Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 12-25-2006, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

The Bible says that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Do you believe that the conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit was a historical event? If so, by what means did you determine that it was most likely a historical event?

Sauron · 12-25-2006, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Yeah, maybe you should deal with the facts.

I have far more facts at my disposal than you can possibly imagine.

Quote:

There are millions of people all over the world who are extremely poor and/or could justifiably consider themselves oppressed, but who for some strange reason don't kill innocent people who have nothing to do with their problem.

However the people being killed here *do* have something to do with the problem.

And you'd be hard pressed to find any group of people fighting oppression, that don't use asymmetrical tactics. Feel free to try, however.

Quote:

I'm not denying that your "footsoldier" point has relevance, but you do seem to be making a most strenuous effort to ignore the effect of pseudo-intellectual, middle-class fantasy ideology. Perhaps it's a bit too close to the bone for you.

No, it's just another claim that has no relevance to the problems at hand. You quoted a right-wing "research" paper, and expected that it would carry weight. it did not.

The brutal truth is that this ideology is not a "middle class fantasy." If it were, then it wouldn't have any toehold in the depressed slums of the Mideast, which -- I can assure you -- it most certainly does. Unless you think those slums are middle class or something. What's more, the ideology traces itself back through Afghanistan of the 1980s - do you think that mujahideen resistance to the Soviet invasion was rooted in "middle class fantasy"?

Your analysis is shallow, regurgitated talking points from the neocons. No wonder it crumbles under inspection.

Toto · 12-25-2006, 01:11 PM

please note that this thread was resurrected after being dormant for several months, and that this is BCH, not PD.

Sauron · 12-25-2006, 02:15 PM

Quote:

As for East Timor -- it is only christian as a result of European conquest and colonialism of an indigenous people who were primarily Islamic before the conquest.

Wrong. Before the Indonesian invasion East Timor was neither majority Christian or Muslims, but but inhabited by people following ages-old indigenous religions, like much of Indonesia. At that time, only about 30% of the population was Christian, mostly European descendants. AFTER the invasion and occupation (for secular reasons, no doubt, but all of the "occupations" of Muslim lands are secular, too) by aggresively Islamic (remember the anti-Christian and anti-Chinese riots) Indonesian forces, many people previously following native rleigions converted to Christianity to show their opposition to the occupation and genocide of their country. Yet, no international Christian terrorism against Muslims.

Interesting claims. Lets see the evidence.

Quote:

didn't say that Islamic countries are free of any christian minorities; that is obviously not the case. Almost all Islamic countries have some non-Islamic minorities, and they are ruled by the majority. In Sudan, for example, over 50% of the country is Islamic, with between 4-6 percent of the population being Christian.

Yes, but the region of Southern Sudan is almost exclusively non-Muslim, Christian and pagan (fuee with PC), and makes up a"well-defined regions of [a] countr[y]."

Not really. What I asked for was:

countries -- or even well-defined regions of countries -- that are overwhelmingly christian, yet are being occupied by Islamic countries or an Islamic elite.

I'm talking about regions, provinces, etc. that have borders to them (i.e., Chechnya, the West Bank, the five muslim provinces of Thailand). Pointing to a region and saying "the south" does not satisfy the definition. The problem with using cardinal compass points is that no one can say where the area begins or ends; i.e., where does southern Indiana begin? Which towns are included, and which are not? Who gets to decide?

Moreover, Southern Sudan does not fit the requirements I set for (above) for another reason: it is not overwhelmingly christian. With caveats:

Quote:

The north-south distinction and the hostility between the two regions were grounded in religious conflict as well as a conflict between peoples of differing culture and language. The language and culture of the north were based on Arabic and the Islamic faith, whereas the south had its own diverse, mostly non-Arabic languages and cultures. It was with few exceptions non-Muslim, and its religious character was indigenous (traditional or Christian). Adequate contemporary data were lacking, but in the early 1990s possibly no more than 10 percent of southern Sudan's population was Christian.

And again.

Quote:

21 There is a certain amount of divergence in respect of estimates of the religious breakdown of the southern population. Human Rights Watch states that 4 percent of the population are Christian and that about 15 percent of southern Sudanese are Christian (Testimony of Jemera Rone, Human Rights Watch, Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Subcommittee on Africa, 25 September 1997). The Economist Intelligence Unit in its report entitled 'Sudan: Country Profile 1994-95' also puts the Christian population of southern Sudan at 15 percent. The definitive United States government guide, 'Sudan - A Country Study', published by the Federal Research division and Library of Congress, states that "In the early 1990s possibly no more than 10 percent of southern Sudan's population was Christian." Muslims may make up a similar percentage in southern Sudan.

Note also that your claim of the south being "almost exclusively non-muslim" is likewise suspect; see the last line (red) above.

Quote:

For the last 50 years it has been invaded and suffered not only genocide, but a massive campaign of Islamic slave raiding, all stemming from the theocratic Ummah parties attempts to enforce sharia in the South, which as states is almost exclusively non-Muslim. The South, as a consolidated geographic region, revolted, and a Muslim theocratic army was dispatched to put down a rebellion by a geographic group of oppressed Christians (and pagan-- but it should be noted Christians have made up most of the leadership in the rebel SPLA).

Except it is rooted in tribal histories and customs as much as in religion - which is usually how things work: http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_sud.htm

And note how the Christian SPLA is behaving - red:

Quote:

* Some marauding, government-backed militias, who are mainly from the Baggara tribe in western Sudan, attack primarily villages of the Dinka tribe in southern Sudan. These raids are one manifestation of a long-standing religious/racial/language conflict in that country that has been fueling a civil war for the past 40 years. More lives have allegedly been lost in Sudan's civil war than in Bosnia, Rwanda and Kosovo combined. 3

* Because of the civil war, tribal animosities in the south have been aggravated. An ancient tribal practice has once more become common: women and children are being abducted by rival tribes. The victims are kidnapped and held until their relatives can scrape up enough ransom money to buy them back.

* The Sudan Foundation, a non-Muslim group, claims that "Outside those areas controlled by the Sudanese Government, the old practice of inter-tribal feuding continues. In these raids prisoners are taken, who must then be ransomed. What looks like the purchase of slaves is actually the redemption of prisoners of war." Quoted in Ref. 2

* The Sudan Peoples Liberation Army (SPLA), which is fighting the Sudanese government, has raided villagers and forced men and children to work as laborers or porters for the rebel army. Some have been forcibly conscripted into the army.

What's more, your claim of the south as a "consolidated region in revolt" also does not survive close inspection:

Quote:

According to international syndicated columnist & broadcaster Eric Margolis claims: 4

"In the 1960's, western Christian missionary groups began arming Stone Age southern Dinka tribesmen, encouraging them to rebel against Khartoum. Israel secretly armed and aided southern Christian rebels to destabilize Sudan, an ally of Egypt.

Since then, southern Sudan has been convulsed by civil and tribal war. Black Muslim tribes raided the south for cattle and women; black animists battled black Christians; the Arab Army fought rebels of the mainly Christian SPLA rebel army, which was armed and financed by British Christian `humanitarian groups,' Ethiopia, Israel, and, later, the US, Uganda, and Egypt. Alliances shifted overnight. Christians slaughtered Christians; Dinkas massacred Shilluks; Muslims fought Muslims."

And as usual, the motivations can be found several layers deeper - that's about how far one has to drill for oil.

And what you leave out is that there is now a peace treaty, one which the south refused to sign until it got concessions on adding certain areas that were known to be oil-rich.

Quote:

Say what you want of the Israelis in Palestine or even the Russian in the Chechnya, neither the Israelis nor the Russians have ever done anything as atrocious as what happened to the Christians (and pagans) of Southern Sudan.

Incorrect. The loss of a country (Palestine), the ensuing apartheid, and the decades of attacks and oppression in Chechnya are quite comparable.

Casper · 12-27-2006, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

...Most of the works of these people, plus especially the materialists such as Epicurius, were declared as heretical and banned, burned, or left untranslated.

The works survived in the Islamic region and in Ireland, where the Church was separate from the mainland....

Do you know HOW the Muslims preserved greek learning?

By sparing the (mostly) Christian monastaries which had preserved such knowledge.

Like Freeman, you cast about for any kind of indictment for a straw man you call Christianity in the vernacular sense, and don't realize the breadth of your brush. It was Christian scholarship that retained much of Roman culture in the Iberian peninsula. It was also Christian culture which maintained much of Hellenist writing in Syria. Granted, one reason was simply that they valued parchments, even used parchments, above many other things so some was simply circumstantial; however, why do you think Euclid's Geometrica is so well known? The Etruscans certainly didn't preserve it for us.

Malachi151 · 12-27-2006, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

Do you know HOW the Muslims preserved greek learning?

By sparing the (mostly) Christian monastaries which had preserved such knowledge.

Like Freeman, you cast about for any kind of indictment for a straw man you call Christianity in the vernacular sense, and don't realize the breadth of your brush. It was Christian scholarship that retained much of Roman culture in the Iberian peninsula. It was also Christian culture which maintained much of Hellenist writing in Syria. Granted, one reason was simply that they valued parchments, even used parchments, above many other things so some was simply circumstantial; however, why do you think Euclid's Geometrica is so well known? The Etruscans certainly didn't preserve it for us.

This is like saying that the rise of Communism wasn't responsible for the undermining of capitalism because a couple of people in Russia kept copies of The Wealth of Nations.

I'm not saying, nor has anyone, that every last person who called them self a Christian was engaged in the destruction of learning, but that the destruction of learning WAS a result of the rise of Christianity, i.e. the people who were responsible for it, were Christians.

Christianity is completely ideologically opposed to naturalism and the ideas of Epicurus, so I still want to see anyone present an example of a Christian that promoted Epicurean ideas, or the idea that the universe is not guided by providence and there is no afterlife.

There is simply no way that you or anyone else can every claim or show that the rise of Christianity wasn't responsible for a decline of these previously popular ideas.

Casper · 12-27-2006, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

This is like saying that the rise of Communism wasn't responsible for the undermining of capitalism because a couple of people in Russia kept copies of The Wealth of Nations.

I'm not saying, nor has anyone, that every last person who called them self a Christian was engaged in the destruction of learning, but that the destruction of learning WAS a result of the rise of Christianity, i.e. the people who were responsible for it, were Christians.

Christianity is completely ideologically opposed to naturalism and the ideas of Epicurus, so I still want to see anyone present an example of a Christian that promoted Epicurean ideas, or the idea that the universe is not guided by providence and there is no afterlife.

There is simply no way that you or anyone else can every claim or show that the rise of Christianity wasn't responsible for a decline of these previously popular ideas.

For one, that is a completely different tack than the one you took in the comment I posted.

For another, your criticism is a double edged sword; you cannot prove an alternate history would have been realized without Christianity.

I am very skeptical of modern believers, because they have (in my mind) the tools necessary to grow beyond the paradigm of religion. But for someone in, say, the 10th century Byzantium, who had skeptical leanings and a curiosity about the natural world, how would they nurture those leanings and advance science?

By joining a monastary, of course.

You seem to criticise it all as somehow bad or evil, and I see it as just another permutation of human nature, just a political juggernaut gone wild, like many other political juggernauts.

But I'll indulge your request for examples; how about Gregori Mendel's contribution to genetics? too late in history? How about Roger Bacon. Still too late for you? How about Bede?

Lose your hatred and the logic will delight you more.

Toto · 12-29-2006, 10:27 AM

The discussion on whether Marx was a pseudo-intellectual was split off to PD here

Sauron · 12-29-2006, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

Do you know HOW the Muslims preserved greek learning?

By sparing the (mostly) Christian monastaries which had preserved such knowledge.

No.

Quote:

Integration of the Pre-Islamic Sciences

As Islam spread northward into Syria, Egypt, and the Persian empire, it came face to face with the sciences of antiquity whose heritage had been preserved in centers which now became a part of the Islamic world. Alexandria had been a major center of sciences and learning for centuries. The Greek learning cultivated in Alexandria was opposed by the Byzantines who had burned its library long before the advent of Islam. The tradition of Alexandrian learning did not die, however. It was transferred to Antioch and from there farther east to such cities as Edessa by eastern Christians who stood in sharp opposition to Byzantium and wished to have their own independent centers of learning. Moreover, the Persian king, Shapur I, had established Jundishapur in Persia as a second great center of learning matching Antioch. He even invited Indian physicians and mathematicians to teach in this major seat of learning, in addition to the Christian scholars who taught in Syriac as well as the Persians whose medium of instruction was Pahlavi. Once Muslims established the new Islamic order during the Umayyad period, they turned their attention to these centers of learning which had been preserved and sought to acquaint themselves with the knowledge taught and cultivated in them. They therefore set about with a concerted effort to translate the philosophical and scientific works which were available to them from not only Greek and Syriac (which was the language of eastern Christian scholars) but also from Pahlavi, the scholarly language of pre-Islamic Persia, and even from Sanskrit. Many of the accomplished translators were Christian Arabs such as Hunayn ibn Ishaq, who was also an outstanding physician, and others Persians such as Ibn Muqaffa', who played a major role in the creation of the new Arabic prose style conducive to the expression of philosophical and scientific writings. The great movement of translation lasted from the beginning of the 8th to the end of the 9th century, reaching its peak with the establishment of the House of Wisdom (Bayt alhikmah) by the caliph al-Ma'mun at the beginning of the 9th century. The result of this extensive effort of the Islamic community to confront the challenge of the presence of the various philosophies and sciences of antiquity and to understand and digest them in its own terms and according to its own world view was the translation of a vast corpus of writings into Arabic. Most of the important philosophical and scientific works of Aristotle and his school, much of Plato and the Pythagorean school, and the major works of Greek astronomy, mathematics and medicine such as the Almagest of Ptolemy, the Elements of Euclid, and the works of Hippocrates and Galen, were all rendered into Arabic. Furthermore, important works of astronomy, mathematics and medicine were translated from Pahlavi and Sanskrit. As a result, Arabic became the most important scientific language of the world for many centuries and the depository of much of the wisdom and the sciences of antiquity. The Muslims did not translate the scientific and philosophical works of other civilizations out of fear of political or economic domination but because the structure of Islam itself is based upon the primacy of knowledge. Nor did they consider these forms of knowing as "un-lslamic" as long as they confirmed the doctrine of God's Oneness which Islam considers to have been at the heart of every authentic revelation from God. Once these sciences and philosophies confirmed the principle of Oneness, the Muslims considered them as their own. They made them part of their world view and began to cultivate the Islamic sciences based on what they had translated, analyzed, criticized, and assimilated, rejecting what was not in conformity with the Islamic perspective.

Potoooooooo · 12-29-2006, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

this is BCH, not PD.

What does that mean?

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

12-25-2006, 01:11 PM	#163
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	please note that this thread was resurrected after being dormant for several months, and that this is BCH, not PD.

12-29-2006, 10:27 AM	#168
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The discussion on whether Marx was a pseudo-intellectual was split off to PD here

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.