Are teachers underpaid or not?

[Sarvis]

Basically, you just told most of the people on the entire planet that they're wrong and you're right.

Wow, I guess I could pass for Christian after all :)

Stop responding to Kiryan's ridiculous statements like "homo agenda", its just turning you into his polar opposite.

You've got some sand in your vag this week, between this thread and the webcomic thread. Dust it out, you're starting to piss me off.

Ruh-Roh! Someone's gonna get ignored!

Such a great community we have here, with half the people ignoring the other half over some minor disagreement...

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

Christianity is a culture that shuns progress and embraces teachings over two millennia old.

Ragorn, advocating for religion not to be taught in school is one thing. However, the statement I quoted above is ignorant and childish. Do the research well. Well. The reason the dark ages were able to be surpassed, the reason the Renaissance and all of its inventions, glories, and discoveries came about were because of Christianity. What you hear/read about are the same cliche Galileo/Inquisition arguments that have more fabrication than truth to them. It's like basing an argument against Christianity from some FWD:RE:RE:RE: email.

Not believing in Jesus because you want proof, or believe there is no proof is fine, honestly. I completely understand that reasoning. But statements like the one above are just plain incorrect, and ignorant.

[Sarvis]

Christianity is a culture that shuns progress and embraces teachings over two millennia old.

Ragorn, advocating for religion not to be taught in school is one thing. However, the statement I quoted above is ignorant and childish. Do the research well. Well. The reason the dark ages were able to be surpassed, the reason the Renaissance and all of its inventions, glories, and discoveries came about were because of Christianity. What you hear/read about are the same cliche Galileo/Inquisition arguments that have more fabrication than truth to them. It's like basing an argument against Christianity from some FWD:RE:RE:RE: email.

Not believing in Jesus because you want proof, or believe there is no proof is fine, honestly. I completely understand that reasoning. But statements like the one above are just plain incorrect, and ignorant.

You _could_ cite something, you know. I know there are some advances in biology attributed to monks, but not much else that I'm aware of.

[Ragorn]

Christianity is a culture that shuns progress and embraces teachings over two millennia old.

Ragorn, advocating for religion not to be taught in school is one thing. However, the statement I quoted above is ignorant and childish. Do the research well. Well. The reason the dark ages were able to be surpassed

Actually, the reason the Dark Ages happened AT ALL was because of the quashing of science and learning by the Catholic Church. The Protestant Revolution enabled the Renaissance, but it took them a thousand years to get around to doing it. How advanced do you think our society would be today if we hadn't lost a thousand years of learning and progress to the influence of Christian fundamentalists?

Do you contest the idea that Christianity, as a culture, discourages scientific progress? What about biology? Anthropology? I won't argue with you that religion HAS produced some of the most fantastic works of art and literature in human history. But science? Religion is a direct opponent to science. That's not childish or ignorant, it's a patently observable fact, and it's one that's wholeheartedly supported by the Christian community.

[teflor the ranger]

Actually, the reason the Dark Ages happened AT ALL was because of the quashing of science and learning by the Catholic Church. The Protestant Revolution enabled the Renaissance, but it took them a thousand years to get around to doing it. How advanced do you think our society would be today if we hadn't lost a thousand years of learning and progress to the influence of Christian fundamentalists?

Because religion in antiquity is SO relevent to modern religion. (Hey, France still blows!)

Ragorn: still wrong on everything :D

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

Rags, you're using "popular" myths instead of actual, historical facts. I know the Church has done its share of bad things in the past. But religion is not the opposite of science.

Sarvis wanted names, here are a few I remember learning about, most Dark Ages guys:

Francis Bacon
Ocham(sp?) - the mathematician, the Razor guy...Dark Ages
Buridan - priest, Dark Ages (do your research on him, he was a badass)
Nicolas de Oresme - math too - Dark Ages

Just a few quick ones during lunch break. I remembered something I think Oppenheimer said; that science came about as a result of Christian philosophers and "scientists" trying to figure out God's patterns and rules in life. Science is not the opposite of religion, it's just portrayed that way on TV.

[oteb]

Actually, the reason the Dark Ages happened AT ALL was because of the quashing of science and learning by the Catholic Church. The Protestant Revolution enabled the Renaissance, but it took them a thousand years to get around to doing it. How advanced do you think our society would be today if we hadn't lost a thousand years of learning and progress to the influence of Christian fundamentalists?

Holy shit.
Ragorn I usually respect your opinions but geez. That passage is just so full of misinformation, urban legends and lies that my bullshit sensor just exploded.
I think you should go study history of Europe between circa. 380AD and 1500AD.
(no I am not catholic or christian or even religious)

[Sarvis]

Science is not the opposite of religion, it's just portrayed that way on TV.

And a lot of the Christians on the internet. And certain recent Christian Presidents.

Oh, and it's Occam.

Will look at those names later...

[oteb]

Oh, and it's Occam.

Ockham. William of Ockham
http://maps.google.com/maps/mm?ie=UTF8& ... 29869&z=15
Occam is bastardized version.

[teflor the ranger]

Oh, and it's Occam.

Ockham. William of Ockham
http://maps.google.com/maps/mm?ie=UTF8& ... 29869&z=15
Occam is bastardized version.

*cackle*

[Sarvis]

Buridan - priest, Dark Ages (do your research on him, he was a badass)

Ok, wait wait wait. Maybe it's just the wikipedia article talking, but so far I've gleaned this:

1) He didn't study theology, as most other philisophers in his time did
2) He was a "secular cleric" and did not join a particular order.
3) His act of attacking William of Ockham is the beginning of religious skepticism

So yeah, I'm not arguing he didn't do some good things... but it sounds like he was leaning _away_ from the more dogmatic teachings at the time. He was probably about as unchristian as you could get away with being in his society!

Which brings up another point: If you point at anyone who did anything at all during the middle ages in Europe, they're going to be Christian. If you weren't, there was probably a nice warm stake waiting for you.

So does the fact that a few philosophers contributed to science and learning despite living in a Christian-only environment really prove Christianity helped advance human knowledge?

(Again, will look at the others later... back to work!)

[oteb]

On the margin tho. Calling William of Ockham in this discussion Adriorn is like shooting your own foot.
He was called to the court of pope and prosecuted for heresy.

[Sarvis]

On the margin tho. Calling William of Ockham in this discussion Adriorn is like shooting your own foot.
He was called to the court of pope and prosecuted for heresy.

Heh, so a non-denominational cleric with no interest in theology and a heretic... Go Christians! ;)

[oteb]

Which brings up another point: If you point at anyone who did anything at all during the middle ages in Europe, they're going to be Christian. If you weren't, there was probably a nice warm stake waiting for you.

So does the fact that a few philosophers contributed to science and learning despite living in a Christian-only environment really prove Christianity helped advance human knowledge?

On the other hand I will log on the mud and pass all my gear (and its still SHIT hot) to anyone who will take the burden of proof that it was Christianity that was direct cause of so called "Dark Ages"

[Kifle]

Rags, you're using "popular" myths instead of actual, historical facts. I know the Church has done its share of bad things in the past. But religion is not the opposite of science.

Sarvis wanted names, here are a few I remember learning about, most Dark Ages guys:

Francis Bacon
Ocham(sp?) - the mathematician, the Razor guy...Dark Ages
Buridan - priest, Dark Ages (do your research on him, he was a badass)
Nicolas de Oresme - math too - Dark Ages

Just a few quick ones during lunch break. I remembered something I think Oppenheimer said; that science came about as a result of Christian philosophers and "scientists" trying to figure out God's patterns and rules in life. Science is not the opposite of religion, it's just portrayed that way on TV.

Oppenheimer was a good physicist but a horrible historian. Science came about looooooong before Christianity was even thought of. And science, as we define it in most demarcations, is roughly the opposite of religion. Science relies on empircal evidence, testing, etc. while religion works on the opposite -- faith, belief, miracles, stories, etc. I don't even see how this is an argument...

[Kifle]

Which brings up another point: If you point at anyone who did anything at all during the middle ages in Europe, they're going to be Christian. If you weren't, there was probably a nice warm stake waiting for you.

So does the fact that a few philosophers contributed to science and learning despite living in a Christian-only environment really prove Christianity helped advance human knowledge?

On the other hand I will log on the mud and pass all my gear (and its still SHIT hot) to anyone who will take the burden of proof that it was Christianity that was direct cause of so called "Dark Ages"

Well, no matter what evidence we provide, there's not a shot in hell your mind will be changed, so I'll not take that bet.

[Ragorn]

Yeah, I really have no response to a bunch of people who just say "omg ur so wrong go read history." Nor do I have the patience or desire to even carry on a conversation with someone who doesn't believe that the corruption and lust for power of the Catholic Church were the catalyst for the Dark Ages.

Of course, we had to argue with the Christians that the Earth revolved around the Sun too, so this is really nothing new.

[oteb]

Well I have a rather open mind and I don't have a lot of use for my strings of ansi I haven't used in some years.
Tho I still don't believe certain level of animosity between church and science was a cause of civilization collapse that happened around the time Rome fell.
I also believe that similar civilization collapses happened with falls of other empires where Christians were nowhere near to be found.

[oteb]

Yeah, I really have no response to a bunch of people who just say "omg ur so wrong go read history." Nor do I have the patience or desire to even carry on a conversation with someone who doesn't believe that the corruption and lust for power of the Catholic Church were the catalyst for the Dark Ages.

Of course, we had to argue with the Christians that the Earth revolved around the Sun too, so this is really nothing new.

Dude. Your statement about Dark Ages had as much regard for facts as stating Earth revolves around the Sun.
You can't expect people to start a serious discussion if you start with absurd theory without backing it up in any reasonable arguments.

[Sarvis]

Yeah, I really have no response to a bunch of people who just say "omg ur so wrong go read history." Nor do I have the patience or desire to even carry on a conversation with someone who doesn't believe that the corruption and lust for power of the Catholic Church were the catalyst for the Dark Ages.

Of course, we had to argue with the Christians that the Earth revolved around the Sun too, so this is really nothing new.

Dude. Your statement about Dark Ages had as much regard for facts as stating Earth revolves around the Sun.
You can't expect people to start a serious discussion if you start with absurd theory without backing it up in any reasonable arguments.

I think if you want to get anywhere with Rags, or anyone for that matter, it would probably help to actually show some sources that discuss the actual causes for the Dark Ages. Clearly there is a lot of belief that Christianity induced that age, and you're better off convincing us otherwise by providing links and information that back up your claims.

Right now all you're doing is saying we're wrong and we should believe you. Unfortunately you're just as much a string of ANSI to us as your unneeded equipment... so we're not going to just take your word for it.

[Kifle]

Yeah, I really have no response to a bunch of people who just say "omg ur so wrong go read history." Nor do I have the patience or desire to even carry on a conversation with someone who doesn't believe that the corruption and lust for power of the Catholic Church were the catalyst for the Dark Ages.

Of course, we had to argue with the Christians that the Earth revolved around the Sun too, so this is really nothing new.

Dude. Your statement about Dark Ages had as much regard for facts as stating Earth revolves around the Sun.
You can't expect people to start a serious discussion if you start with absurd theory without backing it up in any reasonable arguments.

You're arguing against something that is well grounded in most historical theories about the time period. In fact, it's almost common sense these days. I'm very surprised anyone would argue against it. But, like I said, it is almost impossible to change anyone's mind -- especially in dealing with theory, regardless of whether or not it is grounded in empircal fact or not. Seriously, just google "causes of the dark ages," and I'm sure you'll find quite a few credible sources; google "christianity didn't cause the dark ages," and you'll probably only find christian websites/agendists arguing your side of the fence. To be honest, the arguments against have really fallen so far out of favor in the academic community, it has become to be categorized along with the belief that aliens founded religion.

[kiryan]

Where would japan be if we didn't rebuild them. Where would korea be if we didn't station 30,000 soliders with dollars to spend there.

India.. I think its premature to hold them up as a shining example, the majority of the country is still poor than shit and backasswards as well.

I think I can use the great Arab empire as a point of evidence for christianity. The difference between islam and christianity are not very far apart. I thought about being broader when i first made my statement, but I didn't want to get caught up in defining which religions breed prosperity and invention and which didn't.

I'm certainly not saying that Christians should be in charge or that everyone should be subservient to the western nations... but i am observing that certain countries with certain general religions tend to be prosperous and breed invention.

[Ragorn]

Considering this entire argument is about whether "Christianity" is correlated with countries that are "stable and secure," it doesn't seem like I would have to provide you with all that much backup when assering that "Christianity" was also corrleated with "the fucking dark ages."

[Ragorn]

The difference between islam and christianity are not very far apart.

Can I quote you on this the next time we have a terrorist/islamic fundamentalist thread? Because when the topic of jihadists and suicide bombers comes up, it seems that Christians typically stand in line to point out the wide differences between their religion and Islam.

[Sarvis]

Where would japan be if we didn't rebuild them. Where would korea be if we didn't station 30,000 soliders with dollars to spend there.

India.. I think its premature to hold them up as a shining example, the majority of the country is still poor than shit and backasswards as well.

I think I can use the great Arab empire as a point of evidence for christianity. The difference between islam and christianity are not very far apart. I thought about being broader when i first made my statement, but I didn't want to get caught up in defining which religions breed prosperity and invention and which didn't.

I'm certainly not saying that Christians should be in charge or that everyone should be subservient to the western nations... but i am observing that certain countries with certain general religions tend to be prosperous and breed invention.

Again: Japan.

It could also be argued, if not shown, that the most prosperous and inventive country in the world is that one that put down a separation between church and state as a founding principle. Again, the most prosperous and inventive country in the world is ALSO the one with the most religious freedom. A big part of that freedom is being allowed not to believe.

The problems in the Middle East are, aside from our own interference, largely due to heavily fundamentalist populations. These are the same people who bomb abortion clinics or protest funerals in our own country. The difference is that in the Middle East they are the majority, and it is encouraged, if not enforced, by the state.

We're better because we don't allow religion to control our lives, not because we have a different belief system.

[oteb]

It is in fact quite funny situation. We might have come to something that differs American and Euro outlook on history of Middle Ages(tho without any proof I think it might be Anglosaxon and continental Euro point of view. I this case I would blame a certain Henry:P).
Most sources I have ever touched during my academic training (2 classes 1 year course and 2 year course during architecture studies and 1,5 year during law studies) as well as other works on history placed the blame on magnitude of problems. The most prominent ones (in no semi chronological order)
-migrations from Middle Asia and subsequent migrations in west directions (I would quote specific tribes but I am too lazy to look up the proper english terms for them)
-administrative disfunction of Roman empire
-both of above lead to fall of Rome (476AD)
-the economic structure of Rome at its late age was based on large latifundia with one cetral town ( "all roads lead to Rome") with support of trade
-once the barbarian broke the limes and plundered Rome the center of the empire couldn't keep it all togather it broke into a number of tribal "countries"
-the trade came to basicly a full stop, too many borders (taxes, customs etc), travel too dangerous etc.
-around up to around V-VII cities are almost non existant (no trade), economy based in vast majority on agriculture (there is a pretty good reason why in Civilization games trade and science are so tightly knit)
So we are between V and VIII age. Former Roman empire:
-Northern Africa, Spain(I will mostly go by current countries rather than geographical terms for easier reference)- conquered by Arabs with some germanic tribes.
-France- partially celtic, partially germanic(subdivided by feudal system, its not one country by current means), partially roman
-Germany- mostly germanic tribes, slavonic tribes
-UK-celtic, norman and some others
-Italy - too fucked up mixture to be summrized
-Eastern part - split off
-Balkans - a pathwork of germanic tribes.
Then we have some effort mainly by Charlemagne to unify the mess. After his death the frankish country was split to what will become France and Germany.
-Unification of land was in fact quite slow. The feudal system lead to many setbacks, as both France and Germany broke apart into (rough translation) because of long lasting flaws in feudal system (till XII). Borders and taxes were still killing trade up to crusades which opened new trade routes to middle east.
-Opening new trade routes couple with unification of land, and removing borders lead to growth of cities.
-Trading produces enough profit without manual labor, as well as enough people congregated that you can have people devoted to science, art etc.
-This pretty much leads to rediscovering antiquity, ancient philosphers etc and renaisance.

[oteb]

Again, the most prosperous and inventive country in the world is ALSO the one with the most religious freedom. A big part of that freedom is being allowed not to believe.

The problems in the Middle East are, aside from our own interference, largely due to heavily fundamentalist populations.

Have you ever wondered where are the names of stars form, which nation formed basis of modern astronomy, maths (some examples to give you a clue algorithm algebra aldebaran)

[Sarvis]

Again, the most prosperous and inventive country in the world is ALSO the one with the most religious freedom. A big part of that freedom is being allowed not to believe.

The problems in the Middle East are, aside from our own interference, largely due to heavily fundamentalist populations.

Have you ever wondered where are the names of stars form, which nation formed basis of modern astronomy, maths (some examples to give you a clue algorithm algebra aldebaran)

Yes, I know the middle east contributed a lot to mathmatics. They don't contribute much of anything to anything today.

Now, were they as fundamentalist then as they are now?

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

Yeah, I really have no response to a bunch of people who just say "omg ur so wrong go read history." Nor do I have the patience or desire to even carry on a conversation with someone who doesn't believe that the corruption and lust for power of the Catholic Church were the catalyst for the Dark Ages.

Of course, we had to argue with the Christians that the Earth revolved around the Sun too, so this is really nothing new.

Again, Ragorn, you're the one being sarcastic and not giving proof of anything. I gave some quick names in 5 minutes, there are many, many more. Kifle, you also state it as being "fact". I've never in my life been taught it, or read it. Also, no sources cited... The causes or catalysts of the Dark Ages are usually pinged on the collapse of the Roman Empire, and the extensive corruption it held, the horrific decline of crops & agriculture in many places (some speculate due to a massive volcanic eruption or abnormally cold and long winters), the constant attacks by looters and bandits, etc., etc. I can understand how someone might believe Christianity didn't HELP getting humanity out of such a state, but it definitely wasn't the cause. Kifle, I can understand how usually on the Internet, people refuse to show they were wrong, or change opinions or whatnot. Sarvis, on another thread, gave two good points about art, which I conceded to him; when given real facts or good rationale, only a fool wouldn't. But so far, there has been no counter-evidence presented here, just "oh but that's just the way it is".

Oh Sarvis, check out Mateo Ricci. One of the first westerners to be granted access to China and audiences because of his knowledge and wisdom. He brought western knowledge to China, especially math and astronomy concepts, and viceversa. A Jesuit priest. Hmm more Jesuits: Grimaldi & Riccioli, two normally cited examples. The guy who found a cure to Yellow Fever, as well as the belief that mosquitoes carried it, was a Jesuit-trained doctor, Carlos Finlay, as well as a devout Catholic. We Cubans know the name well :) The scientific community ridiculed him for years when he published his ideas. He was also nominated several times for the Noble prize, and lost...

Oh and as a bonus: look up who came up with the Big Bang theory. Read a little about him too. He's a good answer to the idea that religion and science can't mix.

[oteb]

Now, were they as fundamentalist then as they are now?

No idea. But judging by the fact that in 200years they spreaded islam all over north africa, persia and spain I would bet on it.

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

Now, were they as fundamentalist then as they are now?

Debatable. Some historians have argued their attempts at conquering all of Spain, and beyond, are examples against believing such. Others, however, have pointed out that, in many places throughout Spain, you had at any given time, three different religious groups living in "harmony" in many cities: Jews, Catholics, and Muslims. Muslims also had a huge interest in western knowledge, and while they gave much in terms of knowledge and language, they also absorbed much as well. Regardless, they also attempted, at various times, other such attacks and attempts to conquer different parts of Europe. Shrug Sarvis. There are millions of "good" Muslims out there, and I'm sure such was the case back then too. Not all are/were terrorists.

[oteb]

Oh back to Middle Ages discussion. Kifle told me to google it so I ended up on wiki page.

"The breakdown of Roman society was dramatic. The patchwork of petty rulers was incapable of supporting the depth of civic infrastructure required to maintain libraries, public baths, arenas, and major educational institutions. Any new building was on a far smaller scale than before. The social effects of the fracture of the Roman state were manifold. Cities and merchants lost the economic benefits of safe conditions for trade and manufacture, and intellectual development suffered from the loss of a unified cultural and educational milieu of far-ranging connections. As it became unsafe to travel or carry goods over any distance, there was a collapse in trade and manufacture for export. The major industries that depended on long-distance trade, such as large-scale pottery manufacture, vanished almost overnight in places like Britain. Whereas sites like Tintagel in Cornwall (the extreme southwest of modern day England) had managed to obtain supplies of Mediterranean luxury goods well into the 6th century, this connection was now lost.

Between the 5th and 8th centuries, new peoples and powerful individuals filled the political void left by Roman centralized government. Germanic tribes established regional hegemonies within the former boundaries of the Empire, creating divided, decentralized kingdoms like those of the Ostrogoths in Italy, the Visigoths in Hispania, the Franks and Burgundians in Gaul and western Germany, the Angles and the Saxons in Britain, and the Vandals in North Africa.

Roman landholders beyond the confines of city walls were also vulnerable to extreme changes, and they could not simply pack up their land and move elsewhere. Some were dispossessed and fled to Byzantine regions; others quickly pledged their allegiances to their new rulers. In areas like Spain and Italy, this often meant little more than acknowledging a new overlord, while Roman forms of law and religion could be maintained. In other areas, where there was a greater weight of population movement, it might be necessary to adopt new modes of dress, language, and custom.

The Muslim conquests of the 7th and 8th centuries of the Persian Empire, Roman Syria, Roman Egypt, Roman North Africa, Visigothic Spain and Portugal, Sicily and southern Italy eroded the area of the Roman Empire and controlled strategic areas of the Mediterranean Sea. By the end of the 8th century, the former Western Roman Empire was decentralized and overwhelmingly rural."

Pretty much same shit I posted just with way better english. If wiki which is pretty much "vox populi" says that where did you get the idea of "common knowledge" the collapse being of Christian orgin?

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

To own: To recognize, often reluctantly, the reality or truth of.

[Sarvis]

There are millions of "good" Muslims out there, and I'm sure such was the case back then too. Not all are/were terrorists.

I never meant to suggest they were. I'm only noting that it's mostly violence and strife we see in the middle east these days, and that their society is very fundamentalist.

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

Oh no, Sarvis, I know. Never thought you meant otherwise. I was just pointing it out. Check out Big Bang guy yet? :)

[oteb]

There are millions of "good" Muslims out there, and I'm sure such was the case back then too. Not all are/were terrorists.

I never meant to suggest they were. I'm only noting that it's mostly violence and strife we see in the middle east these days, and that their society is very fundamentalist.

Switch from CNN to Al-Jazeera and you will get A TOTALLY DIFFERENT picture. It was kinda my hobby to try to capture stories about same subject in both stations. It was pretty hilarious at times.

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

Btw Sarvis, just thought about what you had said about Occam and Buridan. Remember, even though the Church might have had problems with them, it doesn't mean they weren't religious or good Christians, per se. It might, but it might not. It also doesn't detract from the fact that they got their education and capacity to reason from religious upbringings during the time, which as you said, were pretty much the norm. Exactly :)

[Sarvis]

Btw Sarvis, just thought about what you had said about Occam and Buridan. Remember, even though the Church might have had problems with them, it doesn't mean they weren't religious or good Christians, per se. It might, but it might not. It also doesn't detract from the fact that they got their education and capacity to reason from religious upbringings during the time, which as you said, were pretty much the norm. Exactly :)

Norm isn't the right word. "Only choice" is more accurate.

So yes, Christianity educated them... however had Christianity not been there something else would have as well. Education is not something only the religious desire or promote.

The question is still whether Christianity overall hampered them (or others) or promoted learning.

The problem for you is that Christians have made a bit of a habit of burning literature they disagree with. How much Celtic literature was lost as Christianity took over, for instance?

The worst part is they are still up to their old tricks. Missionaries visited the Mek tribe in the amazon and forced them to burn their ceremonial shields because they were a symbol of the old beliefs... granted that's not literature, but it would almost certainly have been in the fire if the Mek had discovered writing.

Christians in America seem to still like the idea as well: http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15610.

You can point out all the Christian scientists you want, and there are going to be a lot of them. (You know, given that most of our population is Christian and scientists are part of our population.) But unfortunately large portions of Christianity are going to burn books, ignore science and lobby for laws that prevent progress.

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

Sarvis, man, you just totally ruined everything you had going and destroyed all your credibility. I think you just want to hate Christianity, and that's that. Regardless of what we present, the answer is hate, or "yeah but you did that SO YOU ARE WRONG". I couldn't believe it when I read it, honestly, it was like a little kid having a tantrum and ignoring everything that was just shown. I really thought reading about Lemaitre would be a ground breaker, since he's from this century, and not the middle ages. I guess not.

So yes, Christianity educated them...however had Christianity not been there something else would have as well. Education is not something only the religious desire or promote.

Had my grandmother been born with tires she would have been a bicycle. Worst. reply. ever.

The question is still whether Christianity overall hampered them (or others) or promoted learning.

See:

So yes, Christianity educated them...

The problem for you is that Christians have made a bit of a habit of burning literature they disagree with. How much Celtic literature was lost as Christianity took over, for instance? The worst part is they are still up to their old tricks. Missionaries visited the Mek tribe in the amazon and forced them to burn their ceremonial shields because they were a symbol of the old beliefs... granted that's not literature, but it would almost certainly have been in the fire if the Mek had discovered writing.

Yes, they have, at many points in history, through a desire to help (prevent worship of Pagan gods), they erred and destroyed parts of our history. They did not prevent people from being educated however, they just did not teach them about pagan Celtic lit, Mayan lit, etc. They kept educating people in math, science, etc. all throughout this time. What was lost was mainly of literary and artistic value, yes.

You can point out all the Christian scientists you want, and there are going to be a lot of them. (You know, given that most of our population is Christian and scientists are part of our population.) But unfortunately large portions of Christianity are going to burn books, ignore science and lobby for laws that prevent progress.

No, small portions of Christianity are going to burn books(?) and ignore science. You hear about it alot of TV and on the Internet though right? So it gives the impression of large numbers, MILLIONS. As for the laws, I would say what you define as progress might be what I call the opposite, or it might not.

I feel let down...

[Sarvis]

I feel let down...

You feel let down? I'm not the one who resorted to insults while missing the point.

Yes, people were Christian educated. They had to be. It was the only option.

They were educated by people who destroyed entire cultures and the knowledge contained within those cultures.

Without Christians, they could have learned everything the Celts had to teach as well as whatever knowledge the Christians deemed worth keeping around.

Can you HONESTLY say that they were as well educated as they could have been without knowledge being destroyed by Christians? There is one simple fact here: The amount of knowledge in the world was reduced by Christians, even as they created some of their own. The thing is, those men who did advance us would have done so without Christianity as well.

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

You feel let down? I'm not the one who resorted to insults while missing the point.

I never insulted either. Who did?

They were educated by people who destroyed entire cultures and the knowledge contained within those cultures. Without Christians, they could have learned everything the Celts had to teach as well as whatever knowledge the Christians deemed worth keeping around.

No Sarvis, Christians did not destroy entire cultures. That is a totally ignorant and, more importantly, incorrect statement. They destroyed the pagan elements of that culture, and that's it. Many priests in South American did their best to learn the native language so they could use it, as well as the traditions of the Indians, to better convert them, as well as learn from them. And I think I gave some good examples of how the same, even more, took place in China, and also in Japan with St. Francis Xavier.

The thing is, those men who did advance us would have done so without Christianity as well.

No, they did so because of the predominant norms of teaching and critical thinking, which were Christian run. They were able to do what they did because Christian scholars and monks were there to educate them. Without them little would have been learned, except maybe basic agriculture and carpentry...

Btw, the sub-topic at hand was about Christianity starting the Dark Ages, actually, not about this. I think Oteb and I gave enough HISTORICAL accounts showing otherwise.

[teflor the ranger]

Reading this forum is like reading the faces of ignorance.

It's wonderful that so many of you see so much of one face of a concept. Now stop ignoring the other faces of it and put the whole thing together.

Religion didn't cause the dark ages or any other human problems. People cause people problems (or, at least, they are all that we can hold responsible right now). Get over your wrong ideas and the stupid defense of them. A belief in science is still a belief, and for many people a type of religion. Beliefs are beliefs when they aren't backed by strong evidence of causation, correlation, and duplication.

It is as much a folley to have faith in man [gratuitous link], as it is to an invisible power that both exists and does not.

That being said, christianity in history has been a very conservative power that has held back scientific advancement. I don't believe the same can be said about modern christianity, particularly in the United States for the last two hundred years. Religions that still hold back human and scientific achievement are all held to be radical, even in Islam.

Modern mainstream religion is actually quite condusive to the development of technology. Even the televangalists are using YouTube and are concentrating their message on what you watch, rather than to throw your TV devil-box out the window.

[Kifle]

Btw, the sub-topic at hand was about Christianity starting the Dark Ages, actually, not about this. I think Oteb and I gave enough HISTORICAL accounts showing otherwise.

I think you and oteb are arguing something completely different than what any of us actually meant by our statements. I can't speak for anyone else by myself, but my statements were more pointed towards intellectual stopage rather than government collapse. The 'Dark Ages' are called such for a few reasons; however, the most well known is because intellectual discovery, advancement, and opportunity had almost completely stopped. And notice I am qualifying my statement by saying "almost completely." My original statements were not made in relation to the fall of the roman empire. And, while I'm sure you can dig up a few famous names here and there that appear during the Dark Ages, their advancements are only recognized because they were made during that time period, and they were few and far between.

If we look at the time period of Chaucer, who was, I believe at the end of the Dark Ages, we see a lot into the actual lives of people rather than the academic lives that are portrayed in the writings (because those are the only people who wrote...). Using what you find in the proper context is much more insightful than using it out of context. Hell, look at the writings of Old English and tell me you can glean anything about the actual culture of Anglo-Saxon England...

[kiryan]

I don't think any follower of Christ or the Catholic church... before or after the dark ages... would say that Christianity and Catholicism were being practiced. Its just like most Islamists would say that the extremists are not following Islam.

There are a ton of shared beliefs between Judaism, Christianity, Catholicism, Mormonism and Islam. There are some "doozies" that differentiate the various sects, but essentially they are the same in most of their core points. Quote me all you want Ragorn.

[Ragorn]

Yeah, I'm very familiar with the good ol' "well those people aren't REAL Christians" argument. Doesn't really hold water in my opinion, particularly because every sect of Christianity picks and chooses the passages from the bible that they elect to follow... so really, NONE of you are real Christians except biblical literalists, and you all pretty much laugh them off anyway.

[Sarvis]

You feel let down? I'm not the one who resorted to insults while missing the point.

I never insulted either. Who did?

Dude, you said I destroyed my credibility and threw a tantrum like a child. Even in this post you call me ignorant a couple times.

You did.

No Sarvis, Christians did not destroy entire cultures.

Wow, for all the flak I take for straw man arguments around here this is quite a doozy. Yes, I said they destroyed cultures... but you ignored everything else I said to focus on one half of a sentence out of context. Even then, I'm sure I could find examples of how they destroyed of corrupted aspects of cultures. Frankly it's probably not even possible for a culture to remain the same after interaction with outside cultures, so the point is a bit moot anyway. Interactions shouldn't involve forcing belief systems on people or destroying their knowledge though, which is kind of the real point I was making.

No, they did so because of the predominant norms of teaching and critical thinking, which were Christian run. They were able to do what they did because Christian scholars and monks were there to educate them. Without them little would have been learned, except maybe basic agriculture and carpentry...

Wait, what? You're saying only Christians could have educated people? If Christianity had never existed, there would have been no education?

That's kind of funny, considering the Greeks, Romans, Arabs and Mayans educated people long before Christianity even existed. In fact, a big part of the renaissance was a rediscovery of the teachings of the Greeks and Romans... which came before Christianity.

Btw, the sub-topic at hand was about Christianity starting the Dark Ages, actually, not about this. I think Oteb and I gave enough HISTORICAL accounts showing otherwise.

Actually part of the sub-topic at hand was whether the Christians had prolonged the dark ages 1000 years.

See, it's right here:

Actually, the reason the Dark Ages happened AT ALL was because of the quashing of science and learning by the Catholic Church. The Protestant Revolution enabled the Renaissance, but it took them a thousand years to get around to doing it. How advanced do you think our society would be today if we hadn't lost a thousand years of learning and progress to the influence of Christian fundamentalists?

[oteb]

If not the church would Renaissance even happen?
It was the church that preserved latin.
From same wiki article again:

The Catholic Church was the major unifying cultural influence, preserving its selection from Latin learning, maintaining the art of writing, and a centralized administration through its network of bishops

In middle ages it was almost exclusively clergy that could right and read.

[Sarvis]

If not the church would Renaissance even happen?
It was the church that preserved latin.
From same wiki article again:

The Catholic Church was the major unifying cultural influence, preserving its selection from Latin learning, maintaining the art of writing, and a centralized administration through its network of bishops

In middle ages it was almost exclusively clergy that could right and read.

Not to harp on grammar/spelling or anything, but when defending the church for their efforts to preserve literacy it's kind of hilarious that you'd use the wrong word... ;)

Anyway, it's funny that you mention it was exclusively clergy that could read and write... since that tells me they weren't even attempting to educate anyone that wasn't going to be a priest. Kind of hard to see advancements if you're only educating .01% of the population, I'd bet.

Of course, a couple thousand years later it DOES give you the opportunity to claim Christian priests made scientific discoveries and advancements... since they were the only ones who had an opportunity to do so.

[Ragorn]

When the church causes a problem, I do not applaud them when they solve it a millenium later.

[oteb]

Not to harp on grammar/spelling or anything, but when defending the church for their efforts to preserve literacy it's kind of hilarious that you'd use the wrong word... ;)

Well ya sorry. I am layman:P Also I apologize for my spelling and grammar. As an excuse I can say English is only my 3rd language and still far from perfection. I will try to reroll in Englad during next incarnation.

When the church causes a problem, I do not applaud them when they solve it a millenium later.

[/quote]
I think you still need to put at least some effort to prove your theory if you are trying to join this discussion.