Bede

We all need mythology as it is essential to our sense of identity. Atheist mythology is a combination of whiggish views of the Enlightenment, positivist history of science and a bit of slander thrown into the mix. From my experience here, I present ten popular atheist myths. None of these things are true and in most cases I've demonstrated that on these boards. Note I have excluded the current atheist ur-Myth that Jesus never existed. While this is also total rubbish I don't want this to turn into another boring Jesus myth thread.

1) That there has been a historical conflict between science and religion.
2) That Christians (or Moslems) burnt down the Great Library of Alexandria.
3) That the Church taught that the earth was flat.
4) That Hitler was a Christian.
5) That the inquisition was unusually brutal for its time.
6) That the victims of witch hunts/crusades ran into millions.
7) That Christianity was responsible for the Dark Ages.
8) That Eusebius was a liar.
9) That Christians have always taken the Bible literally.
10) That conversions to Christianity tended to be forced.

Just thought that now the board had expanded to all history, I'd get past the Bible (which has plenty of myths, both atheist and Christian, of its own).

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

leftfist

"We all need mythology as it is essential to our sense of identity."

Says who? Maybe we all need stories or something but saying "We all need mythology" is just made up babble. By the way, even if you're right on with the items on your list being "myths" in the sense that they are false, they are not mythology in the real meaning of the word.

1. No historical conflict between science and religion.
This is not the most specific of assertions, so it's hard to really prove. The fact is, though, religion and science are at odds. I wish I could find it now, but on the website of some Christian organization that was trying to prove creationism, one of their principles was "Any evidence that seems to contradict the Bible is by definition either false or is being misinterpreted." In other words, they reach a conclusion, and THEN look at the evidence, and don't change their conclusion no matter what they find. This is the complete opposite of a scientific approach. I realize that organization does not speak for all Christianity or all religions, but that is how all religious people operate - they have to operate that way, or else they wouldn't believe the things they believe.

3. Church never taught that Earth is flat.
I guess you're right about this one, but the church definitely did teach incorrect things about the earth.

5. Inquisition not unusually brutal for its time.
It was brutal enough, for an organization that was supposedly doing the work of God.

6. Victims of witch hunts/crusades not into millions.
I've never heard anyone give a number for this.

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh I am late I must go. More later maybe.

Steven Carr

Were there not millions of people in the Crusades?

Were they not victims?

Perhaps I am wrong.

Totalling up the numbers of victims in this list seems to give less than a million

http://jews-for-allah.org/messianic-...n_crusades.htm

keyser_soze

Not reading down very far, but I thought that despite his attempts to create a religion out of nationalism, hitler was raised roman catholic and that his book contained multiple references to god and religion. Perhaps I misremember.



BTB, are you bored or something?

Cretinist

I don't think you've ever demonstrated this here. Literally thousands of historical examples can be listed where Christians have disagreed with the findings of science solely on the basis of dogma. You've done a lot of hand-waving on this issue. It is my opinion that you have taken a thorough pounding here.

I don't believe I've ever seen you discuss this issue.

Mr. Neutron

Bede, just a question:

even if every assertion you have made above is true (and I'm not saying they are or aren't, as I'm not well-versed enough in some of these issues to offer an informed opinion), so what? What does this prove? That many atheists are just as likely to subordinate objectivity to dogma as many Xians are? This is a newsflash how? Hell, any casual reading of the political forum could have told you that. This is not an atheist or a Christian tendency, it's (unfortunately) a human one.

I rarely venture into this forum as the subject matter doesn't overly interest me, but on those occasions that I have (such as now) I am often struck by the fact of how many of the people in here seem to focus solely on the trees to the exclusion of the forest. Yes, I know this is a forum with a specific and relatively narrow focus, so I guess that shouldn't be particularly surprising, but it doesn't change the fact that most - if not all - of the issues you guys wrangle about and consider so important are ultimately rather irrelevant to the bigger picture. Debating and analyzing the exruciating minutiae of ancient texts does absolutely nothing to prove the validity of the Xian belief system. Even if every point of argument about the interpretation of this or that passage, or the apparent or real inconsistencies of Biblical accounts, or the issues you have raised above in your OP, or any of the other hot topics you guys debate were to come down on your "side", it still doesn't make the slightest difference to proving the case for the existence of the Christian god or the validity of the Christian faith.

Not a single one of the "myths" you have enumerated above is the basis for my disbelief. Even the whole hot tamale issue of a Historical Jesus vs. a Mythical Jesus is irrelevant to me. In fact, before I found this forum and heard about the whole Jesus-as- Myth hypothesis, I had always assumed there was a real man behind the stories. Either way, it doesn't alter my belief that he was no more the "son of god" than I'm the Queen of England. (And, personally speaking, I think it would be nigh impossible to prove someone who supposedly lived 2000 years ago didn't exist...barring the invention of time travel that is). So what does it all matter?

If ever the whole question of the existence or non-existence of a creator/s is answered, it will be through the efforts of real science, not scholarly guesswork. Discoveries in physics or biology or paleontolgy, not someone poring over mouldy old manuscripts with a magnifying glass.

Bede

Gotta to ask Steven, if you found something on the Jews for Jesus site would you cite it here as an authority? Somehow I doubt it.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Bede

Just ignore me, I'm a trainee historian ergo I am interested in history. If you aren't, don't join in.

Cretinist, the conflict hypothesis is dead. Period. That you hang onto your myths doesn't prove anything except you, as the ignorable one says, subordinate objectivity to dogma. And given the amount of flack we Christians get for ignoring objective reason, it's worth pointing this out. As for Hitler, Nomad killed this ages ago so I haven't had to bother (FWIW, he wasn't an atheist either although Stalin and Mao were).

B

keyser_soze

Ah, I found it...
Mein Kampf.- "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work."


I will note however, that starting in what looks like 1941 he did claim to be pagan and rejected christian doctrine. But, alas, the damage was already done...

Mr. Neutron

Ah, my mistake, Bede.

I thought you might condescend to answer some honest, straightforward questions, but I see you're more concerned with throwing out assertions and puerile ad hominems.

So be it.