Why Stefan is Wrong About Atheism

[the duck of reason]

I'm currently converting to Christianity, so the following may be a different perspective from others'.  At least it's new for me.

 

During the video, especially near the end, one line from my limited grasp of Scripture kept ringing in my head.  When Pontius Pilate asks the Jews if their King is to be crucified, the chief priests cry "We have no King but Caesar!".  Their rejection of Christ is simultaneously the clinging to Caesar's authority (to kill, no less).  I cannot think of a better illustration of Stefan's point that there are people exchanging God for government.

 

 

WasatchMan said:

> Atheism is a new cultural phenomenon which has greatly expanded due to the Information Age. It is the rebellious teenager who has woken up one day and realized that his parents rules are authoritarian, abusive, and manipulative and decides that he is no longer subject to their rules. However, there is no other direction available to him to fill that void. He becomes the rebel without a cause. He finds his new rules in other lost teenagers, in the nihilistic programming of the media, in his leftist teacher who tells him everything is relative and there is no right or preferable values, well except altruism of course. The void left by his authoritarian parents is filled by chance and by whatever other ideological structure is already formed to step in.

 

I can't argue with that, but I'd like to suggest something else is at play, at least with leftist atheists.

Yes, part of this is a rejection of religion.  However, I think it is entwined with a rejection of reality.  Whether God and reality can truly be divorced I'll leave alone, because we don't need to go that far.  Let's just work with the "denial of reality" angle.

 

I expect the "rebellious teenager" WasatchMan mentions would chafe at anyone or any "thing" (reality) telling him what is, and thereby informing him what he should do.  There was a saying in my youth: "I reject your reality and substitute my own."  It was a joke back then, but I think it's a common modus operandi today.

 

Then the void left by his authoritarian parents isn't just filled by chance, etc.  The void left by reality is fantasy, delusion.  Now he is free to ignore sexual differences, racial differences, cultural differences, etc.  Men can go into the women's restroom as long as they "identify" as female.  The abnormal is to be considered normal, and how dare anyone say otherwise.  Government programs will produce the claimed results.  Taxation isn't theft.  Killing isn't murder if you wear a uniform.  The list goes on, and they are topics naturally covered in FDR podcasts.  Stefan focuses on facts, reason, and evidence.  That leads him head-on against the left and leftist atheists.

 

To be more succinct, I suggest that (many) leftist atheists are not necessarily atheists first who were later subsumed into the left.  Instead, I think these people are at least superficially individualistic, but they do not universalize.  They are also disconnected from reality, and perhaps affluence facilitates this disconnect.  They deny the more obvious external controlling factors (God, tradition, culture).  And sooner or later, as the world doesn't match their fantasy and others don't necessarily play along, they resort to the State for enforcement and coercion.  They may still claim to be atheist as they bow to Caesar.

 

 

WasatchMan later said:

> Christianity made up 86% of the US population in 1990, 78.6% in 2001, 70.6% in 2014 therefore the dominant cultural force we are living today came from a Christian dominated culture.

 

Wouldn't it make more sense to say that the cultural changes we see today coincide with the decline of Christianity?  If anything, I think the numbers count against your argument, and we are living with the diminishing remnant of a Christian-influenced culture.

[rosencrantz]

rosencrantz, your survey of history seems selective to me. I don't see how things got worse for people in protestant countries - those became leading industrial nations that pioneered widely implementing concepts that we know today as libretarianism. The main protestant distinctive is belief in universal priesthood of every believer that in effect leveled the authority field.

 

You have to be selective when you want to summarize the history of Western Christianity in a few lines 

 

The reason for the Industrial Revolution is most likely high wages which lead to a process of automisation. The roots for Libertarianism are more Catholic than Protestant. After all, the Dominicans argued for no protective tariffs as early as the 13th century and Aquinas sought to limit the role of a king drastically.  

 

In Lutheran countries you had little choice but to go church and signal as a good Christian. The Lutheran Church used magistrates and police to enforce their doctrine in both theology and the way society was organised. 

 

I can't see how this is an improvement to say the Medieval Ages were you had a much larger market to choose from. Not to speak that you could be an agnostic as long as you didn't bother anyone. 

[fraytormenta]

 rosencrantz, I can't agree with you here - let's keep talking.

 

(1) Saying that industrial revolution was due to high wages is getting it completely backwards. First, education lead to technological innovation which brought increase of wages due to introduction of labor-saving devices. Education that was advanced enough was the child of the Church (neither China nor Persia having better system for years were unable to capitalize on it). I'd say the "push" to mass steel production should be credited first of all to cistertian monks, which is also a prerequisite to steam engine/railroad.

 

(2) While there was a councilliar movement in the RCC around the time of Aquinas as you have pointed out, it was too small and it got smashed. Protestant Christianity produced intellectuals that derived autonomy from private Bible reading in the vernacular without the help of the priest - that is the birth of libretarianism. You have provided a counter example, but it doesn't suffice as or amount to explanation - you have to trace it to 19th century and show who those people are and where they lived (non-catholics in mostly protestant countries).

 

(3) Lutheran church is part of what is called "magesterial reformation," as Luther himself being as catholic as possible except for correcting the worst offenses of the RCC. Libraterianism comes from movement called "radical reformation" who criticized Luther and Lutheran church for stopping at just doctrinal reform without reaching for the social and political. The biggest group of those were anabaptists, but you also had dozens of smaller groups such baptists, quakers, hutterites, waldenses, etc. So you are right about the Lutheran church, but also wrong because it is not what I meant when I said "libretarianism came from protestant countries" - very few protestant countries are Lutheran.

[AncapFTW]

I never got why so many Atheists are statists.  I've actually heard them say things like "we don't need a god to tell us what's good and evil, the law will punish us if we do X (insert evil thing).

 

Guess what, the law also makes you do evil things and prevents you from doing good.

[junglecat]

I loved this video and felt the urge to join the group just so I could talk about it!

 

Stefan is objectively Christian, no doubt. If he were introduced to the interpretation of the Biblical scriptures of French philosopher René Girard I believe he would agree wholeheartedly.

 

The main difference in Girard's approach to Christianity and "evangelical" Christianity is in the understanding of the atonement.  Evangelicals believe in penal substitution, that is, God demands the death of his son to pay for the sins of humanity- an absurd notion taken at face value.

 

Girard's approach begins with his theory of how society is structured, the Mimetic Theory.  The theory states that people are mimetic. Everything they learn is through imitation. A child imitates his parents. Children imitate other children, and so on. Conflicts arise when desires converge on the same object. Two children playing will fight over the same toy. You can give the one of the children an identical toy and it will not solve the fight. This is because it is not actually the thing itself that is being fought over but the idea of the thing. As we get older our desires become more abstract; prestige, power, money, etc.

What keeps society ordered and not falling into the war of all against all, as Hobbes put it, is the scapegoat mechanism. As conflicts arise and become more numerous at some point the people unite against a single victim. This single victim is then seen as the cause of all the problems in the community. This victim is then killed or driven out. Suddenly, there is peace in the community again. This victim that was a moment before the cause of all of the community's problems now becomes a god. This is the god of the ancient world and the god of our modern world to a significant faction still. How is peace maintained? Through violence, of course.

 

Girard would say Jesus had to die, not to appease his father, but to lay bare the scapegoat mechanism upon which culture was founded.  Jesus asks, "How can Satan cast out Satan?"  Since the death and resurrection of Jesus, this mechanism no longer brings peace to the community but only more and more violence because Jesus deprives us of the efficacy of sacrifice. The kingdom of Satan (peace through violence) is divided against itself and can not stand.

 

Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek, walk the extra mile, etc. not for us to be masochists but to stop the escalation of violence. It is a rule of thumb for not letting the violence get out of hand. The Holy Spirit is very visible in today's world. We see it in our hyper-awareness of victims. We see it in the 'political correctness' of the day. We can say that we save more victims than we ever have in history and at the same time we also kill more victims than ever before. Jesus' parable of the wheat and the weeds is key. The Holy Spirit is growing at the same time the anti-Christ spirit is growing.

 

The problem with atheists in general (and Christians, for that matter) is that they believe religion is primarily about God the creator of everything. This is false. Archaic religion is about two things: prohibitions and sacrifice. We are living in a world now where sacrifice no longer brings us peace and prohibitions are becoming more and more obsolete. If the world does not follow the rules of the Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus laid out then humanity will indeed perish as he predicted. The judgement statements of Jesus were not him warning of God's violence, but the violence of man against man.  

 

I'm very interested to hear what the group thinks about these ideas and if they have ever read anything by René Girard. I hope the thought of Girard can make it's way to Stefan because he seems to me already almost there. 

[shirgall]

The problem with atheists in general (and Christians, for that matter) is that they believe religion is primarily about God the creator of everything. This is false. Archaic religion is about two things: prohibitions and sacrifice. We are living in a world now where sacrifice no longer brings us peace and prohibitions are becoming more and more obsolete. If the world does not follow the rules of the Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus laid out then humanity will indeed perish as he predicted. The judgement statements of Jesus were not him warning of God's violence, but the violence of man against man.  

 

The point is that there are rational atheists with good values and skepticism of the state, and they should be nurtured as much as philosophically-minded Christians who don't overly rely on faith as an excuse for objectively immoral actions.

[junglecat]

The point is that there are rational atheists with good values and skepticism of the state, and they should be nurtured as much as philosophically-minded Christians who don't overly rely on faith as an excuse for objectively immoral actions.

Can you explain your concept of Christians using faith as an excuse for objectively immoral actions?  And how do you distinguish an objectively immoral action from a subjective one? Is there such a thing?

[shirgall]

Can you explain your concept of Christians using faith as an excuse for objectively immoral actions?  And how do you distinguish an objectively immoral action from a subjective one? Is there such a thing?

 

I have witnessed in my life people using faith to justify all sorts of things, including beating children and invading nations. There are plenty of good Christians that don't use faith like this, but one does need to weed out the bad ones.

 

As for objectively moral, there's a book on it right on this site.

[junglecat]

I have witnessed in my life people using faith to justify all sorts of things, including beating children and invading nations. There are plenty of good Christians that don't use faith like this, but one does need to weed out the bad ones.

 

As for objectively moral, there's a book on it right on this site.

I guess it all depends on what you mean by faith and what your faith is in. I'll look into this book. Thank you. Any thoughts on René Girard's theory? I found it extremely relevant to Stefan's video.

[Mister Mister]

You have to be selective when you want to summarize the history of Western Christianity in a few lines 

 

The reason for the Industrial Revolution is most likely high wages which lead to a process of automisation. The roots for Libertarianism are more Catholic than Protestant. After all, the Dominicans argued for no protective tariffs as early as the 13th century and Aquinas sought to limit the role of a king drastically.  

 

In Lutheran countries you had little choice but to go church and signal as a good Christian. The Lutheran Church used magistrates and police to enforce their doctrine in both theology and the way society was organised. 

 

I can't see how this is an improvement to say the Medieval Ages were you had a much larger market to choose from. Not to speak that you could be an agnostic as long as you didn't bother anyone. 

  Sorry I'm no expert on these things, but didn't the biggest advances in the free market, both in terms of practical applications, and philosophical defense, come from more Protestant countries, particularly England and Holland?  And if you look at things today, it seems that the more Catholic places like Latin America, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, France??  and so on, are more susceptible to socialism than the relatively freer US, Canada, UK, Australia, Scandinavia, and so on, who are historically more Protestant/secular.

[junglecat]

  Sorry I'm no expert on these things, but didn't the biggest advances in the free market, both in terms of practical applications, and philosophical defense, come from more Protestant countries, particularly England and Holland?  And if you look at things today, it seems that the more Catholic places like Latin America, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, France??  and so on, are more susceptible to socialism than the relatively freer US, Canada, UK, Australia, Scandinavia, and so on, who are historically more Protestant/secular.

[Des]

Problem with an intelligent atheist is that, while knowing the right thing to do, has no rational reason to do that right thing in a moral pinch when self-interest is involved. It is just weighing of potential negative repercussions that becomes the measuring stick of morality in practice (not talking about theory).

moral pinch, hmmm.

Why is Mr X the atheist limiting himself to moral actions? Because he wants other people to do likewise, and finds it hard to convince them to do that when he is not.

What could create this moral pinch of which you speak? People whose actions will not respond to a decision Mr X makes to limit himself to moral actions. For example, whether Mr X immorally operates a drone to murder an ISIS operative, or he does not, ISIS will continue to commit murders, unresponsive to the moral character of Mr X's decision.

Would that be the moral pinch you mention?

[BrotherKev]

Faith is the belief in things unseen. Faith is a choice that everyone must make. I have a KJV Bible, I've studied it and I understand it's purpose. Nobody can understand it without proper study.

[shirgall]

Faith is the belief in things unseen. Faith is a choice that everyone must make. I have a KJV Bible, I've studied it and I understand it's purpose. Nobody can understand it without proper study.

 

Faith is *not* a choice everyone must make, unless one has already made the choice to accept a faith and then must decide whether to relent. The default position is no faith on any extraordinary claim. Credible people accept extraordinary claims too easily. Malleable people might be easily convinced. Skeptical people require evidence.

[BrotherKev]

Please allow me to amend my ignorant redneck grammar.

 

To have faith in something, or not, is a personal choice that we each have the freedom to make.

[Goldenages]

Well, if its claimed that religious people (I talk about christians) do not force anybody to do anything, that might be true - today, in our secular western world.

But thats only a spotlight onto a history of religious violence.

 

History shows tons of evidence, that whenever religion rules, or at least influence rulers, it does force people.

As religion is not based on reason and evidence, it is a bad fundament for society.

 

Likewise, I could claim that modern welfare states are good for the poor and the underprivileged. That also might be true - today, in our mixed economy world.

But thats only a spotlight onto a history of socialistic violence.

 

History shows tons of evidence that whenever the welfare state rules, he makes people poor.

As socialism is not based on reason and evidence, it is a bad fundament for society.

 

regards

Andi

[Goldenages]

 

He hasn't proven that the nihilism and leftism of the majority of atheists is a cause of atheism or atheism...

(Quote from Wasatchmen)

 

Mabe Stephan refers to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism.

I have read some of them when I was young, and yes, they are left, and they are desperate, cause they removed God and replaced it with - nothing.

So frankly said, all their writing is a whining about  existence  

But certainly I am not smart enough to understand the deeper meaning of this thaughts.

 

But I can recommend the work of Ayn Rand. She replaces God with reason

 

 

regards

Andi

[shirgall]

Well, if its claimed that religious people (I talk about christians) do not force anybody to do anything, that might be true - today, in our secular western world.

But thats only a spotlight onto a history of religious violence.

 

History shows tons of evidence, that whenever religion rules, or at least influence rulers, it does force people.

As religion is not based on reason and evidence, it is a bad fundament for society.

 

Likewise, I could claim that modern welfare states are good for the poor and the underprivileged. That also might be true - today, in our mixed economy world.

But thats only a spotlight onto a history of socialistic violence.

 

History shows tons of evidence that whenever the welfare state rules, he makes people poor.

As socialism is not based on reason and evidence, it is a bad fundament for society.

 

Religion and political systems do not force people to do things--other people do, citing whatever reasons for doing so that suits their fancy.

[Donnadogsoth]

Now we stumble across this teenager, what do we do? Do we cower in disgust at what the nihilist anti-intellectual culture and leftists teachers has filled him with and tell him to go back to his authoritarian abusive parents because at least he would have structure? Or do we teach him how to think? How to reason? How to rebuild a new structure on the solid foundation of philosophy? Stefan, we have to give these people who are leaving religion a new foundation, the right methodology of thinking - philosophy. Don't send people back to religion because you are disgusted with what the void of religion and what it has been filled with so far.  Lets build the RIGHT structure, one built on reason, logic, consistent methodologies, and then fill this void as much as we can.  Push back nihilism and leftism - demonstrate it to be the evil that it is.  Do not retreat back to religious dogma and superstition as a form of structure.  The change is going to happen regardless, and if we aren't there Marxism will continue to feed off of the rebels.  You have made huge strides already to present a new way, a way of thinking, thoughtfulness, logic, philosophy, don’t give up now.

 

We tell the teenager that attempts to make religions without God have already been made, by Auguste Comte and by L. Ron Hubbard, along with less ritualised alternatives to Christian thought as those by Karl Marx, Ayn Rand, Robert Ingersoll and the 19th Century freethinker movement, not to mention the French Revolution's "Liberté, égalité, fraternité".  All of these "revolutionary" doctrines  have proven underwhelming and have not managed, yet, to supplant Christianity.

 

It's a hoary lie that Christianity and Reason are somehow incompatible.  Augustine, Aquinas, Roger Bacon, Nicholaus of Cusa, Gregor Mendel, the Church boasts many men of the cloth who dedicated themselves to reason and science, committed to the knowledge that God is rational as is the world that he has made, and that as man is made in his image, man can follow in his footsteps and achieve real and useful knowledge about the world.

 

It was the Christians who rebuilt Europe after the fall of the Roman empire, largely using the precious libraries of the industrious Irish monks, and it was Christians who realised the Renaissance, the creation of the first nation-state after the principle of the general welfare (a huge advance in personal liberty and governmental accountability), and who created the possibility of the scientific, industrial, and social revolutions in succeeding centuries.

 

If there is going to be an anarcho-capitalist future, it is not going to come about in a revolutionary fashion à la Marxism, which outranks it in terms of appeal to the conscience through the maxim “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” What does an anarcho-capitalism--untempered by Christian love of God and neighbour, by natural law and satisfying worship, and by Christianity's deep intermingling with the thought and glory of the thinkers of ancient Europe--offer but “every man for himself”?

 

A Christian anarcho-capitalism remains plausible. But the West dominated by Atheism will not be dominated by it for long, as it will soon be devoured by the lean, hungry barbarians to the East. Christianity has been historically a strength for Europe. The faith—which is more akin to the faith a man has in his chair or his steed (plenty), not the faith a man has in the edibility of his dreams (none)--comes from the fact of the Resurrection, as witnessed by hundreds, many of whom went on to prove their faith as martyrs. Why would those who could check the facts for themselves, martyr themselves? So the Atheist attack depends on dismissing Christ as an historical figure, as well we should dismiss Julius Cæsar or Joan D'Arc; depends on tales of mass hallucinations, conspiracy, or UFOs. Really? The faith has survived this long not because people are gullible but because the foundation for it, the psychological insights it offers, are strong.

 

Take heart, lad. Europe, Christ, the Church, Science, Reason, we're all on your side. We didn't live this long just to die. But Atheism will not stop the barbarians, and an Atheist religion is something worse than a joke at this late date. Something to ponder, maybe.

[Goldenages]

Sufficient reason will always eclude gods.

Sufficient faith will always exclude some reason.

 

Yes it is true that it was Christians wo rebuilt a pale reflexion of the Roman Empire.

But first, they made some major contributions to destroy it, they closed schools and theaters, forbid the Philosophers, made poverty a virtue, and within decades all but the priests were illiterate.

Second, of course it was Christians, cause there was no one else around any more. Monotheism does not allow rivaly.

Likewise, one could say that the Bolschewiki rebuilt Russia - after they destroyed it and killed everybody who opponed.

In both cases I would not say that they did any good.

 

The Christianisation of whole Europe took centuries. After Theodosius installed Christianity as state religion, the first who converted were the ones who held power, cause they clinged to a political career, they would have taken any faith to stay in power. (I wonder when the first politicians today will convert to Islam to fullfill a quote for equal rights of religions).

Yes some papyri with the thoughts of the great ancient thinkers survived in some abbeys. But not after most of them was banned and litteraly burned to ashes in public. All the new order citizen needed to know came from god now.

 

For the next centuries the progress in Christianisation was the justification for endless wars against numerous populations spread over Europe that clinged to paganism. The grounds were prepared for a dissected Europe and hostilities that lastet for centuries.

 

regards

Andi

[Donnadogsoth]

 

 

Sufficient reason will always eclude gods.

Sufficient faith will always exclude some reason.

 

What reason does Christianity exclude?

 

 

 

Yes it is true that it was Christians wo rebuilt a pale reflexion of the Roman Empire.

 

Christianity's goal is not to remake Rome, and should hardly be judged on its failure to do so. Regardless of their merits, empires are, at root, evils in the world, existing to loot their conquered territories.

 

 

 

But first, they made some major contributions to destroy it, they closed schools and theaters, forbid the Philosophers, made poverty a virtue, and within decades all but the priests were illiterate.

 

It was the barbarians, not the Church, which predominantly burned books. And it was the Church in Ireland that preserved the learning of the ancients, which was reintroduced into Europe in the Middle Ages.

 

 

 

Second, of course it was Christians, cause there was no one else around any more. Monotheism does not allow rivaly.

 

Why should it?

 

 

 

Likewise, one could say that the Bolschewiki rebuilt Russia - after they destroyed it and killed everybody who opponed.

In both cases I would not say that they did any good.

 

Where is the Bolshevik Renaissance?

 

 

 

The Christianisation of whole Europe took centuries. After Theodosius installed Christianity as state religion, the first who converted were the ones who held power, cause they clinged to a political career, they would have taken any faith to stay in power. (I wonder when the first politicians today will convert to Islam to fullfill a quote for equal rights of religions).

 

This has nothing to to do with the veracity or salubrity of Christianity.

 

 

 

Yes some papyri with the thoughts of the great ancient thinkers survived in some abbeys. But not after most of them was banned and litteraly burned to ashes in public.

 

Please educate us as to when these vast bookburnings by the Church took place.

 

 

 

All the new order citizen needed to know came from god now.

 

Tell that to Augustine, Aquinas, and Nicolaus of Cusa

 

 

 

For the next centuries the progress in Christianisation was the justification for endless wars against numerous populations spread over Europe that clinged to paganism. The grounds were prepared for a dissected Europe and hostilities that lastet for centuries.

 

Again the desire for a unified Roman Europe. Rome, like all empires, died because of its own internal contradictions, something Christianity has yet to do. And what would Europe be without Christianity to protect its interests? Very simple: part of a Caliphate.

[Goldenages]

Donnadogsoth:

 

 What reason does Christianity exclude?

 

There is no reason for the theory of god

Please, dont take it personally, there is no reason (sic!) to argue. I would be really glad if the professional christians over here had the attitude you have. Many people here left church during the last years, cause they feel themselves not represented by priests any longer. Whenever there is a debate about Islam and what should and what could, the priests unite with representatives of Islam, cry "freedom of religion", and that Islam is peace and harmony and bla bla bla. But when someone yells "Allahu Akbar" before he hits the trigger, that of course got nothing to do with Islam, or generally with religion.

And thats a lie.

So my conclusion: The professional christs over here do not hold any conviction, just to the conviction to keep the influence they have, and if it costs their soul.

 

 

 

Regardless of their merits, empires are, at root, evils in the world, existing to loot their conquered territories.

 

Yes, for shure. However measured on living standards, development, science, knowledge, justice, the Roman Empire was unsurpassed til the Renaissance.

 

 

Why should it?

 

Why should there be different point of views? Would say to encircle truth as good as possible.

There is a big difference between monotheism and polytheism. Polytheism as exercised in ancient Rome is tolerant per its nature. There simple is no other way if you have dozens of gods and goddesses. None of these gods were seen almighty or infallible. They had there whims, and they could be challenged by man, if he was brave and virtous enough. Every god represented an aspect of life - hey, they even got Aphrodite, goddess of love - and such polytheism is a better theorie of reality than monotheism (if we can call religion a theory).

It is said that the first democratic attempts in ancient greec took this thaught, to represent various opinions, as an example.

It was a unique attempt in history, of course extinguished by the Roman Empire, and then nearly forgotten.

This attempt never could have happened if you choose one god as leader, who knows everything, is able to do anything, and you obey everything.

 

 

 

Where is the Bolshevik Renaissance?

 

There is none. Unlike Christianty, which leaves some loopholes such as division of spiritual and secular power, Bolschewism comes as a perfect totalitarian system from the drawing board, exactly as Islam.

 

 

 

This has nothing to to do with the veracity or salubrity of Christianity.

 

 

You distinguish between the tenet and the outcome.

Of course you can do that. But then you have to treat all tenets the same: Socialism is a benevolent tenet. All the evils from Sojwetrussia to Nordkorea has nothing to do with the veracity of Socialism.

Islam is a peaceful tenet. Those devils with sabers, bombs and guns has nothing to do with the veracity of Islam.

 

 

You - as, I would say, all Christians today - take the upright and positive aspects of Christianity as a moral guide, and thats what honours you.

To choose whats upright and positive, you use your reasonable mind.

So why is there need for a Holy Book with a set of good and bad aspects? You let your reasonable mind decide anyway.

 

 

Please educate us as to when these vast bookburnings by the Church took place.

 

 

I have my wisdom from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlheinz_Deschner

"The Criminal History of Christianity."

 

In every ancient temple they stored "volumina" (latin), that was scrolls of papyrus, books, or volumes, as it is said in english (latin) til today.

The temples were destroyed, the priests and Philosophers humiliated or killed, and the papyri burnt.

Center of knowledge back then was the library of Alexandria, founded by Alexander the Great. Head of this library around 400AD was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia

a mathematician and astronomer. The library was destroyed and set on fire by christian mob. Hypatia was lynched, one source tells us that here flesh was scalped from her bones while she was still alive, her remains dragged through the streets of Alexandria.

There is a museum in Alexandria (now a Salafists stronghold - what an incredible loss of culture), with statues that must have stood in the library. I have been there, seen that statues that Hypatia had seen every day she went to work. Thats awe-inspiring to the bone - forget of any holy mass, cause that is real.

 

There is also a movie about this story, however I am afraid only in german: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2MzMq1bCFE

This movie speculates about wether Hypatia already knew that the earths path is elliptic and not a circle. Given that the geniusses of that time knew about hydraulics, about the power of steam, and had sophistcated technical devices of any kind, the industrial revolution might have started a 1000 years earlier.

 

 

regards

Andi

[Donnadogsoth]

1. Tolerant or not, paganism  did not contain the “genetic” spiritual material needed to mount a successful Lunar landing, it could not withstand the death of Rome.

 

2. At a certain time, one needs to prune the rose bush in order to see its best display.  I believe we are approaching a new time of pruning.

 

3. Beliefs lead to virtue which lead to deeds.  Christianity has the sublimest beliefs and, so, as a society, to the degree it is followed, leads to Outer Space, whereas everything else does not, or does so on Christian civilisation's coattails.

 

4. ...Did the Christians burn/destroy all the classical literature?

http://christianthinktank.com/qburnbx.html

 

Summary: The relative numerical 'advantage' of New Testament manuscripts over their classical 'rivals' turns out to NOT be due to Christian destruction of libraries or book collections. Rather, it was largely through the efforts of commited Christians that the classical traditions survived to this day.

[Goldenages]

Paganism did not survive because it was wiped out with the whole power of the state. You know why the early Christs were hunted down by the Roman Empire?  I mean Paganism is inherent tolerant, one God more ore less did never  matter. The Romans built temples in the conquered countries, temples for the foreign gods and worshipped them together with their own gods.

So why were early Christs subject to manhunt and punished in cruel ways?

 

If there was anybody back then who were really experts in ruling matters it were the roman emperors.

The roman emperors analyzed the structure of the new religion and found it a dangerous threat to the regime they held: One god, who was claimed to be omnipotent, infallible, omniscient. And this god has to be obeyed unquestioned.

After the first christians would rather die in the Arena (ad bestias - meaning they were dinner for lions) than to convert back to paganism, the ruling class came to the conclusion that such behavior can be used to the advantage of the rulers.

 

Imagine citizens who obey the word of the emperor unquestioned.

Imagine an army that is invincibly brave cause they know, when they get killed they go to heaven instantly.

So when the imperium was in trouble, Theodosius (first Constantin, but he was only halfhearted) tried this new asset called Christianity.

It doomed Europe for more than a 1000 years.

 

regards

Andi

[Donnadogsoth]

No, paganism was already tired, a religion that would go nowhere. “Tolerant of everything except the intolerant”--where have I heard that before?

 

Christianity's rise was a fortunate occurrence by helping bind the social wounds of a dying Rome, helped it overcome the Dark Ages after its collapse and spring forth the Middle Ages of brightness and chivalry and debate, and from there etc.. The Bishops in particular became the advocates of the people in the time when the rich had retreated to their estates and the barbarised imperium was in shambles. And in the East, Christianity merged with the State more completely than it did in the West, holding the Eastern empire together for a thousand years against the Oriental hordes.

 

If paganism were capable of emulating the Christian West's accomplishments, then why didn't it? The Orient, the Tropics, the Americas, none of them went anywhere regardless of their respective accomplishments. None of the them are Futuristic, only the Western civilisation.

 

Paganism will not save us from Islam, economic collapse, moral decay, or a failure of nerve and vision.

[Goldenages]

Yes, the eastern part, the Byzantin Empire, survived, as we all know it is of course possible (and very handsome for the rulers) to drive an empire with a christian state religion.

But before, they put the western part over the edge.

When things were more or less settled again the ruler in the western part was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoderic_the_Great Theoderic the Great, King of the Ostrogoth. He was christian, but he believed in a slightly different form of christianity, in Arianism. There are some minor differences to what is teached today, the arian believed that Jesus is not the son of god, but was created by god. Well thats a huge difference, isn´t it?

 

As things go everytime, when people are convinced to hold an absolute truth given by god, this difference was enough to declare war. Imperator Justinian, head of the eastern part, and especially his priests, who wanted to posses the heart and soul of europe - Rome - defeated the army of the western part after many years of war.

The region of todays Italy was completly devastated, uncounted victims starved to death, numerous regions completely depopulated.

But the "real" christians now possesed Rome.

Sic transit gloria mundi.

 

What will save the west is virtus, which means courage, competence, virtue, manfulness.

What could destroy the west - again - is monotheism.

 

regards

Andi

[Donnadogsoth]

Yes, the eastern part, the Byzantin Empire, survived, as we all know it is of course possible (and very handsome for the rulers) to drive an empire with a christian state religion.

But before, they put the western part over the edge.

When things were more or less settled again the ruler in the western part was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoderic_the_Great Theoderic the Great, King of the Ostrogoth. He was christian, but he believed in a slightly different form of christianity, in Arianism. There are some minor differences to what is teached today, the arian believed that Jesus is not the son of god, but was created by god. Well thats a huge difference, isn´t it?

 

As things go everytime, when people are convinced to hold an absolute truth given by god, this difference was enough to declare war. Imperator Justinian, head of the eastern part, and especially his priests, who wanted to posses the heart and soul of europe - Rome - defeated the army of the western part after many years of war.

The region of todays Italy was completly devastated, uncounted victims starved to death, numerous regions completely depopulated.

But the "real" christians now possesed Rome.

Sic transit gloria mundi.

 

What will save the west is virtus, which means courage, competence, virtue, manfulness.

What could destroy the west - again - is monotheism.

 

regards

Andi

 

The West will not be saved by a cult of honour.  Those are the silver souls under Plato's Republican schema.  We need golden souls as well, hegemonic, motivated not just for a desire for honour but by the Good itself.  Christianity is the golden religion offering the scientifically correct definition of Man, with Christ as the scientifically correct role-model.  Courage, competence, virtue, manfulness--are just more perennial pagan political pawns without an appreciation of agape.

[Mykaelous]

Here are my thoughts on Stefan's video "Why I Was Wrong About Atheism" (

)

 

1. “For the most part atheism is an outgrowth of faith in the modern god called the state.” Atheism is only and specifically the idea that there is no god it gods, it has no intellectual or philosophical content that would lead one to anything else 

 

2. He hasn't proven that the nihilism and leftism of the majority of atheists is a cause of atheism or atheism is a cause of the leftism or nihilism. This is a chicken and egg thing that is pretty complicated.  Do more people come to leftism and nihilism because of atheism, or are more people atheism because of leftism and nihilism?

 

3. Stefan's claim that religious people don't force him to do anything but lefty socialists do. “They [Christians] don’t force me to do anything.  On the other hand, the lefties, by constantly running to big daddy government to enforce their moral conscience on everyone else, regardless of consequences, regardless of ethics, regardless of voluntarism, regardless of the need to choose that what is essential to virtue, socialist by running to big daddy government, well the force me to do lots and lots of things. They take my money, they bury me in regulations, they involve my cash in foreign wars, they do lots of god awful things, and if I try to follow my own conscience and do what I think is best with my recourses, well they support cats in blue showing up with guns to drag me off to jail because I am not paying my taxes.”

1. Christians are in favor of war and taxes.  According to gallop, “Protestants and frequent churchgoers most supportive of Iraq War”. Not sure where this idea that Christians are antithetical to the state is coming from and is being taken as a given.
2. Atheists are 3.1% of the American population and the Government is more than 99.9% operated by religious people. [post=http://tinypic.com/r/2woxi6b/9][/post] I don't know how we square that circle.
3. Even if we accept Christians are not forcing adults to follow their ideas, and are just asking them to submit to God or go to hell (how pleasant of them), they are forcing and brainwashing helpless children, which is child abuse. http://youtu.be/Xb2dZqgGm50
4. 3.1% of the US is atheist. On the other hand here is the percentages of people who are Christian 86% in 1990, 78.6% in 2001, 70.6% in 2014 therefore the dominant cultural force we are living today came from a Christian dominated culture. The drop to me indicates how the Information Age has destroyed the credibility if Christianity by shining light on 

4. Throwing the baby (atheism) out with the bath water (leftist and nihilistic atheists). “We all seem to need an irrational authority to order us about and if we take away God, wushhh, into the power vacuum rushes the state.”

 

Atheism is a new cultural phenomenon which has greatly expanded due to the Information Age. It is the rebellious teenager who has woken up one day and realized that his parents rules are authoritarian, abusive, and manipulative and decides that he is no longer subject to their rules. However, there is no other direction available to him to fill that void. He becomes the rebel without a cause. He finds his new rules in other lost teenagers, in the nihilistic programming of the media, in his leftist teacher who tells him everything is relative and there is no right or preferable values, well except altruism of course. The void left by his authoritarian parents is filled by chance and by whatever other ideological structure is already formed to step in.

 

Christianity made up 86% of the US population in 1990, 78.6% in 2001, 70.6% in 2014 therefore the dominant cultural force we are living today came from a Christian dominated culture. The dramatic fall in Christianity to me indicates how the Information Age has destroyed the credibility of Christianity by shining light on its irrationality and dogma.  However, as religion has disappeared from being the dominant cultural force, the only pre-packaged, ready to assimilate, ideology around to catch the rebels has been Marxism. 

 

Now we stumble across this teenager, what do we do? Do we cower in disgust at what the nihilist anti-intellectual culture and leftists teachers has filled him with and tell him to go back to his authoritarian abusive parents because at least he would have structure? Or do we teach him how to think? How to reason? How to rebuild a new structure on the solid foundation of philosophy? Stefan, we have to give these people who are leaving religion a new foundation, the right methodology of thinking - philosophy. Don't send people back to religion because you are disgusted with what the void of religion and what it has been filled with so far.  Lets build the RIGHT structure, one built on reason, logic, consistent methodologies, and then fill this void as much as we can.  Push back nihilism and leftism - demonstrate it to be the evil that it is.  Do not retreat back to religious dogma and superstition as a form of structure.  The change is going to happen regardless, and if we aren't there Marxism will continue to feed off of the rebels.  You have made huge strides already to present a new way, a way of thinking, thoughtfulness, logic, philosophy, don’t give up now.

Just anecdotal evidence(dubious as it might be) of having been apart of several atheistic communities. I have found that the majority of Atheists 80-90% become atheists due to an emotional response to the edicts of religion. Personal examples of people have met are as follows.

 

1. A girl believes that she should have the right to have an abortion. The Christian churches opposition to the practice thus places her in opposition to God, so it is easier for her to reject God than to argue the logic.

 

2. A Homosexual man finds his natural urges and lifestyle to be incompatible with the edicts of Christianity so he abandons it.

This is easy to see in the language used by atheists in opposition to theism(especially on college campus's). I myself while young had my doubts about God, but through punitive means took Gods existence as axiomatic and became very devoted. It wasn't until I was convinced emotionally that God did not exist(the lack of chastity within the christian community enraged me bitterly, and I no longer was dependent upon my parents for survival) that I came to accept the fundamental arguments I devised when I was 8 that the belief in God was paradoxical. For me I always knew that a belief in God did not make sense, but I couldn't accept those rational arguments it until I was in an emotional state to do so.

[shirgall]

Just anecdotal evidence(dubious as it might be) of having been apart of several atheistic communities. I have found that the majority of Atheists 80-90% become atheists due to an emotional response to the edicts of religion. Personal examples of people have met are as follows.

 

In my experience (since we're being anecdotal) people are born atheists but are influenced if not indoctrinated at a young age into the beliefs of their close relatives. No one ever pushed religion on me so I didn't pick one up.

[Mykaelous]

In my experience (since we're being anecdotal) people are born atheists but are influenced if not indoctrinated at a young age into the beliefs of their close relatives. No one ever pushed religion on me so I didn't pick one up.

That also rings true for me, especially as I have observe my niece growing up. She is a empirical learning machine constantly repeating experiments of gravity tossing blocks to see how they fall over and over again. Then she was told that about the Easter bunny, st. nick, and the belief in God because my sister has a vain appreciation of her daughter praying at the dinner table to something that doesn't exist. The reason my niece believes is an emotional one, because mommy says so and that is a strong belief because her survival is dependent upon her mother. Such a emotional bond requires another equally powerful emotional bond to break. Formal logic has only existed for about four thousand years not nearly enough time to influence the human species evolutionary. It is rare for someone to override/comprehend their emotions with brunt logic, it is what many of use who pursue self-knowledge hope to do in that pursuit. For me my commitment to truth is an emotional one, because for me the concept of an external universal truth is key to the validation that other minds exist, although I cannot prove that they do within my own mind.

[Goldenages]

I always thought that man had an innate demand for an imaginary friend. Back then when mankind was evolving, life was short and dangerous, maybe it was an evolutionary advantage to have an innate principle of hope.

But when I think of it, it is very plausible to assume that if no one tells you of god, you very likely dont invent one on your own. At least now in our safe man-made environment.

 

It was easy for me to get rid of that stuff. Back then in school the religious instruction teacher gave homework - within one week, he told, we should pray and listen, cause for shure god will give us a sign or tell us something.

One week later I did not see signs, and no god talked to me.

But surprisingly, he did to all my classmates. One even claimed, that an angel stopped by and lauded him

When it was my turn, I told the teacher what happened to me, namely nothing. He got mad at me, claimed I was a sinner and for shure did something wrong.

After school, my classmates laughed and said, that of course all the storys they told were freely invented.

I had of course no idea of Objectivism back then, but I was shure that if religion cheered the liars and punished the honest, this idea is a complete and utter failure.

 

Nevertheless I learned a lot from this event. I went home and felt extraordinarily happy and proud of me - because my own thaughts had guided me to a very convincingly conclusion.

So at least I owe religion my love to logical conclusions

 

regards

Andi

[Donnadogsoth]

I always thought that man had an innate demand for an imaginary friend. Back then when mankind was evolving, life was short and dangerous, maybe it was an evolutionary advantage to have an innate principle of hope.

But when I think of it, it is very plausible to assume that if no one tells you of god, you very likely dont invent one on your own. At least now in our safe man-made environment.

 

It was easy for me to get rid of that stuff. Back then in school the religious instruction teacher gave homework - within one week, he told, we should pray and listen, cause for shure god will give us a sign or tell us something.

One week later I did not see signs, and no god talked to me.

But surprisingly, he did to all my classmates. One even claimed, that an angel stopped by and lauded him

When it was my turn, I told the teacher what happened to me, namely nothing. He got mad at me, claimed I was a sinner and for shure did something wrong.

After school, my classmates laughed and said, that of course all the storys they told were freely invented.

I had of course no idea of Objectivism back then, but I was shure that if religion cheered the liars and punished the honest, this idea is a complete and utter failure.

 

Nevertheless I learned a lot from this event. I went home and felt extraordinarily happy and proud of me - because my own thaughts had guided me to a very convincingly conclusion.

So at least I owe religion my love to logical conclusions

 

regards

Andi

 

I gave up trying to be an Atheist the day I realised that it was simply powered by hatred against God.  "How dare you stub my toe!" spiralling out into the madness of attacking one's own source.  There is no way to get rid of God from my mind without admitting I am doing so out of being emotion-ridden by anything less than the capital emotion of agape.

 

It's unfortunate you encountered "religion" in an infelicitous application by people less than rational.  Religion, including Atheism, can have that affect on people.  I call Atheism a religion in the sense that it is something many people bind themselves to, hence the root of religion in "ligare" as in "ligament" or "ligature".  But there have also been more than enough rational, kind, intelligent, and savvy Christians, even Christian clergy, so your own experience should be put into perspective--the visible Christianity is not complete, it is not manifesting itself perfectly, and that's sad, but to be expected in a fallen world.  But without it, what's left, worshipping Ayn Rand as the saviour?

[neeeel]

I gave up trying to be an Atheist the day I realised that it was simply powered by hatred against God. 

 

Lol ok. "all atheists secretly hate god".

[Goldenages]

Ayn Rand the saviour? Uhhh, if she could hear that, she would get mad.

Nobody will come to save us. Ayn Rand just came to say that nobody will come

 

No, I always loved thinking and doing. I always loved to find out how things worked, from disassembling of toys to see whats inside, from physics to more abstract topics like philosophy and history, what drives man and why he did what he did.

 

Ayn Rand, for shure much smarter than me, just thought my thoughts to their logical end.

So many years after my personal enlightenment, where I just found one step, she built the highway.

Its a pity that I never heard of her in school, although we had a very dedicated teacher. But Objectivism in a socialistic school system?  Its easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle...

 

Yes of course there are kind, intelligent, and savvy Christians. Never denied that. And in the rural communities over here this (loose) christian world is pretty intact.

 

But I know better

 

regards

Andi

[Donnadogsoth]

Lol ok. "all atheists secretly hate god".

 

I didn't say "all Atheists," neeeel.  I was talking about my own experience.  There may be "true" Atheists who cannot understand why anyone would believe in God, and I think I may have met one or two, but that is not me.

Ayn Rand the saviour? Uhhh, if she could hear that, she would get mad.

Nobody will come to save us. Ayn Rand just came to say that nobody will come

 

No, I always loved thinking and doing. I always loved to find out how things worked, from disassembling of toys to see whats inside, from physics to more abstract topics like philosophy and history, what drives man and why he did what he did.

 

Ayn Rand, for shure much smarter than me, just thought my thoughts to there logical end.

So many years after my personal enlightenment, where I just found one step, she built the highway.

Its a pity that I never heard of her in school, although we had a very dedicated teacher. But Objectivism in a socialistic school system?  Its easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle...

 

Yes of course there are kind, intelligent, and savvy Christians. Never denied that. And in the rural communities over here this (loose) christian world is pretty intact.

 

But I know better

 

regards

Andi

 

Well, I used to know things, too.  I got over it.