Education on the subject doesn't matter? And it wouldn't matter in a debate? I'm curious...how does one successfully debate with no knowledge of a subject? No formal education doesn't mean I don't know enough to see some flaws otherwise other unsound kinks in your logic.[QUOTE="unholymight"]
I have no education on this subject. But, I don't see how it would matter as long as my logic is sound. Actually, it wouldn't matter in a debate behind a podium.
LJS9502_basic
Western culture is successful because of Greek foundations, not Christianity.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Education on the subject doesn't matter? And it wouldn't matter in a debate? I'm curious...how does one successfully debate with no knowledge of a subject? By being loud and pumping and pounding their fists?[QUOTE="unholymight"]
I have no education on this subject. But, I don't see how it would matter as long as my logic is sound. Actually, it wouldn't matter in a debate behind a podium.
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Education on the subject doesn't matter? And it wouldn't matter in a debate? I'm curious...how does one successfully debate with no knowledge of a subject? No formal education doesn't mean I don't know enough to see some flaws otherwise other unsound kinks in your logic. If someone is stating facts....how do you purpose to find unsound logic?[QUOTE="unholymight"]
I have no education on this subject. But, I don't see how it would matter as long as my logic is sound. Actually, it wouldn't matter in a debate behind a podium.
unholymight
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Education on the subject doesn't matter? And it wouldn't matter in a debate? I'm curious...how does one successfully debate with no knowledge of a subject? By being loud and pumping and pounding their fists?[QUOTE="unholymight"]
I have no education on this subject. But, I don't see how it would matter as long as my logic is sound. Actually, it wouldn't matter in a debate behind a podium.
Sajedene
Hitting them with a cookie..
Well you showed that it can occur in areas that don't have Christianity. But showing that does not yet prove that it cannot exist in areas where there is also Christianity. Wikipedia says slavery lasted longer than that here; into the 1700s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_slavery Also, you have not established that it was indeed specifically Christianity that ended slavery, not the common sense of the people.[QUOTE="unholymight"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]
But not your view that it was under Christian watch...also..slavery of the indigenous people of America was abolished by a Christian priest in the 1500's..
Xx_Hopeless_xX
"New Laws of the Indies in 1542, in which Emperor Charles V declared free allNative American slaves," Wikipedia...
But, this does not show that it was specifically his fear of being damned to Hell that caused Charles V to make the decision, instead of other likely reasons such as wanting to demonstrate nobility for his followers, a philosophical viewpoint that all should have freedom, or even a general sympathy for the natives.
Education on the subject doesn't matter? And it wouldn't matter in a debate? I'm curious...how does one successfully debate with no knowledge of a subject? Pick fights with people who also don't know anything about the subject.[QUOTE="unholymight"]
I have no education on this subject. But, I don't see how it would matter as long as my logic is sound. Actually, it wouldn't matter in a debate behind a podium.
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="unholymight"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Education on the subject doesn't matter? And it wouldn't matter in a debate? I'm curious...how does one successfully debate with no knowledge of a subject?No formal education doesn't mean I don't know enough to see some flaws otherwise other unsound kinks in your logic.LJS9502_basic
If someone is stating facts....how do you purpose to find unsound logic?
First, on gamespot, always check if the fact actually relates to what you're debating. Then check if the other poster got your meaning in your previous post. Estimate the validity of the fact, use Internet if necessary. Check the probability of existing counter-facts. There you go. Just some things you can do in your spare time, LOL."Columbus was a Christian, he discovered America as well. Christians played a MAjor role in the West as we know it. actually, there were a ton of visitors to the Americas prior to him, and really..... Columbus had no real influence on a cultural level. Western culture is not JUST AMERICA. Its ALL Western nations(European thought....). America was founded AFTER the renaissance, by people of EMPIRICAL philosophy[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
In Theory it can be argued that Lincoln was a Christian. Some Believe he was a Deist, or wasn't any specific religion at all. During his Term as President he allegedly converted to Christianity. No One knows for sure because he never spoke of his religious beliefs.
So, Technically if he was Christian, the Emancipation Proclamation was created with Christian Influences.
Columbus was a Christian, he discovered America as well. Christians played a MAjor role in the West as we know it.
Heck, There were even Christians at the Signing of the Declaration of Independence.
Democratik
"European nations came to the Americas to increase their wealth and broaden their influence over world affairs. The Spanish were among the first Europeans to explore the New World and the first to settle in what is now the United States"
Spain was Primarily Christian. Columbus specifically did not. But his discovery of America DID. And I know "Western Culture" is not just America. IT's also Western Europe. What relevance does "There were a ton of Visitors Prior to Columbus" serve? Some of the Founding Fathers were Christian. I've never read anywhere that they followed an "Empirical Philosophy".
"In philosophy,empiricism is a theory of knowledge which asserts that knowledge arises from sense experience."
54.7% Of the Founding Fathers were Episcopalian and 18.6% were Presbyterian.
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Education on the subject doesn't matter? And it wouldn't matter in a debate? I'm curious...how does one successfully debate with no knowledge of a subject? Pick fights with people who also don't know anything about the subject. Like I said, you don't need to be an expert in religion to find a contradiction in someone's argument. Besides, no education means no FORMAL education, so it's not like I have NO knowledge. If you would notice the importance of this, I would thank you by encouraging you to see a debate, such as your local model united nations assembly.[QUOTE="unholymight"]
I have no education on this subject. But, I don't see how it would matter as long as my logic is sound. Actually, it wouldn't matter in a debate behind a podium.
Welkabonz
I see several big problems with your thesis overallI can't enter a poll at this time,maybe if this thread is around tomorrow I can.
Many christians make the argument that science wouldnt be as far as it is today without christianity. Science and Empiricism was nearly knocked out due to the dark age, and thankfully brought back during the renaissance.
I think you can argue that Islam had a more profound, and important impact upon Science than Christianity ever has.
But I find my viewpoint to be true because of guys like Aristotle, Eratosthenes (discovered the earth was round, prechristian).
History indicates that science took a step back(in europe) once christianity got ahold of the west.
fortunately, once the renaissance came around, western culture became more proscience despite christianity
What are your opinions? Do you think the Greeks sux0rz? Do you agree with me? Do you hate me? Do you partially agree?
I
Democratik
1: The classical philosophers were preserved BY Christian scribes during the dark ages. The church paid for the preservation of their writings
2: The Christians and Muslims were fighting eachother after 1000 A.D, so its hard to imagine that they'd succumb to Islamic influence, let alone enough to say that Muslims had a greater impact on science than Christianity
3: European universities and centers of learning and science were founded and financed by the church.
oh and regarding the greeks:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyhtjHZOEs8
You're trying to teach me how to debate? How...unusual. I'll save you a step though and tell you that only a select few understand one's previous post.First, on gamespot, always check if the fact actually relates to what you're debating. Then check if the other poster got your meaning in your previous post. Estimate the validity of the fact, use Internet if necessary. Check the probability of existing counter-facts. There you go. Just some things you can do in your spare time, LOL.
unholymight
[QUOTE="VigilanteArtist"]
[QUOTE="unholymight"] The fact that slavery arose on Christianity's watch would show that Christianity provided little, if any, effective resistance against slavery.unholymight
Christianity (and Christians) had a huge impact on the abolishment of slavery in the USA. And I'm saying that as an athiest! It's not my opinion, it's fact. Many important figures in the movement (such as Harriet Beecher Stowe and John Brown) were Christians who used their beliefs as a means to influence and oppose slavery. Abraham Lincoln, although religiously ambiguous, was a member of the Republican party which, as I stated above, used religion to progress the anti-slavery movement.
And I have to ask-- What is the extent of your education as far as this subject is concerned?
Posting this again because I'd still like a response.
Let me quote what the original poster said:
"It was only until Christianity's influence that slavery was abolished. You can talk about serfdom all you want, but it still isn't the same principal as slavery."
He said that Christianity was the only thing that contributed to the abolishment of slavery. I was challenging this view. Although you have named many Christians who opposed slavery, any other factor that is not specifically Christian in origin that contributed to the abolishment of slavery could be something I can use against your argument.
Yeah, you really can't be black and white regarding this subject. There were other influences, but to say that
The fact that slavery arose on Christianity's watch would show that Christianity provided little, if any, effective resistance against slavery.unholymight
is absolutely ridiculous to anybody who knows anything about the subject. I named just a few influential Christians, but I could go on all day. John Brown is considered by many to be the abolishionist who STARTED the Civil War. To say that Christianity provided little resistance against slavery is just unreasonable. By your own admission, you have no education regarding the subject.
Later.
"Columbus was a Christian, he discovered America as well. Christians played a MAjor role in the West as we know it. actually, there were a ton of visitors to the Americas prior to him, and really..... Columbus had no real influence on a cultural level. Western culture is not JUST AMERICA. Its ALL Western nations(European thought....). America was founded AFTER the renaissance, by people of EMPIRICAL philosophy[QUOTE="Democratik"]
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
In Theory it can be argued that Lincoln was a Christian. Some Believe he was a Deist, or wasn't any specific religion at all. During his Term as President he allegedly converted to Christianity. No One knows for sure because he never spoke of his religious beliefs.
So, Technically if he was Christian, the Emancipation Proclamation was created with Christian Influences.
Columbus was a Christian, he discovered America as well. Christians played a MAjor role in the West as we know it.
Heck, There were even Christians at the Signing of the Declaration of Independence.
Snipes_2
"European nations came to the Americas to increase their wealth and broaden their influence over world affairs. The Spanish were among the first Europeans to explore the New World and the first to settle in what is now the United States"
Spain was Primarily Christian. Columbus specifically did not. But his discovery of America DID. And I know "Western Culture" is not just America. IT's also Western Europe. What relevance does "There were a ton of Visitors Prior to Columbus" serve? Some of the Founding Fathers were Christian. I've never read anywhere that the followed an "Empirical Philosophy".
"Inphilosophy,empiricismis a theory ofknowledgewhich asserts that knowledge arises from senseexperience."
54.7% Of the Founding Fathers were Episcopalian and 18.6% were Presbyterian.
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html
it doesnt matter that they are christian. That misses the point. If you dont understand the historical significance of the renaissance and how aristotles teaching is the backbone of our culture, then we cant really discuss this. The point is "Despite christianity" They were inspired by guys like thomas Hobbes, John Locke etc. These are empiricist philosophers, its probably why most of the important founders were deist and not christian. ive never heard of adherents.Regarding Slavery and Christianity, Slavery existed in the south because of the State, not because of Christianity. I think its ludicrous to heap blame upon Christianity when Europe, an extremely Christianized society at the time, was outlawing slavery.
Slavery started 8000 years before Christianity ,all ancient ppl's were slaves at one time and slavers at another ,it exists even today and only Star Trek can end it.
Christianity neither started nor ended slavery, human greed simply expanded it since Christianity came on the scene,ppl claiming to be doing God's work took it to another level .Did you really think those shoes you bought for 20 $ magicaly apeared.
I see several big problems with your thesis overall[QUOTE="Democratik"]
I can't enter a poll at this time,maybe if this thread is around tomorrow I can.
Many christians make the argument that science wouldnt be as far as it is today without christianity. Science and Empiricism was nearly knocked out due to the dark age, and thankfully brought back during the renaissance.
I think you can argue that Islam had a more profound, and important impact upon Science than Christianity ever has.
But I find my viewpoint to be true because of guys like Aristotle, Eratosthenes (discovered the earth was round, prechristian).
History indicates that science took a step back(in europe) once christianity got ahold of the west.
fortunately, once the renaissance came around, western culture became more proscience despite christianity
What are your opinions? Do you think the Greeks sux0rz? Do you agree with me? Do you hate me? Do you partially agree?
I
danwallacefan
1: The classical philosophers were preserved BY Christian scribes during the dark ages. The church paid for the preservation of their writings
2: The Christians and Muslims were fighting eachother after 1000 A.D, so its hard to imagine that they'd succumb to Islamic influence, let alone enough to say that Muslims had a greater impact on science than Christianity
3: European universities and centers of learning and science were founded and financed by the church.
oh and regarding the greeks:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyhtjHZOEs8
Its definitely good that t he teachers were preserved. But the content is whats more important. the muslims were huge on science during the dark ages. Thankfully, if the church didnt preserve anything, we had a backup. i dont want to watch the video.it doesnt matter that they are christian. That misses the point. If you dont understand the historical significance of the renaissance and how aristotles teaching is the backbone of our culture, then we cant really discuss this. The point is "Despite christianity" They were inspired by guys like thomas Hobbes, John Locke etc. These are empiricist philosophers, its probably why most of the important founders were deist and not christian. ive never heard of adherents. Democratik
1: Christian scribes preserved Aristotle. Without the church to finance their scriptoriums, Aristotle may very well have been lost
2: John Locke was a Christian, an apologist for Christianity no less.
someone blamed slavery on christianity?Regarding Slavery and Christianity, Slavery existed in the south because of the State, not because of Christianity. I think its ludicrous to heap blame upon Christianity when Europe, an extremely Christianized society at the time, was outlawing slavery.
danwallacefan
[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"][QUOTE="unholymight"] The fact that slavery arose on Christianity's watch would show that Christianity provided little, if any, effective resistance against slavery.unholymight
Actually the original slaves were Polytheists (Slavs)...so really it has nothing to do with it forming under "Christianity's watch"..because they were enslaved by the Muslims in the East as well..
Correction: The word "Slave" comes from "Slav"..but Romans also had slaves and they weren't necessarily Christian..
I was referring to the case of America, specifically. I believe you were trying to show that Christianity was a leading cause for the abolishment of slavery. Showing that slavery occurred in other places where Christianity was absent does not lend real support to your argument. If I may be priviledged to ask, are you a junior in high school?Christianity did play a large role in the abolition of American slavery. Quakers, a sect of Christianity, were the loan standard-bearers of abolitionism for 50 years. They believed that slavery was against God. Christianity was not a universal cure that would immediately end slavery everywhere it spread, but it clearly had a great deal of influence over abolitionism in America. It served as a moral imeptus for many to fight against slavery.
I am a junior in high school for the record.;)
[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"][QUOTE="unholymight"] Well you showed that it can occur in areas that don't have Christianity. But showing that does not yet prove that it cannot exist in areas where there is also Christianity. Wikipedia says slavery lasted longer than that here; into the 1700s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_slavery Also, you have not established that it was indeed specifically Christianity that ended slavery, not the common sense of the people.unholymight
"New Laws of the Indies in 1542, in which Emperor Charles V declared free allNative American slaves," Wikipedia...
But, this does not show that it was specifically his fear of being damned to Hell that caused Charles V to make the decision, instead of other likely reasons such as wanting to demonstrate nobility for his followers, a philosophical viewpoint that all should have freedom, or even a general sympathy for the natives.Charles of his divine mission to become the leader of aChristiannation, it was explained to him in the letter from the priest why it went against the morals of Catholicism..
[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]someone blamed slavery on christianity? unholymight did......Regarding Slavery and Christianity, Slavery existed in the south because of the State, not because of Christianity. I think its ludicrous to heap blame upon Christianity when Europe, an extremely Christianized society at the time, was outlawing slavery.
Democratik
[QUOTE="Democratik"]it doesnt matter that they are christian. That misses the point. If you dont understand the historical significance of the renaissance and how aristotles teaching is the backbone of our culture, then we cant really discuss this. The point is "Despite christianity" They were inspired by guys like thomas Hobbes, John Locke etc. These are empiricist philosophers, its probably why most of the important founders were deist and not christian. ive never heard of adherents. danwallacefan
1: Christian scribes preserved Aristotle. Without the church to finance their scriptoriums, Aristotle may very well have been lost
2: John Locke was a Christian, an apologist for Christianity no less.
the mid east continued much of empiricism during the dark ages. john locke wasnt t he be all end all. Only some of his philosophy influenced our constitution. john locke actually sucks.Its definitely good that t he teachers were preserved. But the content is whats more important.Democratik
What does it matter what Aristotle wrote if there's nobody to read him :P
the muslims were huge on science during the dark ages. Thankfully, if the church didnt preserve anything, we had a backup. i dont want to watch the video.DemocratikWell i'm sorry that you dont feel like watching a video, but can you be so certain that we'd have this back-up you speak of? Shortly after the Crusades the Islamic empire became much more religiously fundamentalist and science was suppressed. Further, can we be so certain that the Arabic translations would be adequate?
[QUOTE="danwallacefan"][QUOTE="Democratik"]it doesnt matter that they are christian. That misses the point. If you dont understand the historical significance of the renaissance and how aristotles teaching is the backbone of our culture, then we cant really discuss this. The point is "Despite christianity" They were inspired by guys like thomas Hobbes, John Locke etc. These are empiricist philosophers, its probably why most of the important founders were deist and not christian. ive never heard of adherents. Democratik
1: Christian scribes preserved Aristotle. Without the church to finance their scriptoriums, Aristotle may very well have been lost
2: John Locke was a Christian, an apologist for Christianity no less.
the mid east continued much of empiricism during the dark ages. john locke wasnt t he be all end all. Only some of his philosophy influenced our constitution. john locke actually sucks. You are the one that brought John Locke up as an example...[QUOTE="Democratik"]Its definitely good that t he teachers were preserved. But the content is whats more important.danwallacefan
What does it matter what Aristotle wrote if there's nobody to read him :P
the muslims were huge on science during the dark ages. Thankfully, if the church didnt preserve anything, we had a backup. i dont want to watch the video.DemocratikWell i'm sorry that you dont feel like watching a video, but can you be so certain that we'd have this back-up you speak of? Shortly after the Crusades the Islamic empire became much more religiously fundamentalist and science was suppressed. Further, can we be so certain that the Arabic translations would be adequate? Yeah islam was surpressed, but do we know that THEY wouldnt have kept r ecords? pm me the video, ill watch it later.
[QUOTE="danwallacefan"][QUOTE="Democratik"]it doesnt matter that they are christian. That misses the point. If you dont understand the historical significance of the renaissance and how aristotles teaching is the backbone of our culture, then we cant really discuss this. The point is "Despite christianity" They were inspired by guys like thomas Hobbes, John Locke etc. These are empiricist philosophers, its probably why most of the important founders were deist and not christian. ive never heard of adherents. Democratik
1: Christian scribes preserved Aristotle. Without the church to finance their scriptoriums, Aristotle may very well have been lost
2: John Locke was a Christian, an apologist for Christianity no less.
the mid east continued much of empiricism during the dark ages. john locke wasnt t he be all end all. Only some of his philosophy influenced our constitution. john locke actually sucks. Empiricism=BAD philosophy, much worse than Descartes Rationalism.Moving along, John Locke's philosophy of liberty played a major role in the formation of our republic. Further, I must remind you that scientific advance in the Islamic empire collapsed after the European dark ages.
[QUOTE="Democratik"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"]the mid east continued much of empiricism during the dark ages. john locke wasnt t he be all end all. Only some of his philosophy influenced our constitution. john locke actually sucks. You are the one that brought John Locke up as an example... He majorly influenced the constitution, why wouldnt I? More importantly, whats your point?1: Christian scribes preserved Aristotle. Without the church to finance their scriptoriums, Aristotle may very well have been lost
2: John Locke was a Christian, an apologist for Christianity no less.
LJS9502_basic
I have no education on this subject. But, I don't see how it would matter as long as my logic is sound. Actually, it wouldn't matter in a debate behind a podium.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="unholymight"]
Christianity (and Christians) had a huge impact on the abolishment of slavery in the USA. And I'm saying that as an athiest! It's not my opinion, it's fact. Many important figures in the movement (such as Harriet Beecher Stowe and John Brown) were Christians who used their beliefs as a means to influence and oppose slavery. Abraham Lincoln, although religiously ambiguous, was a member of the Republican party which, as I stated above, used religion to progress the anti-slavery movement.
And I have to ask-- What is the extent of your education as far as this subject is concerned?
Posting this again because I'd still like a response.VigilanteArtist
Let me quote what the original poster said:
"It was only until Christianity's influence that slavery was abolished. You can talk about serfdom all you want, but it still isn't the same principal as slavery."
He said that Christianity was the only thing that contributed to the abolishment of slavery. I was challenging this view. Although you have named many Christians who opposed slavery, any other factor that is not specifically Christian in origin that contributed to the abolishment of slavery could be something I can use against your argument.
Yeah, you really can't be black and white regarding this subject. There were other influences, but to say that
The fact that slavery arose on Christianity's watch would show that Christianity provided little, if any, effective resistance against slavery.unholymight
is absolutely ridiculous to anybody who knows anything about the subject. I named just a few influential Christians, but I could go on all day. John Brown is considered by many to be the abolishionist who STARTED the Civil War. To say that Christianity provided little resistance against slavery is just unreasonable. By your own admission, you have no education regarding the subject.
Later.
I don't see why you are so picky about my lack of education on the subject. If your logic was more sound my lack of knowledge would have posed a problem, but there was enough opportunities for me to simply rely on looking at your arguments.
Like I said, you don't need to be an expert in religion to find a contradiction in someone's argument. Besides, no education means no FORMAL education, so it's not like I have NO knowledge. If you would notice the importance of this, I would thank you by encouraging you to see a debate, such as your local model united nations assembly.unholymightYes, Socrates, you always did have trouble answering your own questions. Watch a real debate competition sometime. It's more than finding flaws -- you've got to find answers. This makes it especially important in the world of politics to have a thorough education when you're going to debate and frame public policy, considering that they are dealing with people's lives.
the mid east continued much of empiricism during the dark ages. john locke wasnt t he be all end all. Only some of his philosophy influenced our constitution. john locke actually sucks. Empiricism=BAD philosophy, much worse than Descartes Rationalism.[QUOTE="Democratik"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"]
1: Christian scribes preserved Aristotle. Without the church to finance their scriptoriums, Aristotle may very well have been lost
2: John Locke was a Christian, an apologist for Christianity no less.
danwallacefan
Moving along, John Locke's philosophy of liberty played a major role in the formation of our republic. Further, I must remind you that scientific advance in the Islamic empire collapsed after the European dark ages.
Empiricism is the basis of our success as a culture. Empiricism, as a broad term, encompasses some of the best philosophies we have. the advancement mayhave collapsed. But did the records of those scientific advancements go away? Its possible that we would have had a renaissance later on in history[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]Well i'm sorry that you dont feel like watching a video, but can you be so certain that we'd have this back-up you speak of? Shortly after the Crusades the Islamic empire became much more religiously fundamentalist and science was suppressed. Further, can we be so certain that the Arabic translations would be adequate? Yeah islam was surpressed, but do we know that THEY wouldnt have kept r ecords? pm me the video, ill watch it later. Islam wasn't suppressed, IT suppressed scientific advance. Further, they wouldn't have kept records because you need a large amount of resources to hand copy books and scrolls.[QUOTE="Democratik"]
What does it matter what Aristotle wrote if there's nobody to read him :P
[QUOTE="Democratik"]the muslims were huge on science during the dark ages. Thankfully, if the church didnt preserve anything, we had a backup. i dont want to watch the video.Democratik
You are the one that brought John Locke up as an example... He majorly influenced the constitution, why wouldnt I? More importantly, whats your point? I think I made my point.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Democratik"] the mid east continued much of empiricism during the dark ages. john locke wasnt t he be all end all. Only some of his philosophy influenced our constitution. john locke actually sucks. Democratik
[QUOTE="unholymight"]Like I said, you don't need to be an expert in religion to find a contradiction in someone's argument. Besides, no education means no FORMAL education, so it's not like I have NO knowledge. If you would notice the importance of this, I would thank you by encouraging you to see a debate, such as your local model united nations assembly.WelkabonzYes, Socrates, you always did have trouble answering your own questions. Watch a real debate competition sometime. It's more than finding flaws -- you've got to find answers. This makes it especially important in the world of politics to have a thorough education when you're going to debate and frame public policy, considering that they are dealing with people's lives. Yes, but that's only if I run out of opportunities to find some commonsense responses. In such higher debates opponents would not leave any obvious flaws in their argument, and only in this circumstance further detailed, specific knowledge is required to fuel the argument.
Empiricism=BAD philosophy, much worse than Descartes Rationalism. Moving along, John Locke's philosophy of liberty played a major role in the formation of our republic. Further, I must remind you that scientific advance in the Islamic empire collapsed after the European dark ages.danwallacefanOf course, one could always adopt the philosophy of bandodging in order to proselytize. That would only be half as bad as living your life.
[QUOTE="Democratik"]He majorly influenced the constitution, why wouldnt I? More importantly, whats your point? I think I made my point. You havent. I dont have the slighest clue as to what youre getting at.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You are the one that brought John Locke up as an example...LJS9502_basic
Yeah islam was surpressed, but do we know that THEY wouldnt have kept r ecords? pm me the video, ill watch it later. Islam wasn't suppressed, IT suppressed scientific advance. Further, they wouldn't have kept records because you need a large amount of resources to hand copy books and scrolls. I didnt mean that actually. Islam surpressed scientific advancement But they may h ave kept records in some fashion.[QUOTE="Democratik"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"] Well i'm sorry that you dont feel like watching a video, but can you be so certain that we'd have this back-up you speak of? Shortly after the Crusades the Islamic empire became much more religiously fundamentalist and science was suppressed. Further, can we be so certain that the Arabic translations would be adequate?
danwallacefan
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="unholymight"] I have no education on this subject. But, I don't see how it would matter as long as my logic is sound. Actually, it wouldn't matter in a debate behind a podium.
Let me quote what the original poster said:
"It was only until Christianity's influence that slavery was abolished. You can talk about serfdom all you want, but it still isn't the same principal as slavery."
He said that Christianity was the only thing that contributed to the abolishment of slavery. I was challenging this view. Although you have named many Christians who opposed slavery, any other factor that is not specifically Christian in origin that contributed to the abolishment of slavery could be something I can use against your argument.
unholymight
Yeah, you really can't be black and white regarding this subject. There were other influences, but to say that
The fact that slavery arose on Christianity's watch would show that Christianity provided little, if any, effective resistance against slavery.unholymight
is absolutely ridiculous to anybody who knows anything about the subject. I named just a few influential Christians, but I could go on all day. John Brown is considered by many to be the abolishionist who STARTED the Civil War. To say that Christianity provided little resistance against slavery is just unreasonable. By your own admission, you have no education regarding the subject.
Later.
I don't see why you are so picky about my lack of education on the subject. If your logic was more sound my lack of knowledge would have posed a problem, but there was enough opportunities for me to simply rely on looking at your arguments.
Read two sentences of ANYTHING John Brown said and it will be completely apparent that he believed that he was on a mission from God. He viewed himself as a tool of God and that his sole purpose in life was destroy slavery as it was against God. Yes, he was referring to the Christian God, and yes he was a tad insane. John Brown was trying to do God's will. There is really no way around that. His motivations were obvious.
Empiricism is the basis of our success as a culture.Democratik"Our culture" is successful because of free market economics. Empiricism is a self-refuting philosophy. You can't prove empiricism empirically.
Empiricism, as a broad term, encompasses some of the best philosophies we have.DemocratikIf a philosophy is self-refuting, it aint the best one we've got. I'd advise that you look up Thomas Reid, Particularism, Foundationalism, and the Scottish School of common sense.
the advancement mayhave collapsed. But did the records of those scientific advancements go away? Its possible that we would have had a renaissance later on in historyDemocratikThey would have gone away. Things like this are why we have none of the autographa of anything before Gutenberg. In order for books to survive you had to copy them, and before the printing press this was an extremely expensive and laborious task.
[QUOTE="danwallacefan"] Empiricism=BAD philosophy, much worse than Descartes Rationalism. Moving along, John Locke's philosophy of liberty played a major role in the formation of our republic. Further, I must remind you that scientific advance in the Islamic empire collapsed after the European dark ages.WelkabonzOf course, one could always adopt the philosophy of bandodging in order to proselytize. That would only be half as bad as living your life. I see you have nothing left with which to contribute to the discussion. Good day sir
If a philosophy is self-refuting, it aint the best one we've got. I'd advise that you look up Thomas Reid, Particularism, Foundationalism, and the Scottish School of common sense.[QUOTE="Democratik"]"Our culture" is successful because of free market economics. Empiricism is a self-refuting philosophy. You can't prove empiricism empirically. [QUOTE="Democratik"]Empiricism, as a broad term, encompasses some of the best philosophies we have.danwallacefan
the advancement mayhave collapsed. But did the records of those scientific advancements go away? Its possible that we would have had a renaissance later on in historyDemocratikThey would have gone away. Things like this are why we have none of the autographa of anything before Gutenberg. In order for books to survive you had to copy them, and before the printing press this was an extremely expensive and laborious task. free market economics falls under the empiricist camp. Libertarianism mostly does. Western culture has had success before free markets. the roman and greek cultures for example. Its not self refuting. Ill read into that. Theres no proof they would go away, and theres no reason to think they wouldnt have kept it. Who kept records of preislamic culture in the mid east?
[QUOTE="Welkabonz"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"] Empiricism=BAD philosophy, much worse than Descartes Rationalism. Moving along, John Locke's philosophy of liberty played a major role in the formation of our republic. Further, I must remind you that scientific advance in the Islamic empire collapsed after the European dark ages.danwallacefanOf course, one could always adopt the philosophy of bandodging in order to proselytize. That would only be half as bad as living your life. I see you have nothing left with which to contribute to the discussion. Good day sir There's plenty more where that came from, notconspiracy.
[QUOTE="danwallacefan"][QUOTE="Welkabonz"] Of course, one could always adopt the philosophy of bandodging in order to proselytize. That would only be half as bad as living your life.WelkabonzI see you have nothing left with which to contribute to the discussion. Good day sir There's plenty more where that came from, notconspiracy. :roll:
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment