[quote]pat wrote:
Well then prove none of it happened…Should be easy enough.[/quote]
Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Shifting the burden of proof.
There are a lot of things that can’t be proven didn’t happen that you “don’t believe in”.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
Yeah there’s a lot of argumentum ad antiquitatem flying around. But whatevs.
[/quote]
Your determination for this is based on…?[/quote]
Rather than it’s old and therefore true it’s been: “we’re old… and therefore right”.
While it can be said that the Reformation begins with Wycliffe (1350s), it truly doesn’t begin until Martin Luther’s 95 Theses on the Efficacy of Indulgences (1500).
At which point the Renaissance had already begun.
And you do realize that the Renaissance began because the people saw the rampant corruption and hedonistic nature of the Church at the time, right? So, yes, you can attribute the Church as one of the main factors to the beginning of the Renaissance but only from a negative standpoint.
The Renaissance began with Petrarch who was, in essence, the father of Humanism (pursuit of logic, poetry, art, ethics, history, etc [becoming one with the human side of man]). In addition, Petrarch was the first to coin the term “dark ages”, which, indeed, indicates there was in fact a period of time where knowledge was forsaken. He was the one, not the Church, who urged the resurrection of old ways from Greece and Rome.
He wrote a series of “letters” to dead people complaining about the time period he lived in and how it was so devoid of any decent people and morals. The one that sticks out in my mind is his letter to Cicero. And Boccaccio (author of The Decameron [incredible book]).
You really don’t know much about the Renaissance if you think the Church spurred its beginnings.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
There are a lot of things that can’t be proven didn’t happen that you “don’t believe in”.
[/quote]
Macro-evolution being one of them. But then again I’m positive you DO believe in it.[/quote]
I’m not putting myself behind anything 100 percent. Theories of evolution are an attempt to wrangle a massive and mostly unknown historical dataset and create a simplification of what really went on based on the most probable explanations that we can think of. None of that will ever equate with the actual dataset.
The best evidense for macro-evolution will be observation of it, or a practical demonstration of how it may occur. The Chickenosaurus project once completed would be the latter.
[quote]Zooguido wrote:
Yes…Instead of just letting your emotions rule you like they do in the Catholic Church…LOL.[/quote]
What?
Want to guess who was the Patron of Galileo and paid for his research?
Do you have any other scientist that were imprisoned throughout the rest of the 2000 years of our history?
Do you know who was one of the biggest patron’s of other scientists, artists, &c. during the Renaissance?
^ Someone who had money?
[quote]Zooguido wrote:
I suppose I should have made a new paragraph seeing as how it’s impossible to realize the fact that Galileo was alive 400 years ago which is only like what 1600 years difference from 2000 years so there’s absolutely no way i could have been talking about anything else oops sorry.
In all seriousness, no, that’s not what I was saying.
I’m saying if the Church hadn’t tried to quell knowledge that our civilization as whole would be leaps and bounds ahead of where we already are.[/quote]
You mean telling a scientist to stop claiming theory as fact?
Please provide proof to your positive claim.
[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
^ Someone who had money?[/quote]
Starts with a C. Rhymes with Katholic Church.
[quote]Zooguido wrote:
While it can be said that the Reformation begins with Wycliffe (1350s), it truly doesn’t begin until Martin Luther’s 95 Theses on the Efficacy of Indulgences (1500).
At which point the Renaissance had already begun.
And you do realize that the Renaissance began because the people saw the rampant corruption and hedonistic nature of the Church at the time, right? So, yes, you can attribute the Church as one of the main factors to the beginning of the Renaissance but only from a negative standpoint.
The Renaissance began with Petrarch who was, in essence, the father of Humanism (pursuit of logic, poetry, art, ethics, history, etc [becoming one with the human side of man]). In addition, Petrarch was the first to coin the term “dark ages”, which, indeed, indicates there was in fact a period of time where knowledge was forsaken. He was the one, not the Church, who urged the resurrection of old ways from Greece and Rome.
He wrote a series of “letters” to dead people complaining about the time period he lived in and how it was so devoid of any decent people and morals. The one that sticks out in my mind is his letter to Cicero. And Boccaccio (author of The Decameron [incredible book]).
You really don’t know much about the Renaissance if you think the Church spurred its beginnings.[/quote]
Didn’t Petrarch have minor orders from the Church which gave him canonical benefice?
I do find Petrarch’s work wholesome, but Dante seems to be held as the greater of the two humanists, though I think as G.K. Chesterton said that Cervantes was half a dozen Dantes.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Zooguido wrote:
I’m saying if the Church hadn’t tried to quell knowledge that our civilization as whole would be leaps and bounds ahead of where we already are.[/quote]
You’re certainly entitled to your strictly amateur observations about “What If” scenarios.
Part of what you stated is actually true in my opinion but it must be counterbalanced by the technological/scientific advances that WERE made because of the catalyst of religion.
It’s not a precise mathematical formula.[/quote]
What advances?
http://nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm[/quote]
Find a graph from another more independent non-biased source. At the same time find one that includes advancements from the other parts of the world - the pre-Columbian Americas, Africa, and the Muslim, Chinese, Mongolian and Indian/Indonesian worlds.[/quote]
Curious how you demand so much extra information from me, but when when the tables are turned you all go “Ugh… the info is out there, I’m not here to educate you!”
The sources for the information are at the bottom of the page I linked.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
How come the graph doesn’t show the “advances” made on the African continent? There was no Christian influence there.[/quote]
… You know you can edit your own posts if you have an afterthought, right? That way you don’t take up a whole page with 2 sentence replies. =/
The reason this graph doesn’t address other continents is because, as you’ve acknowledged, Christianity didn’t have much (or any) impact on them at that time. There would be no point in comparing these graphs because there is no comparison. Different people, different psycho-class, different needs. If you just look at Euro-centric society then you don’t need to control for nearly as much.
I’m not even sure what your point is here… =/
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Stupid fucking skewed worthless graph. That’s why.[/quote]
No, you just didn’t read the article. I know you didn’t because if you had you would agree with me. At the very least you didn’t read it properly. To even begin to decipher its complex message you need to do a plethora of reading on other books and various unrelated topics. Until you do I’m just going to have to assume you’re wrong, sorry.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
The entire world was in techno limbo during the Dark Ages and the entire world didn’t have the purported “ball and chain” of Christianity to blame.[/quote]
They also didn’t have Europeans or European culture. There’s so many possible reasons for why every country was the way it was at one point. Maybe their own religions held them back, maybe they didn’t see a need to invest in science, maybe non-Europeans just aren’t as innovative.
We’re looking at Christianity’s affect on Europe because Christianity had major detrimental and measurable affects on Europe. We can look at history and see how Europeans behaved before, during, and after the dark ages and no matter how you look at it, the rise of Christianity has a near perfect correlation to the halt of European innovation and expansion of knowledge.
FYI, India was very innovative at this time and was, in fact, the wealthiest country in the world for a very large part of human history. So no, everyone else didn’t come to a halt just because Europe did if that’s what you think. =/