How many read this forum

Esmereldina

To pull thread back on topic again...

I'm an atheist. I said I read the forum a few times a week, depending on how well my thesis is going... probably less when I finish and am no longer sitting in front of a computer all day
I rarely post as the regular posters can usually argue my points better that I can I've also realised from reading this forum... weirdly that I'm actually not that interested in atheism! Or at least not as interested as most regular posters seem to be! I'm really the kind of atheist who is happy to accept that there most likely is no God , and then gets on with other things. It's also interesting to see how many people base their atheism on science. I am from a humanities background and know lots os unreligious people there. I also know a few religious scientists so I never thought there was any particular colleration between science and atheism. Is this a reflection of atheism in general or of the boards community, do y'all think?
Actually, maybe this should be a separate thread... so feel free to move/delete.

Dades

Esmereldina wrote:

I am from a humanities background and know lots os unreligious people there. I also know a few religious scientists so I never thought there was any particular colleration between science and atheism. Is this a reflection of atheism in general or of the boards community, do y'all think?

People are atheist for different reasons. Some because science has taught us things that conflict with religion, other because they can't reconcile a benevolent god with the world we live in. If there appears to be a penchant for science here it might be linked to atheism, or it could just be the demograph of boards users.

Esmereldina wrote:

weirdly that I'm actually not that interested in atheism!

Atheists are interested in theism - i.e. what makes them atheist by virtue of not believing in it.

Tim Robbins

Sangre wrote:

I proclaim that quip the most whimsical caper of the season!

Elaborate. I admit I can be a bit dyslexic. If I wasn't I would have been a journalist or a Barrister and not an IT freak of logic.

Hagar

I visit the forum from time to time but I have to admit it puzzles me. I can't see the sense in constantly discussing gods that you don't believe exist. I don't believe in the Easter Bunny but I don't go on about it. I don't start discussions about not believing in it.

Possible because I truly don't believe I don't need the reassurance people seem to crave here.

Some people seem to want to be told it's all right not to believe in god. Give them a hug someone.

Crucifix

Tim Robbins wrote:

Elaborate. I admit I can be a bit dyslexic. If I wasn't I would have been a journalist or a Barrister and not an IT freak of logic.

Superfluous and not required mean essentially the same thing. Meaning the "not required" was, ironically, superfluous.
I think....perhaps I'm not getting it either.

Sangre

Hagar wrote:

I don't believe in the Easter Bunny but I don't go on about it. I don't start discussions about not believing in it.

Maybe you would if everyone else did, in fact, believe in the Easter Bunny. That they dedicated their whole lives to the decorating of eggs and collecting of hidden, oval chocolate treats. Everyday people would be asking if you encountered the 'treats of the fluffy one'. In some regions not partaking in the festivities could result in being an outcast or a prisoner of the government. Indeed, there have been genocidal wars over whether the Easter bunny is a rabbit or a hare (its a rabbit, duh). Would you not be perplexed why people lead a life according something that you know to be false? Would you not shake your head at the troubles these bunny boilers are causing?

Possible because I truly don't believe I don't need the reassurance people seem to crave here.

Some people seem to want to be told it's all right not to believe in god. Give them a hug someone.

Thanks Freud.

Dades

Hagar wrote:

I visit the forum from time to time but I have to admit it puzzles me. I can't see the sense in constantly discussing gods that you don't believe exist. I don't believe in the Easter Bunny but I don't go on about it. I don't start discussions about not believing in it.

Hagar, that just sounds like "I'm not interested in this, so why are you?"

Hagar wrote:

Some people seem to want to be told it's all right not to believe in god.

Maybe, but why do some people want to be told it's all right not to believe in god?

Scofflaw

Crucifix wrote:

Superfluous and not required mean essentially the same thing. Meaning the "not required" was, ironically, superfluous.
I think....perhaps I'm not getting it either.

Exactly - either the 'superfluous' or the 'not required' is either superfluous, or not required.

clearly,
Scofflaw

Dades

There's an awful lot of superfluous posts here - put a sock in it!

PDN

dan719 wrote:

How can you consider the Roman Empire to be backward with such triumphs of engineering as the Colloseum, aquaducts and so on.

I'm so glad you raised the issue of the aqueducts. Rome basically operated as a black hole that sucked money, technology, and manpower (ie slaves) from the regions that it conquered. Thus the Roman aqueducts were simply copies of technology that was developed in Assyria several centuries earlier.

Rome, while happy to adopt technology from elsewhere, developed very little of its own. This was, for the most part, because despotic regimes discourage scientific and technological innovation. Slavery has the same effect. Why develop labour saving techniques when you can simply conquer a few more cities and get as much manpower as you need? Also, Rome's religion consisted of capricious gods who were unpredictable, hindering the study of natural laws and processes. It was Christianity, with its emphasis on reason, that paved the way for scientific, technological and economic innovation.

rockbeer

Hagar wrote:

I don't believe in the Easter Bunny

What???!!!! :eek: :eek:

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

I'm so glad you raised the issue of the aqueducts. Rome basically operated as a black hole that sucked money, technology, and manpower (ie slaves) from the regions that it conquered. Thus the Roman aqueducts were simply copies of technology that was developed in Assyria several centuries earlier.

Rome, while happy to adopt technology from elsewhere, developed very little of its own. This was, for the most part, because despotic regimes discourage scientific and technological innovation. Slavery has the same effect. Why develop labour saving techniques when you can simply conquer a few more cities and get as much manpower as you need? Also, Rome's religion consisted of capricious gods who were unpredictable, hindering the study of natural laws and processes. It was Christianity, with its emphasis on reason, that paved the way for scientific, technological and economic innovation.

Which would certainly explain the enormous technological advances made by the later Roman & Byzantine Empires under Christianity? Except that these were actually much less innovative than 1st/2nd century BC pagan Rome (the period of conquest, whereas the later borders were stable or shrinking). Roman technology covers, inter alia, concrete (including submarine concrete), plumbing facilities (including heated baths, swimming pools, and possibly showers), cranes, wagon technology, mechanized harvesting machines, domes, roman arches, wine and oil presses, and glass blowing.

They certainly borrowed and adapted from surrounding civilisations (which in itself is evidence of innovative capability - ask the Japanese), but they also invented plenty of their own, even in the field of technology. Having said that, technology was not the main orientation of the Roman genius, which was law and civics, much of which we still use today (particularly in continental Europe, which still uses an essentially Roman inquisatorial system rather than our competitive common law system).

That the Church (as an institution) preserved as much of Roman innovation as it could is also disputable - and in no way related to the Christian message. It preserved what it considered useful, which was what did not contradict its own message - the rest we received back from the Arabs later. It unquestionably hampered the development of entire economies by its prohibitions on usury, the development of medicine through its insistence on the sacred nature of the body, the development of astronomy through its adherence to the Ptolemaic system...I am sure, if I keep digging, I can come up with others, but the first is the most important.

In short, then, I think your hypothesis is both self-serving, and utterly inaccurate - easily discredited by any reasonably thorough reading of the histories of Europe from Rome on. Quite aside from anything else, the "emphasis on reason" you ascribe to Christianity forms no part of its original teachings - there is no emphasis whatsoever on it in the Bible, for example - but instead came about because to compete with neo-Platonism and appeal to the Roman upper classes, Christianity needed to be intellectually respectable. To do which, it borrowed the clothes of the Greek philosophers and grafted their thought onto its original (and quite counter-rational) message, resulting in an uncomfortable hybrid that contradicts itself repeatedly to this day.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

PDN wrote:

Also, Rome's religion consisted of capricious gods who were unpredictable, hindering the study of natural laws and processes.

The Romans were outstanding practical engineers, designing buildings -- the Pantheon springs to mind -- which were not exceeded in scale for almost two thousand years. Some of the bridges they built are still in use (the Alcantara in Spain), as are many of their water systems. Neither were their gods markedly capricious and certainly not responsible for death on the scale of the christian deity of the old testament.

PDN wrote:

It was Christianity, with its emphasis on reason, that paved the way for scientific, technological and economic innovation.

Perdam sapientiam sapientium, et prudentiam prudentium reprobabo?

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

It was Christianity, with its emphasis on reason, that paved the way for scientific, technological and economic innovation.

I don't want to labour the point, but since you mention slavery... it was christianity, with its emphasis on slavery, that paved the way for the global slave trade.

By what rationale do you claim credit for the growth of reason exclusively for christianity, yet deny its culpability for slavery?

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

Perdam sapientiam sapientium, et prudentiam prudentium reprobabo?

Which is: "For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise: and the prudence of the prudent I will reject." from Paul's letter to the Corinthians. Also contains other gems of the Christian emphasis on reason: "But the foolish things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the wise".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hagar

The Atheist wrote:

Hagar, that just sounds like "I'm not interested in this, so why are you?"

It might sound like that, but it wasn't ment to. Sometimes the written word is open to misinterpretation.

The Atheist wrote:

Maybe, but why do some people want to be told it's all right not to believe in god?

Fair question. Perhaps I just think a little differently from those people.

Sangre wrote:

Would you not be perplexed why people lead a life according something that you know to be false? Would you not shake your head at the troubles these bunny boilers are causing?

I used to be, but over time I've developed the ability to stop worrying about other people's beliefs and just get on with my own life. To paraphrase the Late JC "The bunny boilers will always be with us".

5uspect

Scofflaw wrote:

Which would certainly explain the enormous technological advances made by the later Roman & Byzantine Empires - except that these were less innovative than 1st/2nd century BC pagan Rome. Roman technology covers, inter alia, concrete (including submarine concrete), plumbing facilities (including heated baths, swimming pools, and possibly showers), cranes, wagon technology, mechanized harvesting machines, domes, roman arches, wine and oil presses, and glass blowing.

They certainly borrowed and adapted from surrounding civilisations (which in itself is evidence of innovative capability - ask the Japanese), but they also invented plenty of their own, even in the field of technology. Having said that, technology was not the main orientation of the Roman genius, which was law and civics, much of which we still use today (particularly in continental Europe, which still uses an essentially Roman inquisatorial system rather than our competitive common law system).

But what have the Romans ever done for us?

Sorry, couldn't resist!

Tim Robbins

Crucifix wrote:

Superfluous and not required mean essentially the same thing. Meaning the "not required" was, ironically, superfluous.
I think....perhaps I'm not getting it either.

Ha Ha. Hillarious, like an ironic coincidence going backwards when time is going forward or something quite daft. Very special.

pinksoir

it was indeed something special. Very 2 ronnies-esque.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

Which would certainly explain the enormous technological advances made by the later Roman & Byzantine Empires under Christianity? Except that these were actually much less innovative than 1st/2nd century BC pagan Rome (the period of conquest, whereas the later borders were stable or shrinking). Roman technology covers, inter alia, concrete (including submarine concrete), plumbing facilities (including heated baths, swimming pools, and possibly showers), cranes, wagon technology, mechanized harvesting machines, domes, roman arches, wine and oil presses, and glass blowing.

They certainly borrowed and adapted from surrounding civilisations (which in itself is evidence of innovative capability - ask the Japanese), but they also invented plenty of their own, even in the field of technology. Having said that, technology was not the main orientation of the Roman genius, which was law and civics, much of which we still use today (particularly in continental Europe, which still uses an essentially Roman inquisatorial system rather than our competitive common law system).

That the Church (as an institution) preserved as much of Roman innovation as it could is also disputable - and in no way related to the Christian message. It preserved what it considered useful, which was what did not contradict its own message - the rest we received back from the Arabs later. It unquestionably hampered the development of entire economies by its prohibitions on usury, the development of medicine through its insistence on the sacred nature of the body, the development of astronomy through its adherence to the Ptolemaic system...I am sure, if I keep digging, I can come up with others, but the first is the most important.

In short, then, I think your hypothesis is both self-serving, and utterly inaccurate - easily discredited by any reasonably thorough reading of the histories of Europe from Rome on. Quite aside from anything else, the "emphasis on reason" you ascribe to Christianity forms no part of its original teachings - there is no emphasis whatsoever on it in the Bible, for example - but instead came about because to compete with neo-Platonism and appeal to the Roman upper classes, Christianity needed to be intellectually respectable. To do which, it borrowed the clothes of the Greek philosophers and grafted their thought onto its original (and quite counter-rational) message, resulting in an uncomfortable hybrid that contradicts itself repeatedly to this day.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I appreciate you sharing your viewpoint & I will show you the courtesy of assuming that these are your sincerely held opinions and of avoiding pejorative terms such as "self serving".

Wikipedia is not infallible by any means, but I think the following article is fairly balanced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_technology

The relevant points I would direct you to are as follows:
1. Much of what we call 'Roman' technology is in fact Etruscan and predates Imperial Rome. 'Roman arches', one of your examples, are not really Roman at all. Much of the rest was borrowed from Greece.
2. The main period of technological advance was when Rome was a Republic. I would contend that the 'Dark Ages', in terms of scientific advancement, started when Rome fell under Imperial rule.
3. Glass blowing originated in Syria, not Rome.
4. "Roman society was conservative and had little regard for abstract thought. Roman science was virtually non-existent, especially compared with Hellenistic science. Romans thought of themselves as practical, so small scale innovation was common as devices were gradually made more efficient, for example we have the improvement of the overshot water wheel and the improvements of wagon construction. Technology could and did evolve. But without science, step change innovation was almost impossible."

I think you are misunderstanding my point in your references to pagan Rome and the Western & Byzantine Christian Empires. I was not arguing that pagan Rome was backward or that Christianity immediately changed that. I was rather making the point that a period of backwardness began with the advent of Imperial despotism and continued even when that despotism professed to be Christian. However, contrary to Gibbon, the fall of the Roman Empire was a stimulus to scientific advancement, rather than the beginning of any mythical 'Dark Ages'.

As for the church's opposition to usury (which seems quite sensible on the day when my Mastercard statement arrives), it is true that the church paid lip service to this prohibition, but in practice they found many ways round it. Your criticisms would be better directed at Islam since, while they also inherited opposition to usury from Judaism, they only managed to find ways around it in order to facilitate borrowing to fund consumption, as opposed to Christendom's emphasis on borrowing to fund investment. Obviously the latter was essential to the development of capitalism.

PDN

5uspect wrote:

But what have the Romans ever done for us?

Sorry, couldn't resist!

Very good!

Apart from concrete (including submarine concrete), plumbing facilities (including heated baths, swimming pools, and possibly showers), cranes, wagon technology, mechanized harvesting machines, domes, roman arches, wine and oil presses, and glass blowing - nothing at all!

The Mad Hatter

rockbeer wrote:

What???!!!! :eek: :eek:

Yikes! J C's gotten into rockbeer's account!

Zillah

The notion that brutal imperialism can be anything other than apallingly dispicable?

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

I don't want to labour the point, but since you mention slavery... it was christianity, with its emphasis on slavery, that paved the way for the global slave trade.

By what rationale do you claim credit for the growth of reason exclusively for christianity, yet deny its culpability for slavery?

The growth of reason, and scientific method, following the providential collapse of the Roman Empire, developed almost exclusively where Christianity abounded. Slavery, on the other hand, was present in most ancient societies and civilisations.

Slavery existed in the Roman Empire before Christianity and continued after Constantine's supposed conversion. After the fall of the Empire, however, slavery was gradually removed in Christendom, but continued to flourish elsewhere in the world.

By the end of the 8th Century Charlemagne opposed slavery, egged on by Abbot Smaragde of Saint-Mihiel who wrote, "Most merciful king, forbid that there should be any slave in your kingdom."

"Soon no-one doubted that slavery itself was against divine law." (Marc Bloch, Slavery and Serfdom in the Middle Ages, 1975, University of California Press p.11)

For over 400 years slavery, widespread among most other societies, was virtually unknown in Christendom. This, of course, altered with the discovery of the New World. Even then the Papacy repeatedly opposed slavery and excommunicated any who owned or traded slaves in the New World.

Colonialism, and the slavery that accompanied it, certainly included many shameful examples of Christians conforming to the cultural norms of surrounding society. While morally repulsive, they behaved no worse (and sadly no better) than virtually every non-Christian society of that time. The only reason that Christendom caused so much suffering through a global slave trade was because non-Christian societies, while enthusiastic slavers, lacked the technological and economic structures to conduct their evil activities on such a grand scale.

Remember also that the abolitionists, both in England and America, were motivated primarily by the conviction that slavery was incompatible with the moral teaching of the New Testament. Other non-Christian societies, lacking such a theological impetus, continued to merrily buy and sell slaves long after William Wilberforce, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and Abraham Lincoln were all dead. Indeed slavery still exists today in a number of non-Christian societies.

Slavery has indeed been a dreadful blot on the history of Christianity, but only in contrast with Christians' own professed standards. Compared with other societies, Christians have opposed slavery more than anyone else.

I shall refrain from passing comment on the records of professed atheistic regimes when it comes to slavery. After all, the governments in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea etc weren't real atheists, were they? (I think this is known as the 'One True Scotsman' argument?)

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

Which is: "For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise: and the prudence of the prudent I will reject." from Paul's letter to the Corinthians. Also contains other gems of the Christian emphasis on reason: "But the foolish things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the wise".

cordially,
Scofflaw

A text without a context becomes a pretext.

The "wisdom" of which Paul spoke referred to the multiplicity of philosophies current in Corinth at the time, many of which involved elements of sexual immorality, temple prostitution, and other crazy practices.

PDN

robindch wrote:

Neither were their gods markedly capricious

A guy called Ovid would disagree with that statement. One of the basic themes of his Metamorphoses is the capricious nature of the gods.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

I appreciate you sharing your viewpoint & I will show you the courtesy of assuming that these are your sincerely held opinions and of avoiding pejorative terms such as "self serving".

Yes, that was perhaps a little out of order - in my defence, I will only say that 'self-serving' is not intended to mean 'advancing your position while not being genuinely held' but rather 'tending excessively to be in line with your already-held beliefs'. I certainly didn't intend to imply that you advanced the argument without believing it!

PDN wrote:

Wikipedia is not infallible by any means, but I think the following article is fairly balanced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_technology

The relevant points I would direct you to are as follows:
1. Much of what we call 'Roman' technology is in fact Etruscan and predates Imperial Rome. 'Roman arches', one of your examples, are not really Roman at all. Much of the rest was borrowed from Greece.
2. The main period of technological advance was when Rome was a Republic. I would contend that the 'Dark Ages', in terms of scientific advancement, started when Rome fell under Imperial rule.
3. Glass blowing originated in Syria, not Rome.
4. "Roman society was conservative and had little regard for abstract thought. Roman science was virtually non-existent, especially compared with Hellenistic science. Romans thought of themselves as practical, so small scale innovation was common as devices were gradually made more efficient, for example we have the improvement of the overshot water wheel and the improvements of wagon construction. Technology could and did evolve. But without science, step change innovation was almost impossible."

As I said, the Romans could and did borrow from other cultures (and were more forward in doing so, perhaps, than others) - and they generally improved and adapted what they used. Certainly, they were no less innovative/adaptive than their neighbours - and the understanding required for adaptation is, if anything, greater than that required for innovation, where innovation is not scientific.

PDN wrote:

I think you are misunderstanding my point in your references to pagan Rome and the Western & Byzantine Christian Empires. I was not arguing that pagan Rome was backward or that Christianity immediately changed that. I was rather making the point that a period of backwardness began with the advent of Imperial despotism and continued even when that despotism professed to be Christian. However, contrary to Gibbon, the fall of the Roman Empire was a stimulus to scientific advancement, rather than the beginning of any mythical 'Dark Ages'.

Presuming that to mean the fall of the Western Empire, there is a noticeable fall in technological level in the centuries after Romulus Augustulus was deposed. Although the 'Dark Ages' are being re-examined, the re-examination doesn't change the basic picture of centuries of stasis. The suggestion that the fall of the Western Empire somehow stimulated directly scientific advancement is both anachronistic, and directly in contradiction of the evidence, which shows only a couple of advances in the half millennium after Rome fell - perhaps you know of more?

That then moves us forward through the period when the Church was the primary 'guardian' of advanced culture in Europe, and through to the period when competing polities took over that role. A rebirth of innovation can be seen first in the competitive city-states of northern Italy, and then moves to the competitive cultures of Northern Europe.

All of which suggests that it was not Christianity that drove forward innovation, but rather the very un-Christian aspects of Europe - its division into a multitude of competing, fighting, polities, where failing to adopt new technology (particularly military) could mean loss of territory. A particularly good example is the ban on the crossbow as an un-Christian weapon, which nearly every state ignored because of the military advantage that would thereby accrue to their neighbours.

PDN wrote:

As for the church's opposition to usury (which seems quite sensible on the day when my Mastercard statement arrives), it is true that the church paid lip service to this prohibition, but in practice they found many ways round it. Your criticisms would be better directed at Islam since, while they also inherited opposition to usury from Judaism, they only managed to find ways around it in order to facilitate borrowing to fund consumption, as opposed to Christendom's emphasis on borrowing to fund investment. Obviously the latter was essential to the development of capitalism.

Undoubtedly that is now the case, since, again, the Church could not impose its will on all Europe, particularly when the Papacy itself was an Italian statelet in need of loans...nevertheless, it requires only a cursory glance through the history of Europe to show that "lip service" is a gross inaccuracy. Every church council condemned usury, money-lenders were denied burial in consecrated ground, and the whole business was tainted to the point that merchants in Europe had resort to every trick we now see Muslim merchants using - risk premiums, gifts to lenders, etc.

Really, PDN, do we need to go over why money-lending in Europe was the trade of Jews? Why pogroms against them were permitted when rulers were flush with cash, and crushed when the monarch needed loans? A good part of European anti-semitism results from the Christian prohibition on usury, and you want to call it 'lip service'? Get a history book.

regards,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

A text without a context becomes a pretext.

The "wisdom" of which Paul spoke referred to the multiplicity of philosophies current in Corinth at the time, many of which involved elements of sexual immorality, temple prostitution, and other crazy practices.

It's amusing how that argument cuts both ways...

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

PDN wrote:

A guy called Ovid would disagree with that statement. One of the basic themes of his Metamorphoses is the capricious nature of the gods.

I did, of course, say 'markedly' capricious and specifically in comparison to the deity of the old testament who was quite happy to kill people, or have them killed, for the most selfish of reasons.

In contrast to this, the Roman deities, as the Greek deities, were pretty much ordinary people writ large, and they expressed little of the grand oriental despotism and military expansionism of the christian deity. Heavens above, the Romans and the Greeks even had their gods of Reason -- Athena/Minerva and Apollo! But sadly, as belief in the christian deity increased, belief in these gods, and the careful qualities and prudent values they stood for, slowly dissipated and was lost.

.

robindch

PDN wrote:

The "wisdom" of which Paul spoke referred to the multiplicity of philosophies current in Corinth at the time, many of which involved elements of sexual immorality, temple prostitution, and other crazy practices.

A guy called Paul would disagree with that statement Let's see what he says in the rest of 1 Corinthians, to give us a bit of context and make sure that he has it in for what we said he had it in for, and not temple prostitution and the other stuff. He says:

Paul wrote:

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified.

Which, quite clearly, is saying nothing at all about temple prostitution, but quite explicitly saying that not only should christians reject the jewish sign-seeking and the greek search for rational wisdom for which they were famous, but more pointedly, that anybody who doesn't believe the "message of the cross" is foolish (ie, everybody except his group) and quotes Isaiah 29:14 in support of this oddly tautologous assertion.

Embarrassingly for christians, Paul then continues with:

Paul wrote:

Not many of you were wise by human standards; [...] God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise

...suggesting that, far from exalting wisdom, reason and philosophy, being "foolish" was actually something that god looked for!

.