Freethought & Rationalism Archive

09-14-2006, 10:53 AM

Geoff/Malachi,

You are making yourself look very bad here. You just make allegation after allegation without ever backing them up. Please provide some references for your previous claims before making anymore. Honestly, it is bad for atheism that it is represented by people like you who refuse to justify what they say, just like the worst fundamentalist.

Best wishes

Bede

PS: Hero's work is here: http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/hero/

Malachi151 · 09-14-2006, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

Geoff/Malachi,

You are making yourself look very bad here. You just make allegation after allegation without ever backing them up. Please provide some references for your previous claims before making anymore. Honestly, it is bad for atheism that it is represented by people like you who refuse to justify what they say, just like the worst fundamentalist.

Best wishes

Bede

PS: Hero's work is here: http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/hero/

I'm not the one making baseless claims, you are. Okay, so there are some scraps from Hero, still, ALL of Democritus' work is gone, 98% of Epicurus' work is gone, and the majority of Hero's work is gone. What remains remains because is was simply practical and mathematical, and thus had little theological concern. His writings on atomism, however, are gone.

Besides, this isn't even the major point anyway, the major point is that the ideas and the process and the freedom of inquery that existed prior to Christianity was squashed by the Christians.

As Celsus said:

Quote:

"Many of the ideas of the christians have been expressed better-- and earlier-- by the greeks, who were however modest enough to refrain from saying that their ideas came from a god or a son of god. The ancients in their wisdom revealed certain truths to those able to understand: Plato, son of Ariston, points to the truth about the highest good when he says that it cannot be expressed in words, but rather comes from familiarity-- like a flash frpm the blue, imprinting itself upon the soul... But Plato, having said this, does not go on to record some myth to make his point (as do so many others), nor does he silence the inquirer who questions some of the truths he professes; Plato does not ask people to stop questioning, or to accept that god id like such and such...Rather, he tells us where his doctrines come from; there is, in short, a history to what he says, and he is happy to point to the sources of his knowledge, instead of asking us to believe that he speaks on his own authority..."

Quote:

"One ought first to follow reason as a guide before accepting any belief, since anyone who believes without testing a doctrine is certain to be deceived"

It is these ideas that the Christians compeletely overturned. No mater how many books they copied down in their dank monestaries, they had already shut off the freedom of inquiry, the freedom of thought, and the freedom to question, or to persue natural explantions for causes.

This is so freaking obvious, every element of history speaks to it.

09-14-2006, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

This is so freaking obvious, every element of history speaks to it.

You're actually not willing to back up a single thing you say, are you?

Go back to your first post and produce references you the claims you make.

Best wishes

Bede

gnosis92 · 09-14-2006, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

I'm not the one making baseless claims, you are. Okay, so there are some scraps from Hero, still, ALL of Democritus' work is gone, 98% of Epicurus' work is gone, and the majority of Hero's work is gone. What remains remains because is was simply practical and mathematical, and thus had little theological concern. His writings on atomism, however, are gone.

Besides, this isn't even the major point anyway, the major point is that the ideas and the process and the freedom of inquery that existed prior to Christianity was squashed by the Christians.

As Celsus said:

It is these ideas that the Christians compeletely overturned. No mater how many books they copied down in their dank monestaries, they had already shut off the freedom of inquiry, the freedom of thought, and the freedom to question, or to persue natural explantions for causes.

This is so freaking obvious, every element of history speaks to it.

Someone had to copy by hand documents or else they would have self-destructed.

Evidentlly we have xians to thank for that.

Malachi151 · 09-14-2006, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

You're actually not willing to back up a single thing you say, are you?

Go back to your first post and produce references you the claims you make.

Best wishes

Bede

I have refences in my linked article.

And here are more:

http://www.island-of-freedom.com/ARISTOT.HTM

Quote:

Aristotle's works were lost in the West after the decline of Rome. During the 9th century A.D., Arab scholars introduced Aristotle, in Arabic translation, to the Islamic world. The 12th century Spanish-Arab philosopher Averroës is the best known of the Arabic scholars who studied and commented on Aristotle. In the 13th century, the Latin West renewed its interest in Aristotle's work, and Saint Thomas Aquinas found in it a philosophical foundation for Christian thought. Church officials at first questioned Aquinas's use of Aristotle; in the early stages of its rediscovery, Aristotle's philosophy was regarded with some suspicion, largely because his teachings were thought to lead to a materialistic view of the world. Nevertheless, the work of Aquinas was accepted, and the later philosophy of scholasticism continued the philosophical tradition based on Aquinas's adaptation of Aristotelian thought.

Now, how were these works "lost" in the first place? "The barbarians destroyed thm all"? Nonsense. First of all, we know for a fact that many schools of philosophy were shut down by Christian Emperors between the 4th and 6th centuries. We know that the school in Athens was shut down by the Christians and the people had to flee to the East, where the works were distributed and kept among the Arabs.

Most of what we have from the Greeks comes from the Arabs. Just because we have a work today doesn't mean it was saved by "Christians".

And when you say "Christians", who are you talking about?

There were many sects of Christiasn, all of which became defined as heretical except the Catholics in the West/Byzantine. Most of these that became defined as heretics were defined as such because they continued to accept, learn, and teach pre-Christian Greek philosophy. Yes, some of these "Christians" copied Greek works early on, they then became defined as heretics, their schools were shut down, and they either fled with their works and they ended up in the hands of the Arabs, or their works were destroyed, or perhaps and I don't know this one way or the other, perhaps the copies they made were kept somewhere.

Now, everyone know that the works of Aristotle were absent from the Christian work from bascially the 6th century until the 12th or 13th, some 500-700 years, and when they were re-introduced it was with much timmidity because some of the stuff contradicted scripture, so only "selected" works and parts of works were openly published and taught.

Even at that, ARISTOTLE WAS AN IDEALIST WHO WAS A MAJOR OPPONENT OF DEMOCRITUS, EPICURUS, and the whole system of atomism, materialism, and non-teleological explanations for events!

You still aren't getting back to the ideas that were once openly discussed in the Greek and Roman world, as in the case of Cicero's The Nature of the Gods, whcih discusses Stiocism, Epicureanism, Platonism, etc. That whole discussion was SHUT DOWN.

Let's go for some more:

Quote:

But the School of Edessa became a great centre of Aristotelian doctrine, whence it was carried far and wide throughout the East. The story of the fate and the varying fortunes of this School is very instructive. The one first to give it a world-wide reputation was a genius great as a poet, great as an orator, great above all as an educator. His name, for centuries after he had passed from the scene of his labours, possessed a magic spell for the Syrian mind.{10} Bardesanes (b. 154) was a staunch champion of the Church under persecution; but in the latter part of his life he fell away and became known as the last of the Gnostics. His teaching and influence overshadowed the School till about the middle of the third century, when we find its Christian character once more asserted. From its benches went forth St. Lucian, whose Greek version of the Scriptures became as authoritative in Asia Minor as the Latin version of St. Jerome in the West. He founded the celebrated School of Antioch, and modelled it after that of Edessa. Then Edessa enjoyed another brilliant era of about eighty years under the influence of St. Ephraim (d. 378) and his disciples. The writings of Ephraim are regarded as Syriac classics of the purest style. His fervent religious poems merited for him the title of Lyre of the Holy Ghost. The story of his life reads like romance. His early poverty, adventures, and mishaps; his education by his saintly bishop; his exquisite knowledge of his mother-tongue; his teaching. it in the school of Nisibus; his flying to Edessa and working in the public baths to make a living; his becoming a monk; the fame of his conferences and commentaries going out; his being called to the chair of Sacred Scriptures in the School of Edessa; his being made deacon in his old age and the wonderful sermons he preached: it is all a life-story that has hallowed Edessa in the heart of every lover of literature.{11} But other influences were soon to change the face of the School of Edessa. Under Ibas, the Nestorian bishop of the place, Cumas and Probus translated from Greek into Syriac the Nestorian writings of Theodore of Mopsuesta and the works of Aristotle.{12} Indeed, the School became such a hotbed of heresy that it was scattered, in 489, by the Emperor Zeno; the extensive buildings were demolished, and a Church was built upon the site.

http://www2.nd.edu/Departments//Mari...xt/aatcc05.htm

When you talk about "Christians", doing this or that, you have to qualify things. There are Catholic Priests today who have pro-gay congregations, and preach in favor of allowing gay marriage, etc. But that is not the policy of the Church, and these people have to watch out because they can become excommunicated or demoted or re-assigned to a different job.

Now are you going to tell me how Christianity is such a boon to gay rights because you can come up with a few examples of Christians who favor gay marrige? Its a laughing stock argument!

The same has always been true. There have always been some monks and teachers, etc. who went against the rules or against the majority view, and did things that "they weren't supposed to do". That's how we got Copernicus, Newton, Galileo, etc. There are also many others.

Joseph McCabe was a monk for 12 years, then became an atheist, now you are going to tel me that the Church promotes atheism.

John Locke was a self described Christian, he is also one of the leaders of British empericism and materialism, who refuted books and books of Christian doctrine, now are you going to tel lme that the philosophy of Locke "comes from Christianity"?

Yes, you can lable these people "Christians", they lived in a society in which you HAD TO BE a Christian in order to be allowed to live, and in which they were raised with certian beliefs from birth.

But, the fact that some rogue monk copied a text on his own in secret in his chamber while he hid it from the higher bishops, or that even some bishop off on his own decided he liked the works of some Greek poet, doesn't make a "Church policy".

Church policy was the abolition of "heathen philosophy", and the sequestering of knowledge.

What little books were copied in Greek and Latin certianly weren't made available for general use or disseminated to even the average monk. They were copied, packed away, and not used to infrom the worldview or certianly to challenge the faith.

And, again, most fo what we have comes from Arab sources anyway.

Malachi151 · 09-14-2006, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

Someone had to copy by hand documents or else they would have self-destructed.

Evidentlly we have xians to thank for that.

No, we have Arabs to thank for that.

09-14-2006, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

No, we have Arabs to thank for that.

Actually, we do have Christian Byzantines to thank for that. Very little is lost but for the Arabic tradition. Almost all the works of the authors I mentioned above are preserved in the original Greek as well as the Arabic.

09-14-2006, 02:38 PM

Malachi/Geoff,

You are showing a quite profound ignorance of history. Have you heard of the Byzantine Empire? Do you understand how it differs from the Western Empire that fell in the fifth century AD? Do you appreciate that the Byzantines were Greek speakers and the West spoke Latin? Aristotle and Plato were never 'lost' to Christians. They remained part of the core curriculum in Byzantium right the way through the first millennium. They were lost in the West because they were in Greek and after the barbarian invasions (the Franks, Huns, Vandals, Saxons and Vikings were pagans by the way) no one understood Greek in Western Europe.

The Nestorians were Christians and hardly heretics. Their differences with the Emperor were political and they paid the price for that.

Your article gave no references for the burning or banning of any of the authors you listed. Give me the references. I want the page reference from How the Irish Saved Civilisation that mentions any of Euclid, Galen Aristotle etc. I want the list of 'most' church fathers who said the Earth was flat - you have so far produced none at all. And don't you dare call Cosmas a church father.

As I said, you are making atheism look very bad. I think you owe it to your fellow infidels to pull your finger out and not just make idle claims or link to work you don't understand.

Best wishes

Bede

Apikorus · 09-14-2006, 03:43 PM

I've got no dog in this hunt, though I'm inclined to agree with the general contours of Bede's position (nice review, by the way). It is all the more disappointing that he should write that Malachi is "making atheism look very bad." What on earth does any of this have to do with atheism per se?

Malachi151 · 09-14-2006, 04:03 PM

<inflammatory comments edited>

Let's look at the review:

Quote:

Freeman repeats an oft-told tale of the rise of Christianity and the supposed demise of philosophy in a book that is fascinating, frustrating and flawed. He contends that as the Christian faith developed in the first four centuries it gradually triumphed over the reigning Hellenistic and Roman philosophies. Christianity's power culminated when Constantine declared it the official state religion in 312. Freeman points to Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, as the figure who showed Constantine that the bishopric could wield power over the state. From then until the Middle Ages, Freeman argues, the church ruled triumphant, successfully squelching any challenges to its religious and political authority. Yet Freeman (The Greek Achievement) fails to show that faith became totally dominant over reason. First, he asserts that Paul of Tarsus, whom many think of as the founder of Christianity, condemned the Hellenistic philosophy of his time. Freeman is wrong about this, for the rhetorical style and the social context of Paul's letters show just how dependent he was on the philosophy around him. Second, Freeman glosses over the tremendous influence of Clement of Alexandria's open embrace of philosophy as a way of understanding the Christian faith. Third, the creeds that the church developed in the fourth century depended deeply on philosophical language and categories in an effort to make the faith understandable to its followers. Finally, Augustine's notions of original sin and the two cities depended directly on Plato's philosophy; Augustine even admits in the Confessions that Cicero was his model. While Freeman tells a good story, his arguments fail to be convincing. 16 pages of illus. Not seen by PW, 1 map.

Quote:

First, he asserts that Paul of Tarsus, whom many think of as the founder of Christianity, condemned the Hellenistic philosophy of his time. Freeman is wrong about this, for the rhetorical style and the social context of Paul's letters show just how dependent he was on the philosophy around him.

Oh my god, what a lame claim. Paul of course spoke in the language of his time, but he also clearly held FAITH out OVER reason. Anyone who denies this is simply lying ot themselves. Paul twisted elements of Platonic philosophy into his own worldview, which then cut off the legs of further debate and introspection.

From Paul:

Quote:

Colossians 2
6So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, 7rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.

8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

Oh yeah, this guy is a real boon to Greek intellectual thought and the spread of open minded reason!

<edit>

Quote:

Second, Freeman glosses over the tremendous influence of Clement of Alexandria's open embrace of philosophy as a way of understanding the Christian faith.

I got your Clements of Alexandria right here:

Quote:

"Theopompus and Timaeus, who composed fables and slanders, and Epicurus the leader of atheism, and Hipponax and Archilochus, are to be allowed to write in their own shameful manner. But he who proclaims the truth is to be prevented from leaving behind him what is to benefit posterity? It is a good thing, I reckon, to leave to posterity good children. This is the case with children of our bodies. But words are the progeny of the soul."
- The Stromata, Book I; Clement of Alexandria, 190 CE

Quote:

"The Greek preparatory culture, therefore, with philosophy itself, is shown to have come down from God to men,...

...

These arts, therefore, if not conjoined with philosophy, will be injurious to every one. For Plato openly called sophistry "an evil art." And Aristotle, following him, demonstrates it to be a dishonest art, which abstracts in a specious manner the whole business of wisdom, and professes a wisdom which it has not studied.

...

Thus the truth-loving Plato says, as if divinely inspired, "Since I am such as to obey nothing but the word, which, after reflection, appears to me the best." Accordingly he charges those who credit opinions without intelligence and knowledge, with abandoning right and sound reason unwarrantably, and believing him who is a partner in falsehood. For to cheat one's self of the truth is bad; but to speak the truth, and to hold as our opinions positive realities, is good.

...

CHAPTER XI -- WHAT IS THE PHILOSOPHY WHICH THE APOSTLE BIDS US SHUN?

This, then, "the wisdom of the world is foolishness with God," and of those who are "the wise the Lord knoweth their thoughts that they are vain." Let no man therefore glory on account of pre-eminence in human thought. For it is written well in Jeremiah, "Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, and let not the mighty man glory in his might, and let not the rich man glory in his riches: but let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth that I am the Lord, that executeth mercy and judgment and righteousness upon the earth: for in these things is my delight, saith the Lord." "That we should trust not in ourselves, but in God who raiseth the dead," says the apostle, "who delivered us from so great a death, that our faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." "For the spiritual man judgeth all things, but he himself is judged of no man." I hear also those words of his, "And these things I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words, or one should enter in to spoil you." And again, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ;" branding not all philosophy, but the Epicurean, which Paul mentions in the Acts of the Apostles, which abolishes providence and deifies pleasure, and whatever other philosophy honours the elements, but places not over them the efficient cause, nor apprehends the Creator."
- The Stromata, Book I; Clement of Alexandria, 190 CE

That is NOT an open embrace of philosophy, that is an embrace of Plato, whose ideas were very similar to the Christians, because Christianity is based on Platonic philosohy, and then an denouncement of materialism as heretical.

Plus, the effect of Clement is overblow in his statement anyway, by the 4th and 5th century things had progressed well beyond this and there was a much more negative view of Greek philosophy.

And he didn't REALLY embrace philosophy of Plato anyway, he didn't embrace the ideas of human derived knowledge via reason and observation, he just embraced the conclusions of Plato, not his process, which is THE KEY.

Quote:

Third, the creeds that the church developed in the fourth century depended deeply on philosophical language and categories in an effort to make the faith understandable to its followers.

This is nonsense, though without a more direct refernece I'm not sure what to use as an example here, but how about this:

Quote:

CONCERNING THE MOST EXALTED TRINITY AND THE CATHOLIC FAITH, AND PROVIDING THAT NO ONE SHALL DARE TO PUBLICLY OPPOSE THEM.

1. The Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius to the people of the City of Constantinople.

We desire that all peoples subject to Our benign Empire shall live under the same religion that the Divine Peter, the Apostle, gave to the Romans, and which the said religion declares was introduced by himself, and which it is well known that the Pontiff Damasus, and Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity, embraced; that is to say, in accordance with the rules of apostolic discipline and the evangelical doctrine, we should believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute a single Deity, endowed with equal majesty, and united in the Holy Trinity.

(1) We order all those who follow this law to assume the name of Catholic Christians, and considering others as demented and insane, We order that they shall bear the infamy of heresy; and when the Divine vengeance which they merit has been appeased, they shall afterwards be punished in accordance with Our resentment, which we have acquired from the judgment of Heaven.

Dated at Thessalonica, on the third of the Kalends of March, during the Consulate of Gratian, Consul for the fifth time, and Theodosius.

2. The Same Emperors to Eutropius, Prætorian Prefect.

Let no place be afforded to heretics for the conduct of their ceremonies, and let no occasion be offered for them to display the insanity of their obstinate minds. Let all persons know that if any privilege has been fraudulently obtained by means of any rescript whatsoever, by persons of this kind, it will not be valid. Let all bodies of heretics be prevented from holding unlawful assemblies, and let the name of the only and the greatest God be celebrated everywhere, and let the observance of the Nicene Creed, recently transmitted by Our ancestors, and firmly established by the testimony and practice of Divine Religion, always remain secure.

(1) Moreover, he who is an adherent of the Nicene Faith, and a true believer in the Catholic religion, should be understood to be one who believes that Almighty God and Christ, the Son of God, are one person, God of God, Light of Light; and let no one, by rejection, dishonor the Holy Spirit, whom we expect, and have received from the Supreme Parent of all things, in whom the sentiment of a pure and undefiled faith flourishes, as well as the belief in the undivided substance of a Holy Trinity, which true believers indicate by the Greek word .... These things, indeed, do not require further proof, and should be respected.

(2) Let those who do not accept these doctrines cease to apply the name of true religion to their fraudulent belief; and let them be branded with their open crimes, and, having been removed from the threshhold of all churches, be utterly excluded from them, as We forbid all heretics to hold unlawful assemblies within cities. If, however, any seditious outbreak should be attempted, We order them to be driven outside the walls of the City, with relentless violence, and We direct that all Catholic churches, throughout the entire world, shall be placed under the control of the orthodox bishops who have embraced the Nicene Creed.

Given at Constantinople, on the fourth of the Ides of January, under the Consulate of Flavius Eucharius and Flavius Syagrius.

Yeah, thats a real spread of open minded philosophy for you. And why would they need to use philosophy to make the ideas of the faith accesable to the folowers anyway? According to you and this guy, rational philosophy was never embraced by the common folk anyway, so this whole statement is just plain bullshit from the outset, nevermind that they didn't use phiosophical statements in their creeds in the first place.

What planet are you living on if you claim that the Nicene Creed is an example of the use of Greek philosophy:

Quote:

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

Finally we have, as the closer:

Quote:

Finally, Augustine's notions of original sin and the two cities depended directly on Plato's philosophy; Augustine even admits in the Confessions that Cicero was his model.

Big friggen whoop? As has been said, Platonism is the basis of Christianity, but the Christians didn't embrace the philosophical tradition, they just used already existing phiosophically derived concepts and then said, that's it, no more philosphising! Again, Plato was ANTI-Democritus, and ANTI-materialism, and ANTI-Stoicism, and ANTI-any kind of naturalist explanations for things. Plato sucks as a philosopher, he only as a high place in the West now because his ideas are so Christian like. And again, even though this is true, the Christians STILL didn't embrace PHILOSOPHY, all they did was USE philosophy to develope their CONCRETE AND STEEL DOGMA.

<edit>

You can't just dismiss the quotes I've already provided, there is no dismissing them.

You can't dismiss the fact that Christian Emperors, Popes, and Bishops shut down schools of phislosophy all across the Empire, and you can't dismiss the fact that philosophy and FREE THOUGHT in general, went on a massive decline RIGHT AFTER THE CHRISTIANS CAME TO POWER!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-14-2006, 10:53 AM	#11
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Geoff/Malachi, You are making yourself look very bad here. You just make allegation after allegation without ever backing them up. Please provide some references for your previous claims before making anymore. Honestly, it is bad for atheism that it is represented by people like you who refuse to justify what they say, just like the worst fundamentalist. Best wishes Bede PS: Hero's work is here: http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/hero/

09-14-2006, 02:38 PM	#18
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Malachi/Geoff, You are showing a quite profound ignorance of history. Have you heard of the Byzantine Empire? Do you understand how it differs from the Western Empire that fell in the fifth century AD? Do you appreciate that the Byzantines were Greek speakers and the West spoke Latin? Aristotle and Plato were never 'lost' to Christians. They remained part of the core curriculum in Byzantium right the way through the first millennium. They were lost in the West because they were in Greek and after the barbarian invasions (the Franks, Huns, Vandals, Saxons and Vikings were pagans by the way) no one understood Greek in Western Europe. The Nestorians were Christians and hardly heretics. Their differences with the Emperor were political and they paid the price for that. Your article gave no references for the burning or banning of any of the authors you listed. Give me the references. I want the page reference from How the Irish Saved Civilisation that mentions any of Euclid, Galen Aristotle etc. I want the list of 'most' church fathers who said the Earth was flat - you have so far produced none at all. And don't you dare call Cosmas a church father. As I said, you are making atheism look very bad. I think you owe it to your fellow infidels to pull your finger out and not just make idle claims or link to work you don't understand. Best wishes Bede

09-14-2006, 03:43 PM	#19
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	I've got no dog in this hunt, though I'm inclined to agree with the general contours of Bede's position (nice review, by the way). It is all the more disappointing that he should write that Malachi is "making atheism look very bad." What on earth does any of this have to do with atheism per se?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.