[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[…]
[/quote]
Thanks for the detailed response. I will get to it, but it may not be until later or tomorrow.[/quote]
Okay, but it’s a pretty inconsequential thing really. It’s purely academic and doesn’t bear any relation to anything happening today.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Can’t remember whether this quote from Churchill in 1899 has graced the pages of this thread or not but here it is; do with it what ye will:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die;
but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."[/quote]
Churchill was an agnostic who also railed against the nescience of Christiantity. Interesting that you would quote him.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
And were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."[/quote]
The very science that certain Christians seem to rail against on a daily basis. ;)[/quote]
No, its not that very science. And the fact that you don’t comprehend this speaks a bit of a volume about your purview.
You don’t get it. You’re just winging it, my friend.[/quote]
Oh? What science do you imagine Churchill implying that Christianity is now sheltered in the strong arms of, after struggling vainly against it for so long? Some other science than the science we currently make use of?
And… my purview?
EDIT: relevant bit is two minutes twenty seconds in. 
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Churchill was an agnostic who also railed against the nescience of Christiantity. Interesting that you would quote him. [/quote]
Ah. So that’s what it was.
Not “sheltered in the strong arms of science”, but “sheltered in the strong arms of nescience”. What a difference two letters make.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Can’t remember whether this quote from Churchill in 1899 has graced the pages of this thread or not but here it is; do with it what ye will:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die;
but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."[/quote]
Churchill was an agnostic who also railed against the nescience of Christiantity. Interesting that you would quote him. [/quote]
I quoted him because he is one of the most famous men of the 20th century and the problems with Muslims now were similar in many respects to those of his day, in this instance the late 19th century.
Now if you can find an accurate quote by Churchill that compares 19th century Christianity in similar a vein then by all means post it up here. Until then your post stands stark naked in superfluousness.
While you’re doing your research in that regard, if you don’t mind, please post some of Winny’s “railings” about the nescience of Christianity. It’s not that I necessarily disbelieve you but I am genuinely interested.
[/quote]
I don’t necessarily disagree with his characterization of Islam, but I disagree that your quote provides any utility in combating religious terrorism today.
Churchill wrote to his mother in 1900 that
“If the human race ever reaches a stage of development, when religion will cease to assist and comfort mankind, Christianity will be put aside as a crutch which is no longer needed, and man will stand erect on the firm legs of reason.”
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Oh? What science do you imagine Churchill implying that Christianity is now sheltered in the strong arms of, after struggling vainly against it for so long? Some other science than the science we currently make use of?
[/quote]
I’m surprised. I thought your knowledge of history was better.
Do you honestly think that in 1899 Churchill thought Christianity was nescient? Or do you think he was possibly referring to Catholic miscues from the distant past?
[/quote]
The “nescient” crack was in response to Bismarck’s post.
I was responding to the passage in the quotation you presented, in which Churchill implies that the reason modern Europe had not collapsed like the Roman Empire was because Christianity, its dominant religion, was protected by science, which it had heretofore struggled against.
I observed that some proponents of Christianity didn’t seem to be done struggling against the “strong arms of science”, an observation to which you sarcastically objected.
When I asked you what science you imagined Churchill was referring to, and whether it is different from the science that we now employ, you focused on my sarcastic response to Bismarck and evaded my question, throwing in (yet) another snipe at my historical knowledge.
So. What science do you imagine Churchill implying that Christianity is now sheltered in the strong arms of, after struggling vainly against it for so long? Some other science than the science we currently make use of?
Science Damn you, my science is the true science
[quote]pabergin wrote:
Science Damn you, my science is the true science[/quote]
There is only one science, and Thales is its prophet.
[quote] pushharder wrote:
I think the 26 year old Winnie was full of shit to a certain extent. Christianity, mainly Catholicism, had definitely resisted some aspects of Christianity over the centuries but all in all no religion in the history of civilization had ever allowed as much advancement of science as Christianity.
[/quote]
Churchill disliked Catholicism from an early age and was favourably disposed towards the Anglican Church. He had unorthodox views to say the least. He firmly believed in destiny to the extent that he had no fear in combat as he believed that he was “destined” to survive and carry out some great task. He believed this so firmly that he would walk around during bombing raids on London in the streets with shrapnel flying around completely unperturbed.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
The “nescient” crack was in response to Bismarck’s post.
[/quote]
I know.
I think the 26 year old Winnie was full of shit to a certain extent. Christianity, mainly Catholicism, had definitely resisted some aspects of Christianity over the centuries but all in all no religion in the history of civilization had ever allowed as much advancement of science as Christianity.
You’d have to enlighten us with which proponents are currently doing what struggling?
The fact of the matter is modern Christianity does no struggling against “the strong arms of science.” Do some proponents struggle against some theories (really only one theory)? Of course. Are they then struggling against science – the systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about nature and the universe – or against a pet theory advanced by those especially steeped in scientism and the cult, yes cult, of that particular theory?
[/quote]
theory = testable explanation and prediction about nature and the universe
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
The “nescient” crack was in response to Bismarck’s post.
[/quote]
I know.
I think the 26 year old Winnie was full of shit to a certain extent. Christianity, mainly Catholicism, had definitely resisted some aspects of Christianity over the centuries but all in all no religion in the history of civilization had ever allowed as much advancement of science as Christianity.
You’d have to enlighten us with which proponents are currently doing what struggling?
The fact of the matter is modern Christianity does no struggling against “the strong arms of science.” Do some proponents struggle against some theories (really only one theory)? Of course. Are they then struggling against science – the systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about nature and the universe – or against a pet theory advanced by those especially steeped in scientism and the cult, yes cult, of that particular theory?
[/quote]
theory = testable explanation and prediction about nature and the universe[/quote]
Yes, it’s quite a stretch to call any proposed explanation of the beginning anything more than a hypothesis(of course, since no explanation is testable, the question lies outside the realm of science and firmly in religion’s).