jizro
Normal people don't go killing people!
Unfortunately, I think you are wrong, because how do we define "normal"?
Sirona
Need a little athiest help here
by pandora 15 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Liberty
Hi Pandora,
Most people have tunnel vision when it comes to their cultural beliefs. By that I mean that we tend to think of our cultural conventions as an objective reality on which we are so sharply focused that we do not "see" (consider) the other possibilities . Our culture is NOT objective reality, of course, but since we are emersed in our cultures from birth and even people who's parents considerered themselves "unconventional" and nonconformist are still subconsciously influenced and we all end up thinking we know how the world works in this cultural context. This is normal and functional up to a point since we can't afford wasting our time rediscovering everything new again each day. Religion, even in the most general sense, is an important component of this cultural convention and I'll admit that even as an ex-JW turned atheist I still have a "christian" mind set. Perhaps being in an unconventional christian cult like the Watch Tower Society has pushed us out to the margins enough to glimpse some alternate view points but by and large we are prisoners of our cultures and it takes a lot of effort to break out even just a little. Christians we meet and talk to think their culture is the right way and that they chose this way of life by logically and objectively weighing the pros and cons and then decided on their own that Christianity is true. This is the myth of free choice, a cultural convention, which as atheist thinkers we must break through in order to have a meaningful conversation with believers ranging from extreme fundies to folks who claim to be nonreligious christians.
Being truely open minded does not mean the same thing to someone trapped in their cultural mind set as it does to some one who is really willing to look outside the box. I was able to peer out of a crack and see that there are many other cultures in the world that do not have the same "reality" as mine and I realized that if their reality is different from mine and if they may be wrong then it is possible that mine may be wrong too since we all can't be right and have different objective realities. Scientific method is the recently invented tool of our culture which has alowed us to consider and study the nature of objective reality, actually testing our conclusions against things not corrupted by or dependant upon culture found in the natural universe or those things receded in time beyond the scope of our cultures. This is what really seperates an atheist from a believer. The atheist looks at the world and says what evidence do we have to prove that my religion/culture is true? Why does our best evidence show that human beings have existed for tens of thousands of years and yet God has only chosen to contact us a few thousand years ago through the holy men of just one small tribe? Why is this contact so limited, illogical, contradictory, unfair, cruel, illinformed, and often just flat out false? Why would an Almighty Spirit Being capable of creating the Universe have such a limited and complex method for getting His message across? Why is one's relationship with this Universal Being so localized and culturally dependant? Why is the natural world cruel and filled with violence, suffering, and death even when taking humanity out of the picture? There are a thousand other questions the atheist is not afraid to ask and until we get some good answers we are skeptical about this mysterious silent invisible Being who communicates indirectly through an ancient book of riddles. If your friend cannot acknowledge the possibility that they are Christian primarily due to cultural reasons then they will probably not be willing to face these other problems honestly either.
-
Kenneson
Saint Satan,
I just came across an interesting book that refutes your argument that modern science owes its existence to skeptics. It is entitled "Christianity on Trial" by Vincent Carroll & David Shiflett. There is a whole chapter devoted to Christianity and Science. You can find all the contributions Christianity made to modern science. The authors ask the following question: "After all, if Christianity is so irredeemably hostile to intellectual inquiry, how is it that modern science sprang from the one civilization on earth grounded in the Christian worldview and habits of mind? One possible answer is that Christianity equipped its followers with a mindset uniquely disposed to pursue rather than retreat from the scientific adventure." You need to read about the contributions the monks made to civilization, including inventions like the plow and clocks; monks led the way in the study of medicine (it must be remembered that Christianity gave mankind the first hospitals for the poor). Also, remember all the pioneer work in genetics done by the Augustinian monk by the name of Gregor Mendel. Also, are listed great mathematicians and astronomers who were Christians throughout the centuries. The authors quote Heilbron: "Indeed, the church 'gave more financial and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other, and, probably, all other institutions." Christianity also must be credited with the institution known as the university. Universities were often established by clerics or grew out of cathedral schools. Dominican and Franciscan friars in particular did exceedingly much in the universities' early growth. Architecture flourished during this period as well (the great cathedrals were being built everywhere in Europe.)
I don't deny that skeptics, agnostics, and atheists have done much to the advancement of the sciences but it would be nice if skeptics, agnostics, and atheists would also acknowledge that they didn't arrive where they are today in a vacuum. Christianity preceded them.
-
Kenneson
Og,
Chapter 4 of "Christianity on Trial" deals with your problem "Christianiy and the Slaughter of the Innocents." "The body count from the two great barbarisms of the twentieth century, communism and Nazism, is extraordinary on its own. Communism's toll ran to perhaps 100 million: 65 million in China, 20 million in the Soviet Union, 2 million in Cambodia, 2 million in North Korea, 1 million in Eastern Europe and 20 million in various other spots around the globe, according to Stephane Courtois' authoritiative Black Book of Communism. Adolf Hitler's death machine was eually efficient, but ran a much shorter course...Communism was is proudly atheistic, while Nazism (as explained in the next chapter {on the Holocaust} embraced a form of neopaganism. Both were hostile to organized religions in their midst, and neither genuflected befoe any power other than man himself. Yet these movements exterminated their victims with an efficiency that clearly exceeded the most grisly achievement of states produced by Christian zealotry..."
The Crusades and wars fought in the name of Christianity {which this book cover} are pale in comparison to the atrocities committed in the name of atheistic communism.
-
Satanus
Ken
I don't know if i will take the time to do more research in the areas you mentioned. It's true that monasteries were often the knowledge centres. However, you said
Dominican and Franciscan friars in particular did exceedingly much in the universities' early growth. Architecture flourished during this period as well (the great cathedrals were being built everywhere in Europe.)
The construction of the great gothic cathedrals (to which i presume you are referring) was started by the knights templar. Their inspiration for designs came from the east, the muslims. If they got any from their excavations of jerusalem, it was miniscule. They certainly got none from the church. Their interactions w muslims exposed them to a higher culture at that time, as well as the psychedelic, hashish. Templars were 'running ahead' of the church, as it were, allmost from their beginning.
The templars projects were a turning point out of the dark ages of christendom. For three hundred yrs they labored, as their movement grew. Then, they were outlawed, all their properties siezed by the church, many killed. The templars were far from orthodox.
SS
-
Kenneson
Saint Satan,
Again, the Knights Templars were not skeptics. They were a monastic military order formed to protect Christian pilgrims enroute to the Holy Land. These were a group of secular knights who took monastic vows. They were the warrior monks of the Crusades. You claim they were far from orthodox. You are probably right. As a matter of fact, it was a number of factors that led to their suppression, which did not come until after the end of the Crusades. It was their wealth and power which challenged the king of France and their secretive meetings and rituals which the pope opposed that brought about their demise. And you are correct in stating that they borrowed some of the architecture from the Muslims (non skeptics again). Christians, I think, borrowed a lots of things from the Muslims, which seems to prove to me that the main disagreement with them was over theology not knowledge.