Bede

Hmm, well as no one has heard of Eusebius I'll replace that myth with the one kindly brought up by Evolutionist:

That the Church impeded the development of anatomy.

Something else which isn't true (and in fact quite the reverse).

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Evolutionist

looked up a short little biography on Eusebius, and this is what i've found:

i've also found a quote from him in "religious tollerence".

and:

Heathen Dawn

There has. Leaving out the Galileo affair: the Christian religion's insistence on literal Genesis creationism was a hindrance to those hypotheses, made since Ancient Greek times, that living forms had evolved. Young earth and global Flood were also a hindrance to geology (only a select few such as Leonardo da Vinci knew better).



The medieval Church didn't but the Bible does.



I don't know if "unusually", but brutal they were. They did torture people.

Evolutionist

what usually happens is its not always the whole church that stops things etc. most of the examples above were carried out by members of the church. although back then they had far more power than they do today.

on the topic of the human cadaver though, for centuries, members of the Church forbade the dissection of a human cadaver, calling it "a desecration of the temple of the holy ghost."

i've even heard people say that now days...

keyser_soze

I don't think your list is meeting with much approval so far bede. Seems you forgot to include some that were myths. Or at least a higher percentage that were.

David Bowden

So, should we believe that:
1) There has never been a conflict between science and religion.

(This fact, if it were one, would no doubt surpise Galileo and his pope, as well as Descartes and Darwin and Weinberg and Dawkins, as well as such Roman Catholic philosophers of science as Haught...).

4) Hitler was never a Christian.

(This seems debatable; although no Christian today would want to associate themselves (fellowship) with Hitler, this wasn't the case in the 1930s. Even if he wasn't a Christian during his rise to power, history seems to show that his consistent appearance of being a Christian (and the lack of Papal or divine or even sufficient lay witness to the contrary) was a key factor in his immense persuasive influence over Christians in pre-war Germany).

5) Inquisitional brutality shouldn't be scorned by atheists since it wasn't unusual for its time.

(I believe we should treat with scorn and disapprobation ANY brutal acts, and we have a reasonable case for scoffing at the authority and claims to benevolence of a Church today, when brutal acts (of whatever scope) were committed by the same Church, of the same God, who allegedly is, and presumably was during the commission of the acts of brutality, "Love").

9) That atheists really do tend to believe that Christians have always taken the Bible literally.

(One presumably could forgive and tactfully correct infidels who recently converted from literalist churches for making this error. But it is a fact that a great many atheists come from Christian traditions that don't take the Bible literally, and most atheists seem well aware of the existence of the more liberal interpretations.

Though the case could be made -- and has been made by some Christians -- that all the narratives in scripture not clearly marked "parable" or "poetry" or "myth" were intended by the author/Author, and interpreted by the mainstream of believers, to bear verisimilitude to history, and the alleged findings of "science" be damned. So that even if Christians haven't always taken the Bible literally, they should have.)

10) That conversions to Christianity have tended not to be a matter of "do it lest you die or face great difficulties in this life or the next," but rather based on some other motivation.

(But my wife's and other people's experiences as children in many a traditional church's "prayer closet" would indicate that forced conversions are, if not often publicized, also not uncommon.

And certainly the threat of eternal death/punishment/damnation is a way of forcing someone to choose the Christianity alternative when otherwise they couldn't be bothered to care about what Jesus or Paul taught).

It seems possible that a reasonable and informed person is warranted to give credence to at least some of these "atheist myths."

-David

Family Man

Basically, what Bede appears to be saying here is that atheists are human and not always fully informed about historical issues. So what? There are a great number of theistic myths that float around, like:

1) Christianity became a huge movement overnight.

2) No one would "die for a lie".

3) The resurrection is a incontroverible historical fact.

4) The early Christians were absolute saints who would never lie, make stuff up, or exaggerate.

5) There was (and is) no conflict between science and religion.

Frankly, the whole thing is silly. Those who hold mistaken beliefs about historical issues do not invalidate the truth or falsity of their position on religion. So even if we grant that at least some of Bede's points are correct (and there are a couple I think are greatly oversimplified and that I'd take issue with) I'm not sure what Bede is trying to say.

Actually, I take that back, I do. He's trolling for a reaction. I don't think this thread is Bede's finest moment on this board.

I'm going to have to look into Eusebius. For the record, I suspect that Eusebius, being human, lied at times but told the truth most of the time. I guess the question is what did he lie about?

Magic Primate

6) Jesus was an Anglo-Saxon

7) Lucifer is another name for Satan

8) God exists

9) Batman doesn't

GunnerJ

Bede: What exactly is an "atheist myth?" How does the lack of belief in god(s) require mythology to prop it up? And why are all these "myths" so occidental in nature? What about atheists in Eastern culture?

As (IIRC) someone else said, at best what you have are "some historical misconceptions about religion in the West." Not "atheist myths."

If you count the events of the last hundred years as history, then there has definately been an historical conflict between religion and science. As several have mentioned, this is the creationist/ID attacks on evolutionary biology.

I could just as easily say that it's a Christian myth that Hitler was an atheist.

Very slick. I have never heard of anyone complaining that the inquisition was "unusually" brutal "for its time." The claim I've heard (and support) is that the inquisition was brutal and unjust. Period.

Again, this is another strange claim. I've heard claims that the witch hunts and Crusades had a death toll in the tens or hundreds of thousands. It's not necessary to claim that the death toll was in the millions, as a toll in the thousands, hell, even the hundreds are bad enough.

Yet again. It is a fact that many Christians have and do interpret the Bible literally. I'm unsure where you're getting the idea that atheists think that Christians always have.

I'll correct it for you: "That there have been forced or coerced conversions." Whether or not this is the exception or the rule isn't at issue for me. Any forced conversions are unpardonable.

CJD

minor quibble:

Eusebius was actually a part of the majority party at the time of the Arian controversy, which found itself in the middle of the "Ousios" debate.

Extremists claimed that X was hetero-ousios, of a different substance from the Father altogether.

Moderates (like Eusebius) argued that X was homoi-ousios, or of a similar substance with the Father.

Finally, the reactionaries against the extreme Arian views were those like Athanasius, who argued that X was homo-ousios (of the same substance).

Note that most of the moderates thought Arius' language too strong (in that questions about the Christ's "eternity past" should be bracketed), while they were more than happy to speak of X as subordinate to God. Note also that most of the moderates sided with Athanasius in the end (mainly b/c of Arius' "2 steps forward, 1 step back" approach), and, while suspicious of the common modalistic tendencies of the "homo-ousions", fully subscribed to the Nicene creed without kicking and screaming.

Regards,

CJD