, as you say, it was certainly not implemented the same across Europe.  I just can't think of what, exactly, Christianity did that was not a relatively predictable response to the political or economic realities.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


arthur king
Posts: 50
Joined: 2009-06-19
User is offlineOffline
Christianity was devised by

Christianity was devised by the Roman nobility for one purpose, to control their masses of slaves, 93% of the population at the time, and christianity used imposed ignorance, poverty, and terror to accomplish it's purpose.  Learn more at:

 

http://www.angeloftruth.com/capitalism.html

http://www.angeloftruth.com/christianity.html

 

arthur king, the voice of god


arthur king
Posts: 50
Joined: 2009-06-19
User is offlineOffline
"Lots of thing contributed

"Lots of thing contributed to Rome's downfall."

 

The "downfall" of the Roman Empire is an ongoing myth.  It has just changed it's name and today is called "christianity".

arthur king, the voice of god


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Could we have some evidence

Could we have some evidence please? Or the name of an historian? More assertions are not shedding any light on the question. In my mind it still remains unanswered who has the solid case (if anyone can have one). There has simply been no evidence presented, and no real arguments. Nothing can be confirmed or denied. Let's get down to the concrete. Links, names, dates, something.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


arthur king
Posts: 50
Joined: 2009-06-19
User is offlineOffline
"Rome should not have

"Rome should not have practiced chattle slavery, "

Rome invented christianity specifically to deal with i's vast problems of dealing with it's massive population of chattel slaves.  At the time christianity was invented, around 313AD, chattel slavery was converted to serfdom with christianity in charge of keeping the serfs serving as slaves to the aristocracy, somethng it did with great success for the next 1500 years, until the French revolution.  The greatest success of the church was in keeping the serfs fro knowing that they were slaves, something it still succeeds in doing today.

http://ww.angeloftruth.com/christianity

arthur king, the voice of god


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 LOL.  I'm going out on a

 LOL.  I'm going out on a limb here and saying your own website doesn't count as a historical source.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
manofmanynames wrote:natural

manofmanynames wrote:

natural wrote:
 In the parlance of my philosophy of wonderism, the key would be to what extent the religion tried to suppress our natural urge to wonder (i.e. ask questions and investigate things). Greek and Roman religion did not have such suppression as a major part of their theology, although Christianity did. 

uhm...care to elaborate on this "natural urge of wonderism"

I don't really understand how it is possible to *quote* me, and then immediately *misquote* me. It's like a bizarro-internet discussion. I wrote "natural urge to wonder", not "natural urge of wonderism".

Our natural urge to wonder: Do you ever wonder about stuff? Yeah? So do I. In fact, all humans do. It's a natural urge we all share. QED.

Quote:
is this the argument that goes we all have a natural urge to explore the sciences,

No, it is the argument that we all have a natural urge to wonder, (i.e. to ask questions and investigate things).

Quote:
that this is part of our biological makeup,

Yes, all humans (and likely many other animals) have an innate wonder, or curiosity.

Quote:
and those that don' seem to have this awe and wonder have had it suppressed by things such as religion?

I suppose they might have some form of brain damage that kills their wonder, but usually it is something like religion that kills our wonder.

Quote:
When I was a child, I thought science was the most boring subject around, so did most of the others kids in my class, we were hardly interested in learning about the subject, are you saying that we actually were biologically inclined to wonder and awe about the subject,

No, you are biologically inclined to wonder. PERIOD. The fact that you are asking all these questions proves it.

Quote:
but that this natural urge was suppressed by our upbringings?

In regards to science: The foundation of science is the urge to wonder. It does not mean that science will be interesting to everybody. It only means that the root human motivation to pursue science is our natural urge to wonder.

The reason science is so boring to so many kids is because the educational system is *yet another institution* that tends to kill wonder. It is the way you are taught. You are taught science as a jumbled bag of disconnected facts with no relevance to your personal life. You are not taught science as a way of learning and thinking about the world, and as a source of insight and inspiration for further investigation.

If you wonder about things, and you want to use a very good method for learning about things, then science is a fantastic tool to use for that purpose.

On the other hand, if you're just trying to get through an hour-long class so you can go out and play with your friends, then science will appear very very boring indeed.

Quote:
Secondly, do you feel that Christians apply less doubt and scrutiny to their own world-views, and ideologies, than secular liberals, or humanist, or communist do to their own beliefs?

None of those ideologies (except perhaps humanism, though I'm not a humanist) have a foundation of skepticism. Communists are definitely not skeptical; they tend to be caught up in dialectical thinking which causes them to believe that their intuitions (or the intutions of Marx) are facts. Secular liberals are all over the place. Lots believe in homeopathy, psychics, astrology, etc.

Christians generally apply less doubt and scrutiny to their beliefs than skeptics, freethinkers, and atheists tend to do. That is plainly evident. It's not hard-and-fast, though. You will find some 'skeptics' who believe in UFOs and government conspiracies, etc. You'll also find some Christians who are very skeptical and self-reflective. But overall, it is true.

Quote:
And is it harder to reflect, doubt and question, beliefs that one holds as defining of one's character, that he is endeared to, regardless if that belief is theism, than in criticizing the beliefs of others we are not somewhat emotionally invested to? or  does theism get a special distinction here?

Absolutely. It is definitely harder to self-examine beliefs that you identify as being part of your identity, regardless of whether you're a theist.

The reason I think theism is different is not in reference to its particular vulnerability to irrationality, but in reference to its ability to spread from one person to another, via the dogma of God's ultimate and unquestioned authority.

Communism, for example, shares many such traits with religion in this regard. I also consider Communism to be a dangerous and virulent delusion. Religion (theism), however, is much more widespread and powerful.

Specifically, it was Christianity that was associated with the fall of Rome, not Communism. If it had been Communism, then my post would be titled "Did Communism case the Dark Ages or not?"

If you think I'm specially picking on theism, I'm not. I'm against all irrationality. It's just that theism is the number one most prevalent and powerful irrationality on the planet at this moment. It's a matter of priorities.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

manofmanynames wrote:

natural wrote:
 In the parlance of my philosophy of wonderism, the key would be to what extent the religion tried to suppress our natural urge to wonder (i.e. ask questions and investigate things). Greek and Roman religion did not have such suppression as a major part of their theology, although Christianity did. 

uhm...care to elaborate on this "natural urge of wonderism" is this the argument that goes we all have a natural urge to explore the sciences, that this is part of our biological makeup, and those that don' seem to have this awe and wonder have had it suppressed by things such as religion?

When I was a child, I thought science was the most boring subject around, so did most of the others kids in my class, we were hardly interested in learning about the subject, are you saying that we actually were biologically inclined to wonder and awe about the subject, but that this natural urge was suppressed by our upbringings?

 

 

If you are told that everything is explained and your parents destroy your desire to ask questions of everything....I suppose you might not feel awe and wonder at everything around you. I would feel sad though, at your loss of curiosity..one of life's greatest strengths.

 

 

I have seen parents tell their kids to shut up when they ask "why" after every answer. My mom never did that. She would answer as best she could and if she didn't know she would tell me...which only increase my desire to want to know things. She taught me to question everything, even though she was religious...and that ultimately led to my abandonment of religion.

 

I think every parent should teach their kid to question everything, and make sure they know that there are many unanswered questions in the world. It is healthy.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


arthur king
Posts: 50
Joined: 2009-06-19
User is offlineOffline
Would you care to itemize

Would you care to itemize some things that you disagree with?  I am well aware of the shock effect that what I say has on those conditioned to christian dogma.  My definition of atheism is not believing the bullshit put out by christianity.  Saying one is an atheist is actually a strong political statement, for religion is a political system, and all of our polotics today is a contest between human freedom and slavery under christian control, where the christians are slowly losing.

arthur king, the voice of god


arthur king
Posts: 50
Joined: 2009-06-19
User is offlineOffline
 "is this the argument that

 

"is this the argument that goes we all have a natural urge to explore the sciences,"

 

No, it is the argument that we all have a natural urge to wonder, (i.e. to ask questions and investigate things).

>>>A close and comprehensive scruitiny of all of the activities of humanity since the beginning of history shows that humanity is a single-purpose entity, and that single purpose is the creation of new knowledge.  Everything else that we do is a by-product of the creation of new knowledge.  This also serves as the only common thread that runs through all of humanity for all of history.  If humanity has a 'purpose' then that is what it is, for there are no other choices or options.

 

Quote:
that this is part of our biological makeup,

 

Yes, all humans (and likely many other animals) have an innate wonder, or curiosity.

>>>It is the basis for our 'design'.

 

Quote:
and those that don' seem to have this awe and wonder have had it suppressed by things such as religion?

 

I suppose they might have some form of brain damage that kills their wonder, but usually it is something like religion that kills our wonder.

>>>Christian dogma imposes ignorance, poverty, and terror on the slaves in order to control them.  One of the reason this works is that the 'terror' facet causes physical brain damage that quells the IQ and ability to think original thoughts.  This was discovered by researchers several years ago ad deemed incurable and irreversible.  It is better known today as PTSD, Post Trauma Stress Disorder, an epidimic in the military among combat veterans.  Christianity calls getting hit with this malady as being "born again".

 

Quote:
When I was a child, I thought science was the most boring subject around, so did most of the others kids in my class, we were hardly interested in learning about the subject, are you saying that we actually were biologically inclined to wonder and awe about the subject,

 

No, you are biologically inclined to wonder. PERIOD. The fact that you are asking all these questions proves it.

>>>Wrong, we are pre-disposed to creating new knowledge which mostly promotes and enhances the physical sciences.  Look up CERN to see where we stand in understanding the physical sciences today.  Of course, our society requires a huge support effort for the few that are on the leading cutting edge of inquiry into the sciences.  Most of us play supporting roles.

 

Quote:
but that this natural urge was suppressed by our upbringings?

 

In regards to science: The foundation of science is the urge to wonder. It does not mean that science will be interesting to everybody. It only means that the root human motivation to pursue science is our natural urge to wonder.

The reason science is so boring to so many kids is because the educational system is *yet another institution* that tends to kill wonder. It is the way you are taught. You are taught science as a jumbled bag of disconnected facts with no relevance to your personal life. You are not taught science as a way of learning and thinking about the world, and as a source of insight and inspiration for further investigation.

>>>Wrong!  Christianity has been in the business of suppressing human progress for the past 1700 years in order to keep the serfs pumping out a continuous profit for the aristocracy, and especially to keep them rom learning that they were slaves.  Recent discoveries show that there was a great suppression of technology and rewriting and censorship of history around the time that christianity was invented. See the christian bullshit about 'creationism' and evolution.

 

 

Secondly, do you feel that Christians apply less doubt and scrutiny to their own world-views, and ideologies, than secular liberals, or humanist, or communist do to their own beliefs?

 

None of those ideologies (except perhaps humanism, though I'm not a humanist) have a foundation of skepticism. Communists are definitely not skeptical; they tend to be caught up in dialectical thinking which causes them to believe that their intuitions (or the intutions of Marx) are facts. Secular liberals are all over the place. Lots believe in homeopathy, psychics, astrology, etc.

Christians generally apply less doubt and scrutiny to their beliefs than skeptics, freethinkers, and atheists tend to do. That is plainly evident. It's not hard-and-fast, though. You will find some 'skeptics' who believe in UFOs and government conspiracies, etc. You'll also find some Christians who are very skeptical and self-reflective. But overall, it is true.

>>>Christianity is most likely successful because of the physical brain damaged that it's ideology causes.  A note on communism.  Communism was never a real 'system', it was a human warehousing scheme that kept the brain damaged Russian ex-slaves encapsulated in familiar surroundings until they could live their lives out.  The Bolsheviks knew about this from their study of the French revolution, where the French ex-slaves were back in serfdom within ten years because they simply did not have the mental capacity to run their own lives due to the christian imposed brain damage. The rules of life under communism, called 'socialism' by the enraged christians who got their asses kicked out of Russia, was almost exactly the same as the rules that the slaves lived under when under control of the totalitarian church, with the exception of the compensation that they got for their labors under communism.

 

Quote:
And is it harder to reflect, doubt and question, beliefs that one holds as defining of one's character, that he is endeared to, regardless if that belief is theism, than in criticizing the beliefs of others we are not somewhat emotionally invested to? or  does theism get a special distinction here?
>>>"Character" is a dangerous political word invented by christianity and used to extract obedience and conformity among the slaves.

 

Absolutely. It is definitely harder to self-examine beliefs that you identify as being part of your identity, regardless of whether you're a theist.

>>>Rip the wires out and try again.

The reason I think theism is different is not in reference to its particular vulnerability to irrationality, but in reference to its ability to spread from one person to another, via the dogma of God's ultimate and unquestioned authority.

>>>No one has ever shown any logical conection between god and the political system known as religion.  Every human society has had it's 'god' beliefs and political systems that incorporate this human failing into it's dogma have become known as 'religions'. 

Communism, for example, shares many such traits with religion in this regard. I also consider Communism to be a dangerous and virulent delusion. Religion (theism), however, is much more widespread and powerful.

>>>Communist ideology is growing and spreading while christianity is dying in most of the world today.

 

Specifically, it was Christianity that was associated with the fall of Rome, not Communism. If it had been Communism, then my post would be titled "Did Communism case the Dark Ages or not?"

>>>Rome never fell.  It renamed itself and morphed into 'christianity'.

 

arthur king, the voice of god


arthur king
Posts: 50
Joined: 2009-06-19
User is offlineOffline
"Or the name of an

"Or the name of an historian?"

I am the historian.  I have researched these subjects for 67 years.  Almost all historians in the past were members of the 'master race' and wrote with the church censor and the king's headsman looking over their shoulder.  This is a history of serfdom, very seldom mentioned in any historical records, but the most important because these serfs made up over 90% of the population for over 1500 years.

arthur king, the voice of god


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
arthur king wrote:"Or the

arthur king wrote:

"Or the name of an historian?"

I am the historian.

Let me clarify: A historian who isn't also a kook.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:I pretty much agree

 

Quote:
I pretty much agree with everything you said, but don't you see that that still leaves my question unanswered? Did religion/Christianity play a major role in causing the fall of Rome, or not?

Well, no, it didn't. DDA gave you some specifics; Christianity played a role in the fall in the same way a tree might play a role in a vehicle accident. Sure, if the tree hadn't been there, the vehicle might've only gone in the ditch - but it's hardly fair to single out the tree. Sticking out tongue

Quote:
Could we have some evidence please?

...Well, no, you can't (unfortunately). Sticking out tongue Again, 'The Dark Ages' represent a point in history where there is essentially a huge gap in our historical records. What we 'know' about them are based on inferences and educated guesses, really.

For example, the plague that struck Rome: you ask for a precise date. While that's excellent and perfectly reasonable, unfortunately, I don't know of any source that could reliably provide such a date. We are pretty sure that there was a plague epidemic and that it did catastrophic damage, thanks to city records that have been dug-up over time, but hard dates are simply impossible to come up with. 

I'll see if any of my dusty old tomes have anything specific in them, but I'm pretty doubtful. You have to bear in mind that a lot of what we have figured-out about Rome is simply from what we've excavated and then applied our imaginations to. 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


arthur king
Posts: 50
Joined: 2009-06-19
User is offlineOffline
"A historian who isn't also

"A historian who isn't also a kook."

 

...and your basis for this claim...??? Are you a christian?  Is this a spoof site, or an atheist site?

arthur king, the voice of god


arthur king
Posts: 50
Joined: 2009-06-19
User is offlineOffline
"Did religion/Christianity

"Did religion/Christianity play a major role in causing the fall of Rome, or not?"

The Roman Empire survives today and calls itself christianity.  Christianity is the remaining dregs of the Empire, stripped of most of it's political power.  It still strives to re-create serfdom and an aristocracy of capitalists.

 

arthur king, the voice of god


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:The Roman Empire

 

Quote:
The Roman Empire survives today and calls itself christianity. Christianity is the remaining dregs of the Empire, stripped of most of it's political power. It still strives to re-create serfdom and an aristocracy of capitalists.

Uh. No.

I don't want to romance the old Roman Empire, but it was one of the first successful & large scale attempts at creating a somewhat fair republic that appreciated some degree of practical naturalistic science over superstition. There is no credible evidence that that Roman republic was ever monotheistic until it's final days; multiple Gods were worshipped by many people, at least if the statues and carvings are any indication. The Legio Roman certainly didn't march under one deity's banner.

To quote Sagan, their world was as imperfect as our own, but Rome was not ruled by a series of tyrannical monarchs (like most of Europe would later be); there is pretty strong evidence that elections were held (though it could hardly be said whether they were fair or not) and that there were strongly competitive political parties. Most importantly, blood lineages to the 'throne' do not appear to have been establised until the last days of Rome (granted, this is all guesswork).

If anything of the old Rome survives today, it's an echo of the just then dawning sense of what it means to create a reasonably fair society that appreciates and protects all of it's membership. 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


arthur king
Posts: 50
Joined: 2009-06-19
User is offlineOffline
"somewhat fair republic that

"somewhat fair republic that appreciated some degree of practical naturalistic science over superstition."

 

"Fair republic"!!??  Read your history again.  Upon the creation of christianity to control and manage the slaves for the Roman nobility, it divided itself into the "master race" (the nobility) and the "servant race" (the serfs;slaves) and made slavery heredetary, a permanent underclass created by "god himself" and therefore inescapable.  This was called the "divine rights" of the nobility to rule over and profit from the "servant race".  This condition continued until and was the primary cause of the American revolution.  Today, our republican party and the christian church strives to re-create serfdom and a wealthy aristocrcy 24/7, in everything that they try to do.  The only thing really sacred in our society today is capitalism, a continuation of the master/slave society.

There were elections in the empire before christianity, but only for the nobility, thus the "republic" tag.  Political power became heredetary after christianity was invented, no more elections until 1783.

 

Democrastic government was invented to protect the rights of workers, in 1783.  Republicans and the christian church today scheme to prevent out government from having the means to protect us by denying it the taxes it must have to do this.

 

arthur king, the voice of god


DamnDirtyApe
Silver Member
DamnDirtyApe's picture
Posts: 666
Joined: 2008-02-15
User is offlineOffline
You know what, I'm not

You know what, I'm not involving myself in this any further.  Have fun, arthur.  I'd advise the rest of you not to get into a debate with him; probably about as profitable as debating Lumey.

"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 As with Lumey, I've given

 As with Lumey, I've given Arthur the indication that I am aware of his existence, but that's pretty much all I ever intend to say.  Maybe we should make a forum called "Tin Foil Hatter Brigade" and let Lumey and Arthur have the run of the place.  It would certainly be... something.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Nickkk (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Christians and the Dark Ages

I am reading a book now which posits that Christians went to a lot of effort to wipe out history that might have interferred with their 'Biblical facts'.  Hence libraries, science and philosophy and history was destroyed to the extent that one person described it as 'setting human civilisation back 1000 years'.  Because I am no longer a Christian, and because of the mischievous use of fraud and deception to con people into believing in Christianity, along with the Inquisition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition forced everyone to believe one set of beliefs.  It set science back hundreds of years, and it was science that finally revived human sensibilities and introduced the current era of freedom.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
You got it Nickkk

 

 

                 A few so-called christians [less then 12] decided what the rest of the world should know about  the myth of Jesu [Latin Jesus}.  They were so radical that if one brainiac disagreed with them they were willing to kill to keep the persona in tact.

 

                  The first victom of this frenzied attitude was a scholer named Hypatia, in March 415 CE. She was dragged from her sedan chair in central Alexandria and torn to pieces by christian zelots. WHY? One;  she was woman,  a real no-no for early christians, and Two: she kept pointing out that the godly attributes of Jesu were the same as early Egyptian gods and several other gods that pre-date JC.

 

 

                   This was well after  Constantine set up the Nicea conference to codify  "what a christian was" . Emporer Constantine decided in the fourth century  "what was christianity"  and heaven help anyone who did no agree with him.   Constantine only converted on his deathbed, he didn't give a rats ass one way or the other.

 

 

 

                            Nickkk:  join us as a member;  you will enjoy it. I assure you.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi OPY

Hi OPY,

The Dark Ages is a term that was coined by the Humanists regarding history. Their form of Historagraph is extremely pagan and very unreliable since they are not properly trained in thinking.

There were no dark ages.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
rofl. You and all those like

rofl. You and all those like you wish that were so. But it isn't. Sadly, christians are 99% responsible for the dark ages. The remainder are responsible for letting them do it.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi OPY

Hi OPY,

There was no such thing as the "Dark Ages." This term was invented by humanistic absurd "atheists" that hated Christianity. This term is an atheistic humanistic term. But atheists hate humanists. but humanists are atheists. Oh, what to do.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Typical christian lies. I

Typical christian lies. I imagine you don't believe the crusades and the holocaust happened as well.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Historians? Who needs a

Historians? Who needs a historian, look around.

It never stopped it just let up a bit.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello

Hello,

Odd. Why is that funny? You're a creepy guy. You have to tell me what dark ages you are talking about? There were the Green Dark Ages, The Dark Ages of Papacy. There were many dark ages.

But if you are referring to the Western European Middle Dark Ages, then no, there were no dark ages. Dark Ages denotes the illiteracy of a given world or society. But beautiful scholarship came out of the so called dark regarding theology, music, and writing.

Again, this was made up by humanists.

The Crusades were dictated by Roman Catholicism which is pagan. Rome is not Chrisitian. So then logically the Crusades had nothing to do with Christianity.

Some say the Dark Ages were from 500 to 1500 and the Reformation itself (Christianity) brought it out of the dark ages. Kind of an odd analysis. So Creepy Guy, you are saying that Christians put us in the dark ages, and then put us out of the dark ages.???

Please, do explain. LOL.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'll start where you started

I'll start where you started saying something more than jibberish.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
But if you are referring to the Western European Middle Dark Ages, then no, there were no dark ages. Dark Ages denotes the illiteracy of a given world or society. But beautiful scholarship came out of the so called dark regarding theology, music, and writing.

And Hitler made a nation out of ashes. Napoleon created the law we use today. Stalin won the second world war. That doesn't make any of them bright, shiny, happy people. The dark ages are labelled because a vast quantity of knowledge was destroyed (ever hear someone get called dim or bright? Like it or not, illumination has been linked with knowledge for a long time) and because very little of the time was recorded compared to before and after. Hence, dark ages. We literally can't see most of what happened. It has nothing to do with whatever you are talking about, and did in FACT occur.

Roman catholicism? No true scotsman fallacy.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Oh, and btw, we got out

Oh, and btw, we got out DESPITE christianity, not because of it. Galileo anyone?

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Creepy Guy

Hi Creepy Guy,

Galileo was bound by Roman Catholic law. It was the reformation that freed us from Rome's pagan darkness and gave us the means to run our American governement.

Galileo just saw what was found in Scripture, that the earth is round. Again, it was Roman Catholicism that said it was flat but since they are not Chrisitan, but pagan, then logically speaking it is paganism that said that the world is flat.

The Bible says it is round all over.

The rest of your attempt at thinking fails miserably. You have a DUII, driving under immature intelect. I would not be alone in a dark alley with you.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Again, no true scotsman

Again, no true scotsman fallacy. The roman catholics are christians. Period.

Also, it's the bible itself that says the world is a circle. ie: flat.

Try again.

PS, you can leave that "respectfully" crap out of your posts. You are beligerant, not respectfull. Saying you are being respectfull turns your entire post into satire. Where it ironically belongs.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Creepy Guy

Hi Creepy Guy,

You really have to change your avatar. I've been having nightmares.

The Scotsman Fallacy is not really a fallacy. It was invented by an atheist (Flu) and has been shown to be error. The fallacy was based on atheistic principles and NOT on the laws of logic.

Via the normative of Christianity, Rome is not Chrisitan. Psalms 104:5 talks about the earth being round. A circle is used also in Isaiah 40:22. Rome was against the Bible. The Bible has always been for a round earth. Never a flat earth. This again was Rome.

What's an enlightened atheist? A New Age Mystic atheist? I do speak out of respect. I say you are creepy respectfully of course.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Your denial changes nothing.

Your denial changes nothing. It is a fallacy. It has never been proven false.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

As the bible has been rewritten more times than can be counted, I can forgive your ignorance. But you are still wrong. Scholars of Latin > You.

Enlightened simply means educated. I use it to mock religious people who misuse the word.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:But if

Jean Chauvin wrote:

But if you are referring to the Western European Middle Dark Ages, then no, there were no dark ages. Dark Ages denotes the illiteracy of a given world or society. But beautiful scholarship came out of the so called dark regarding theology, music, and writing.

 

And you claim to have a college education.

We do NOT have music from the dark ages - or whatever you wish to call them.  Because we do not have musical notation until the 16th century - roughly towards the end of what is known as the Renaissance period.  And it was very primitive notation and so any guess about Renaissance music is just a guess.  So we don't have music from any period prior to 1500 - no dark ages music.

I would cite some references, but you won't bother to read them, so why bother.  Look it up yourself - get some education in music history or at least don't open your mouth about stuff you obviously know nothing about.

Yeah, there is a lot of ad hominen in my post -

disrespectfully,

CJ

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi CJ

Hi CJ,

Since you're up there with age, the tendancy to be cynial is understand. I speak respectfully of course.

Yes, there was mucic in the "Dark Ages." There was also very nice art.

When you get old like yourself, an ad hominem goes well with a cup a tea every so often.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Failure to refute logical

Failure to refute logical fallacy: Check.

Failure to provide examples of music and art: Check.

Ad hominem: Check.

 

Total score: Fail.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Accidental double post:

Accidental double post: check.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote: So then

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 So then logically the Crusades had nothing to do with Christianity.

Even theologians wouldn't buy that steaming hot pile of shit you're peddling...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris