It has happened in many places. And it is happening gradually. By the time Islam becomes dominant it will be too late for you to pick up your gun.

Women in Afghanistan have not fought against Islam. Those who have done so have been a minority and the results are quite clear, IMO. — Apollodorus

Kind of like in the US don't you think? Some states still have not ratified the Equal Rights Amendment. The Bible does say the man is to be head of household. Like Islam is the same religion as Christianity and Judaism. Just like Mormons and Jehova Witnesses and Southern Baptist are the same religion but from slightly different perspectives. My X husband and my friend's husbands were as controlling as the males in Afghanistan and Women's Liberation has made a big difference. I think we know what those women are fighting against because we had to fight the fight.

Is what not a fact? That animals we've classified as canines are what we've classified them as? That they share certain characteristics we used to define the box we put them in?

Call it a fact if you like. I wouldn't. I'd agree that it's a fact this is how zoologists classify animals. It's a fact that I have to work today. It's a fact that men landed on the moon in 1969. It's a fact that Joe Biden won the 2020 election. — Srap Tasmaner

Yeap, I think what you said is a fact. I think you are working really hard to have an argument. :lol: Isn't that a little uptight? Maybe the main cause of the violence in our society is people taking themselves way too seriously and believing they have something to fight about. You might try some peaceful music and chill out.

St John of Damascus, a Christian scholar who lived in the early days of Islamic rule in Syria, investigated the current claims regarding the Koran and was told that the Koran was given to Mohammad in a dream. He also found out that Mohammad obtained knowledge of Christian scriptures from his close companions some of whom were Christians (of whom there were many in Arabia at the time). He concluded that "This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments, devised his own heresy". — Apollodorus

Both Jews and Christians were abundant in his region.

Muhammad's views on Jews - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › Muhammad's_views_on_Jews
The Islamic prophet Muhammad's views on Jews were formed through the contact he had with Jewish tribes living in and around Medina. His views on Jews ... — Wikipedia

I think it is ridiculous to believe Muhammad got his ideas through supernatural means. To me, it is ridiculous to believe in revealed religion. At least 5 Biblical stories are plagiarized Sumerian stories including the Garden of Eden and the flood. Abraham coming from Ur, a former Sumerian city where any literate person could study the archives created by the Sumerians.

If anyone committed heresy it was the Christians! I think Christians have some gall to create a new "revealed religion" and pick and choose what they wanted from the revealed religion of Jews and then say the Muslims committed heresy because the Muslims did the same thing the Christians did. Adjust the religion for their culture, just as Hellenism made it necessary to adjust Judaism. That is some nerve. Then you all kill each other with the egotistical notion of being God's favored people and the only ones to know God's truth. I am sorry but this nonsense that is taking people's lives is not acceptable.

Good idea. European Christians were educated in institutions run by the clergy. The catechetical schools founded in the early days of Christianity at Alexandria and Antioch were run by the Church. Professors from ecclesiastical and lay schools later formed universities like that of Bologna. This shows that Christianity did value and promote knowledge and explicates the important fact that science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else. — Apollodorus

Are you crediting Christianity for science? I really don't think so. It absolutely did not carry the logical structure for science. Aristotle gave us a good structure for logic and it was the foundation of scholastic education, but there was a huge backlash to Aristotle because it supported church authority, and did not advance scientific thinking.

Aristotle's logic - Why Aristotelian logic does not workhttps://www.abelard.org › category › category
This false 'logic' lies at the heart of authoritarianism, conflict, and a great deal of inadequate 'science'. You are either for us or against us. He 'is' 'good ... — abelard

Granted for awhile the school at Alexandria relied on philosophers to bridge between the rich philosophical conscoiusness including knowledge of math and an attempt to understand the natural world and medicine free of superstitutions notions, but the was ended by... "The Council of Constantinople, convened in 381", a little while after the death of St. Athanasius of Alexandria, "had far-reaching effects for Egypt". After declaring the primacy of the Bishop of Rome at the expense of Alexandrian authority, riots destroyed the school. — Wikipedia

And the west slide into the Dark Ages because the Church cut off the wisdom of older civilizations. Let us be clear about this. The Dark Ages were dark because of the power struggle and who it. You can not claim the pagan progress as the Christian good, because the Church cut us off that.

Not even the later decision to once again use Aristotle to support Church authority can give the Church credit for the scientific thinking that followed the renaissance because Aristotle's logic was not good for science. Aristotle's logic is deductive reasoning. Science is inductive reasoning. Francis Bacon is the father of inductive reason and this would not have been possible when the Church was persecuting anyone who spoke of something not approved by the Church.

His works are seen as developing the scientific method and remained influential through the scientific revolution.[6] — Wikipedia

We could not have good reasoning for science until the Protestant Reformation weakened the power of the Church. At the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, there was hope that science would reveal God, but this was dashed when it became obvious the earth was not the center of the universe. This truth was harder for the Protestants to accept than the Catholics because the Protestants depended on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Catholics were comfortable with rationalizing reality and the word of God to fit their theology. Protestants continue to stand in the way of science with Texas attempting to force schools to teach creationism as science. Texas teachers had to turn to the supreme court to stop that.

So while you might want to give Christians credit for the wisdom of pagan civilizations, only by eliminating facts can this be done.

And you claim facts are the result of observation. What observations shows Riemann and Lobachevsky that π r² is not a fact? — Banno

Interesting question. If we had no mathematical symbols could we have mathematical facts?

Of course it is people (not the public) who decides what is fact and what is not. But that means they decide what they take to be fact and what they do not. Are you denying that they might be wrong and what they take to be fact might not be? — Janus

Our brains are relatively useless without language and language without classifications would make scientific thinking impossible. In different regions of the earth, people will have different names for cats and dogs, water and air, etc. so the exact name may not matter, but the ability to classify what is being named does matter.

It's true. I wouldn't call it a fact, but you can if you like. It's provable. It's also uninformative.

And sometimes dogs turn out to be coyotes. — Srap Tasmaner

Domestic dogs and coyotes, wolves, foxes etc. are dogs, or more scientifically precise, canines. The animal's characteristics determine the biological family to which it belongs. That is imperialistic and it works for organizing our thinking. Something Sumerians could not do because they did not have words for different biological groups such as trees and bushes. We have words for classifying plants and animals. A bush is not a tree and a tree is not a bush, but all trees share characteristics in common and all bushes share characteristics in common. All canines share characteristics in common and belong to one family called canines. They are distinctly different from cats or felidae. If that is not a fact please explain.

But whether it will be harmful in the long run? No, because like Christianity itself, Islam will also eventually have its values and principles questioned, doubts that will change the world again. — Gus Lamarch

I can not imagine Islam and their male domination of females consuming the West. I might even pick up a gun and fight against that as women in Afghanistan have.

Okay, being pragmatic I will settle for evidence.

No can do. Evidence is all you're ever going to get.

Anyway, that's the party line. I don't have a solid alternative to offer. — Srap Tasmaner

So if a dog is a dog, that is not a fact? How many things can exist and not be factual?

But Hume.

The "provable true or false" definition seems to be widely used in "critical thinking" curricula, and it's what Pew used in a recent survey -- more as a definition of "factual" really -- but to a lot of philosophers the word "prove" there is going to mean the word "fact" might as well not exist. — Srap Tasmaner

Okay but I am pragmatic. I want empirical proof. And to me, the structure for a proof that can prove something that is totally ridiculous is true is not a fact, but a good reason to seek a better way to determine if something is true, because obviously, that logic structure is not doing the job.

Yes. The Celts, Native Americans, and others will rapidly kick out an impostor.
Their spirituality might seem "more true", "more natural", but they will never accept you as an equal member unless you were born and raised by them. And even then there's no guarantee. — baker

There are accounts of an outsider being accepted by a tribe. A tribe being a relatively small group of people who know each other and who is related to whom. Religion takes us beyond the tribal limits. However, the 3 God of Abraham religions are also tribal in nature. Including outsiders was for sure a problem for Hebrews and also Athenians. We are still struggling with that today. Like how can someone who looks different from me, be an equal member of my group? If that person can't even speak my language, how can that person be one of us? I don't think the outsider is one of us, however, there are steps to being one of us.

↪Athena What does it mean to have a "spiritual notion" in the first place? Does it mean that we are allowed to use unnecessary entities in our interpretations(because I spotted some) or to be poetic about facts of reality? Is there an other practical value of this notion(to avoid a possible false dichotomy) — Nickolasgaspar

That is an excellent question. For me, it is a feeling of being one with the universe. It is having deep respect for all life and seeing our planet and a living organism that needs to be protected. It is an appreciation for the gifts of nature, and not taking them for granted. But I can only speak for myself. I do not have the authority to speak for anyone else.

I would say the practical value is not destroying our planet and not going to war. Self-defense is probably a good idea, but we might want to start that with consideration for others and reasoning with them. Sending drones to kill unknown people is not okay. Dropping nuclear bombs is not okay. Destroying the environment of indigenous people so I can extract the mineral resources in their ground is not okay.

According to the Bible, God created us in his own image, which implies that in some way we are godlike already. This seems to be the implication of some NT statements: — Apollodorus

Only if everything else is also of the spirit. If anything is not of the spirit, there is separation. We live disconnected from mother earth and our brothers and sisters who are different from us. That god in heaven is very different from the spirit of our planet, a living organism, and life.

As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God

Are you using that to argue we are not separate from God? I do not follow that logic. If we are spiritual beings having a human experience, there is nothing to receive, except maybe knowledge of "the word", logos, the controlling force of the universe. We are not born all-knowing, but only with the capacity for learning.

Being godlike by birth, humans have the potential to manifest their divinity by becoming perfect like God. — Apollodorus

Is this true of all animals? Then let us erect our totem poles, because I really do not believe a God made us different from the rest of the animal realm, except we have the power of language. What does it mean to be God-like? Most often I hear the indignant comment " do you think you are god?" Or "playing God." meaning we should not attempt to control what happens. If I must be perfect, then I live in fear of never being good enough and I feel cut off from all that is holy. That is painful. So the pain of separation becomes a justification for our need of God and then we must turn to a religious authority to tell us of God and explain sin to us, even though Adam and Eve were punished for eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. That looks like really bad logic to me.

I think more complex societies tend to be more hierarchical than less complex ones. Humanity cannot revert to nomadism. — Apollodorus

That is a true statement. We can know about 600 people. That means in a city with 6000 people most of them are going to be strangers. Things get more bureaucratic and less personal when there are more people. Before we reach the limit of our ability to know each other, things are handled personally. You do something I don't like, and I hit you, or maybe I tell others what you did and they will stop being friendly with you. If the conflict gets bad enough one of us leaves with his friends and establish and camp far away. At this point, there was a creator and maybe animals that were talked about in stories. There is a sense of equality with animals and likely everything has its own spirit. Nothing is separate from the life force. We can know these things through the sciences that study humans, and archeology, anthropology.

Then in Sumer and elsewhere, we see many gods. Large populations now require bureaucracies to manage the lives of people who live together as strangers. It becomes obvious one god can not do everything so there is a bureaucracy of gods. Every time a new concept is discovered, there is a new god and this becomes a big problem because the population of gods gets too big and unmanageable. This brings on the study of the gods and a search for the one true god. Eventually, we get to secular laws and people forget the gods. What is concerning to me, is the externalization of God and the move from nature to supernatural beings, and our separation from our own spiritual consciousness and authority. Relying on what a religious leader tells us is so, instead of our own spirituality, cuts us off from the spirit that is in all things and these sad people can live in fear of a revengeful, punishing, and fearsome God, and suffer a sense of being cut off from Him. The degree to which bureaucracies, including bureaucratic religions, control our lives threatens our liberty and our spiritual experience.

Unfortunately, there are no Ancient Celts available to confirm that this was their actual view. After all, they never put their beliefs into writing.

And I don't think Christianity holds us separate from God. It is for the individual believer to hold themselves as far or as near to God as they choose.

In any case, Christianity teaches its followers to see the Spirit of God in his Creation and states that the human body is the temple or dwelling place of God:

Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God? (1 Cor. 6:19) — Apollodorus

We have a spirit that is never separate from us. That spirit may be happy or sad, but it is not external like a God we can reject or who can reject us. Perhaps you are saying the Holy Ghost is equal to our spirit but then why associate it with a God who is external to our being? I think we are quibbling over the meaning of words, as the Christians who killed each other over the argument of if Jesus was the son of God or God himself, was a problem of language. Some holding the trinity of God was making 3 gods out of one with others thinking all three are different aspects of the same thing.

This difference between a god and spirit is very problematic. Let's see, spirit and ghost can mean the same thing. So the term would be I am the spirit of God-made flesh?

It depends on how "real" you wish to attribute the non-human entities and spirit(s) said belief systems revolve around. As I would guess you are doing now, you can easily have a philosophical discussion while dismissing them as more "ideas", constructs, or placeholders for ideas we create as opposed to a what many believe, true actual beings that may or may not influence the world we live in. That changes things quite a bit.

For example, you could say a "god" or "spirit" is more of a zeitgeist of human society, a man-made construct divine in the sense that indeed it has power over any one of us. If one group or town challenges another to battle, they are invoking this "god of war" but if they instead pray for peace they are appeasing and placating this god (or perhaps invoking an opposing god, say "god of peace") and "they" battle per se. It's a stretch but metaphors are allowed and such are still considered non-theist philosophy. Your civilization can appease or act on the instructions of a "god of wealth", which assuredly involves being prosperous, but perhaps being too prosperous would anger this god, invoking wrath. Ie. your people become too rich and everyone just starts getting lazy and before you know it doesn't know how to do anything anymore and falls like a tree to a group you outnumber 10 to 1.

On to more traditional theist beliefs, yeah. They're as real as the screen you're reading these words from. Some are good, some are tricksters, some people believe there is only one creator, others believe this not to be the case. God(s), false gods, spirits, good, bad and all things in between. Depending on who you ask of course. So as a theist, how does one know what to believe? The consensus between major religions would be prayer and humility. How can you learn if you don't listen? Why would you be helped if you don't deserve it? But again, it depends who you ask.


We are exploring what that has to do with liberty and being free souls versus being institutionalized. A spiritual notion is we are free spirits having a human experience. This spirit is connected with the force of life, our planet, and all life on it, rather than the external Father, Son, and Holy Ghost of Christianity and the Roman Empire.
— Athena

Free soul or not, you reside in a very physical body, burdened by physical needs that must be met and influenced, if not controlled completely by primal instinct that only becomes more insatiable and savage when said needs are unmet. Due to this, I'd kindly suggest that perhaps your argument of "either or" is somewhat of a false dichotomy. Just a smidgen.

If everyone is running around, being free, meeting their physical needs along with various, often unreasonable and decadent wants, somewhere down the line someone's liberty is going to be restricted. That is the definition of being institutionalized. Being in a confined system (life) being told what to do (instinct) with no say over the external or "overarching, unchanging, otherwise unreachable" authority that makes the rules (biology).

So, one could suggest the divine rule over all mankind (free spirits while we're in our physical bodies here) thus ensuring true liberty for all from an omniscient being is not only highly preferable than otherwise but is truly the only escape from institutionalization of not just not the body but most of all the mind. Sure if you're lucky and never have a problem in this life perhaps you won't ever realize its importance, but if that ever happens to not be the case, one would begin to appreciate the notion- and rather quickly, I presume.

In conclusion, who freakin' knows. I just do my best to try and not be a douche and hope for the best. If I'm not mistaken that's pretty much the summary of 95% of all religion anyhow. — Outlander

Your post contains so many thoughts I can not absorb them all at one time so I have attempted to file your post where it will be easy for me to find it and digest more slowly. I am not sure but I think you are associating our physical form with evil and that we need a God to liberate us from that? Please correct me if I am wrong. As I said I see a lot in your post and can not digest it all at once. For me, this is a huge field full of flowers and I want to smell all of them.

You triggered my notion of the gods being concepts and saying incantations, is the way to activate their power. Oh, oh, this is so much fun! :grin: Without a word for a concept, we can not be aware of it. Our consciousness being very dependent on words. Demeter is the goddess of motherhood and a troubled mother may call on her for help in being a better mother. We know this works, but does that mean the goddess is real? If we have the concept, how can that not be real? And in the beginning, was the word.

Also, you triggered my memory of a Hindu explanation of our physical needs being excessive and that we need to learn to control ourselves. I liked the Hindu explanation far better than the Christian one. I think the concept of evil is problematic, and for sure focusing on evil makes it powerful. So if we need to loose weight, our focus needs to be on what we want, not on what we do not want.

For your use of the word "institution". An institution is something that I understand to be external to me. I may want to be part of an institution for learning that expands my consciousness but not an institution such as a prison, that is about restricting my freedom. I think you said institutions are about restricting our freedom. An institution may require a sacrifice of liberty the benefit the institution adds to our life? The institution and sacrifice is a concept we might expand further. I think such institutions are associated with technology and advancing human potential, but we may have to sacrifice some liberty for the benefit.

If so little is known about Celtic religion, I wonder how much is known about Celtic spirituality? — Apollodorus

Because it is not that limited. Jack Cummins presents a more universal understanding of spiritualism and social organization before the Father in Heaven replaced the mother. He speaks the shaman cultures that do not separate us from the creator and life force, as the God of Abraham religions hold us separate from God and our mother earth life force. It is not just the Celts but just about everyone before Zeus swallowed Metis, Athena's mother and goddess of wisdom.

Zeus and Metis is the story of patriarchy consuming matriarchies and the story of Cain and Able is about the transition from herding to farming.

Apparently, pre-Christian Iron Age Celtic social structure was based on class and kingship: — Apollodorus

That is an excellent point. The old world order was family order and from there the position of the father and the mother really matters! Is the woman an equal or under the male head of the household? We used to be very sensitive to goddesses representing the life force and wisdom and Justice and Liberty. Athena is the goddess of Liberty and Justice as in the Statue of Liberty who holds a torch and a book, the symbols of enlightenment, and the Lady of Justice who holds a scale and sword. But our liberation of women has not carried the spirit of America, an icon that goes with Liberty and Justice. Under our Father in heaven, liberation has meant to be as a man, not to be as a mother! I need to shade the meaning of what I am saying. Rome is about power and glory, it is not about the mother and liberty.

The Christian Kingdom and the empire of Rome became one and the same thing and the Celts said they do not only enslave others but also themselves. That is required for power and glory and that is not what the early Greeks had nor what the Celts had. Rome gave the family power and glory but this is not liberty, and Jewish consciousness began transforming from nomads who shared the land equally, to farmers with the man in the house the representative of God, owning the family plot and slaves. The is not how the mother orders life. This is not just a dis on men, but it totally changes our understanding of life and how we organize ourselves. Do we live in fear of God organized by a hierarchy of authority and power, or do we live with the spirit of freedom and liberty and rejoicing in our individual power and glory?

The public merely observes. Swallowing everything that is served swallow-ready, without chewing, unconsciously digesting only. Who serves? — Thunderballs

That is a very interesting comment. Daniel Kahneman's explanation of fast and slow thinking. Slow thinking takes a lot of energy and our brains like to conserve energy so most of the time we follow our feelings and are not actually thinking. That is so true for politics! We vote for our team because it is our team.

The word 'fact' is often used throughout the English speaking world. Some philosophers believe that nouns like 'fact' have an exact meaning. I'm not sure what could be the exact meaning of fact. :confused: — Wheatley

Words are a problem and that makes logic a problem and sometimes we have to just go with the flow. I will settle for the idea that a fact is about 3-dimensional reality and it is something that can be proven true. That means a lot of things we argue about are not factual but opinion and perspective and that everything goes better when we keep that in mind.

I hate riding in the car with two kids in the back seat intensely arguing about something that does not matter and how ridiculous this is when it is possible to get the facts and end the argument but no one really cares about the facts, they just want to win the argument. They are not even aware that there is no substance to their argument.

know that you are definitely not trying to make a case for Christianity or Catholicism, but I come from the perspective of having been socialised within these traditions. The secular and institutionalized aspects have such implications stemming from the masses and the hierarchy of the Church. It is extremely authoritarian and this applies to other mainstream religions, especially the Islamic religion.

I think that this leads to people often exploring alternatives ranging from people simply rejecting all forms of religion or spirituality, to looking for alternatives within other cultures. Of course, it is possible to end up seeing them in an idealistic way which may be so different from the experiences of the people living in the midst of such systems of ideas. But, one aspect which I believe that it is important in all free spirited approaches is the emphasis on personal experience of the numinous.

This can occur within the context of any cultural context but it often follows a more shamanic conception of experience, which is about the experiences of the lower and upper realms of consciousness, with a view to the enhanced individual experiences and insights for culture. I believe that idea systems within the Native American, Celtic and other systems adopt more of a shamanic model, with more of an emphasis on transforming this life as opposed to the way in which mainstream religions often present rigid dogmas and doctrines concerning salvation and ideas of a reward in a life after this one. — Jack Cummins

I find you so amazing because although we don't really know each other, you seem to pick up on exactly what I want to talk about and say it better than I do. That socialization and what it does to us!

"It is extremely authoritarian and this applies to other mainstream religions", :scream: And so is the military and the labour intense industry from the beginning of the industrial age, and the New World Order, and Billy Graham doing a Christmas show telling us in the US that God wants us to send our son's and daughter's into the war that should not have happened. A war supported by the Christian right. The world is gearing up to have a serious conflict over the control of world resources and trade routes. My spirit is greatly disturbed by our like of concern for the mother and all else but our material spirations. And than there is this matter of liberty. What does that feel like?

"This can occur within the context of any cultural context but it often follows a more shamanic conception of experience, which is about the experiences of the lower and upper realms of consciousness, with a view to the enhanced individual experiences and insights for culture" You touched my soul and I could not have said that better.

But my point is that one cannot choose to become a member of those cultures and spiritualities mentioned in the OP. One can read books about those cultures and spiritualities, and think "Oh, how cool, I'd like to be like that as well", but that has no bearing on whether one will actually be accepted as a member into those cultures (and some of them are gone anyway). A such, one can never properly conduct their spiritual practices or make sense of the world they do. — baker

Thank you for drawing out the meaning I wanted this thread to have. You kind of hit a nerve by "that has no bearing on whether one will actually be accepted as a member into those cultures". :groan: Can we get beyond being accepted or not, a very serious Jewish, Christian, Muslim, concern and get in touch with our feelings? Mother earth gave me life and she will receive me when I die, no matter what I believe or do, and that has cultural and political ramifications. How much can we control people who do not fear being rejected or punished by a Father?

Edit - this should be in the 'God 'n that' category which I usually have switched off to avoid this very response (but it's done now). — Isaac

Thank you for your concern but my take on this is more cultural/political. Some of the other post will bring that out. I really don't want this to be another God does/doesn't exist thread nor do I want it to be about Jesus. However, about the kingdom. :brow: Why are people in a democracy talking about a kingdom instead of principles of democracy and how did it feelto be a Celt or Native American before Rome and kingdom spread?

If the Greeks and Romans were “patriarchal” and “worse than the Celts”, why object to Christianity closing down Greek and Roman temples and “destroying” their culture? Should we not welcome it instead? — Apollodorus

Huh? Our Father who art in heaven is very Roman.

Christianity is very Roman and Roman was very and materialistic. Roman was also every institutional and the Celts said something to the effect, they not only enslave others but also themselves. I am starting a new thread to discuss Roman Christianity versus spirituality. The Greeks and Celtic people were more spiritual than Rome. The power and glory of Rome was morally inferior unless you like war and destroying our planet. The God of David is a war God from a time when people believed, the people with the strongest god, won the war. The story of Constantine converting Rome to Christianity begins with a war and his vision of God and the Christian Right continues to worship this God. Hegel claimed the state is God. That is Protestant nationalism and it has consumed the US, and Islam also became very bad when it connected with Nietzsche and Hegel.

I offer the Minoan for another possibility.

Minoan religion apparently focused on female deities, with women officiants.[67] While historians and archaeologists have long been skeptical of an outright matriarchy, the predominance of female figures in authoritative roles over male ones seems to indicate that Minoan society was matriarchal, and among the most well-supported examples known. — Wikipedia

You have not commented on God saying his people are not to be slaves and then flipping this to
"Ephesians 6:5-8 Paul states, “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ” which is Paul instructing slaves to obey their master." This is very significant. The Bible is not a revealed work of God but the work of men, as are all holy books.

Here is another very offence passage good for the Taliban but it is from the Bible.
"Timothy 2:11, Women should learn in silence and all humility. I do not allow them to teach or to have authority over men; they must keep quiet. This passage seems to limit the role of women as subordinates to men." That is pretty oppressive don't you think?

Perhaps we could look at our argument in a new way? How were European Christians educated? What was deemed important in their education?

It was not because of the Koran either. — Apollodorus

? I think it was because of the Koran. I do not know why you feel a need to keep slamming Islam instead of the conditions that lead to human behavior. The commandments of the Koran did lead to collecting books and their control of the Silk Road brought the books and the technology of making paper and block printing into Europe. While Christians monks were bleaching these very valuable books to write their own idea of what was important at the time. Don't you get if you keep slamming Muslims, I will slam Christians? Christians experienced a dark age as Muslims in remote areas are going through a dark age of ignorance.

Introduction
Islam provided great impetus for the human pursuit of knowledge. The first verse that descended on the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) Was Iqra, meaning "read,” opening the door to read, write, and ponder. The Quran urges the mankind to think, ponder, reflect and acquire knowledge that would bring them closer to God and his creation. The Quran uses repetition to embed certain key concepts in the consciousness of its listeners. Allah (God) and Rab (the Sustainer) are repeated 2,800 and 950 times, respectively, in the sacred text; Ilm (knowledge) comes third with 750 mentions.

The prophet Muhammad (SAW) commanded knowledge upon all Muslims, and urged them to seek knowledge as far they could reach, and also to seek it all times. Ali ibn Abu Talib, 4th Caliph (may Allah be pleased with him), once said, "I would be slave of a person who teaches me a letter" accentuating the importance of knowledge. Following these commands and traditions, Muslim rulers insisted that every Muslim acquire learning and they gave considerable support to institution and learning in general. This contributed to making elementary education almost universal amongst Muslims. — University Nebraska

At the time of the invasions, Persia and the Eastern Roman Empire (to which Syria and Egypt belonged) had the most advanced civilization in the region. They were NOT in the Stone Age! — Apollodorus

For sure that region had been civilized for thousands of years and the Christians outside of that civilized area did not have the benefit of it. Their belief that they were superior to all others, and God willed them to be all-powerful was just wrong. And boy, were the Christian Crusaders shocked when they saw civilizations far more advanced they were! It caused the Church quite a problem when the Crusaders came home with stories of people who were much more advanced than them and more knowledgeable than them. That must have been very confusing considering they saw themselves as God's favorite people and believed they were the superior people God chose to rule the earth. A belief they still have today. But back in the day, the Church wisely responded by paying attention to the classics and then beginning to educate the people. Scholasticism started by the Catholic Church was essential to pulling Christians out of the dark ages and that progress was because of the Greek and Roman classics, not because of the Bible.

The Egyptian city of Alexandria had been founded by Alexander in 331 BC and had been a leading intellectual center ever since. — Apollodorus

The stories vary on the account of who destroyed the library in Alexandria. We know for a fact, Christians destroyed other people's holy places and made them Christian holy places. The Muslims came along and did the same thing, and this insanity continues to this day as Muslims and Jews fight for the holy city of Jerusalem. And Zionist Christians are very much a part of this problem and the injustice done to the Palestinians. You may not be a Zionist Christians but trying to convince me that Christians are better than Muslims goes against my own experience with Christians and Muslims.

Here is an interesting comment about those Crusaders who did not have the benefits of ancient civilizations.

Indeed, Christian holy wars such as these bear a striking resemblance—and, no doubt, owe at least some of their existence—to the Moslem custom of the jihad, which by then had become a very successful Islamic institution. By translating the notion of a "holy warrior" into Christian terms, a succession of medieval popes and churchmen created the crusader, a "knight for Christ." — Mark Damen

Today's Muslim fighters in Afghanistan are not the civilized people but the ones with nothing, who have distorted the meaning of jihad and have nothing else to make them feel important other than being holy warriors. As I have been trying to bring out, the cause of the behavior is not exactly religion, but circumstances and there is really not a significant difference between how human Muslims and human Christians behave. Humans do what humans do and it is circumstances that lead to the behaviors.

The most advanced medical tradition at the time was that of the Greeks, and the Muslim Arabs acquired knowledge of it from Alexandria. — Apollodorus

The most advanced medical tradition at the time was that of the Greeks, and the Muslim Arabs acquired knowledge of it from Alexandria. — Apollodorus

Yes, and unfortunately the Church went through stages, like some Muslims and Christians today, where the people in leadership think that all people need to know is their holy book and they ignore or destroy everything else. It is a fight for power and control. Like a male lion killing all the lioness cubs if they are not his. We were not made by a God. We were made by nature.

In ancient times people had their patron god or goddess and I don't think our intelligence would have advanced if people didn't have many different perspectives because they believed in many gods. From the day of there being only one god, the grounds for a dark age began. Jews, Christians, and Moslems who think their holy book can be the only thing they need to read, and believing their holy book is the best explanation of reality, are all equally wrong. That was true thousands of years ago and it is true today. I can accept a notion of God as a universal God who is not in conflict with science and nature but that is not the God of Abraham. The God of Abraham is a tribal God, and that makes the God of Christians and Muslims, a tribal God. When Christians deified Jesus, that made the problem even worse because that becomes the least abstract God. All the religions opposed worshiping images and Muslims get around this by making their images patterns. Christians however use images to tell their story. We can see God and Satan and demons. Maybe starting a thread about what is wrong with that would be a good idea.

The Church was the largest landowner in Europe. The estates held by bishops and monasteries began to develop more productive management techniques, started selling their products for cash, and became the largest lenders, thus driving the emergence of capitalism. There were also many private banks, all approved by the Vatican. — Apollodorus

That is perhaps another worthy thread, but even less philosophical than this one. However, like a college debate, I would choose to take the Muslim side, so we are not left with only what we know about Christians, and therefore, a possibly false belief that they superior. Of course, your side of the story can include the church and slavery, right? Should there be an explanation of why Rome had slaves and serfs and how Christian wealth including the wealth of the church, was built with slaves and serfs? The Church was the largest landholder at a time when God changed his mind about his people not being slaves, to He wants them to honor Him by good slaves. And lets us talk about banking with knowledge of Babylon, Jews, Christians, and Islam in a thread for that purpose.

Similarly, Venice, which was under the rule of the Greek East, became a leader of Europe’s commercial economy, developing into a city-state and later republic, before being overtaken by Christian Portugal and Spain which had liberated themselves from Islamic rule. — Apollodorus

The rule book for the people of Venice, was Roman law, not the Bible. That is important because the rules for cities based on trade were totally different from the rural estates with serfs that defined most of Europe. We have a lot to discuss but this is enough for today.

But for some strange reason, in the popular history or mythology of the post-war era the Eastern Roman Empire never existed! — Apollodorus

Yes, I have noticed that. I think it is done to give legal status or authorization to the government and their religion. That legitimacy is weakened by a division in the religion. Considering how divided Christianity is, it is amazing it remains strong but it is mostly Protestants who make our government legitimate and control our national story. It is not in their best interest to include an explanation of Orthodox Christianity and its connection with serfdom. In Russia serfdom wasn't ended until 1861. There is a lot to the Christian story that Christians do not want to remember.

This is why I think it is important to keep history separate from politics and politically-influenced cultural trends. Otherwise, the terminology used by historians can be misused as a political or cultural weapon that actually distorts history.

I believe the opposite. I think history is very important. All people tell a story about themselves, but they all clean up their story. When people share the same land but tell different stories of history, there is conflict. If Israel and Palestine taught their children the same history, it would reduce conflict. If the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants told the same history of the US as the many people of color and Native Americans, it would be a whole different understanding of reality and we seem to be working on that now.

There may have been a “Golden Age of Islam” but this refers to a period within the history of Islam. It should not be read to mean that the rest of the world was in darkness.

. But it was in darkness. The Christians in Rome made that so when they destroyed pagan temples. To be fair the Christians were fighting against each other as much as they fought against non-Christians. It was a fight for power and control and the Roman Catholic Church won. That same fight separated Orthodox Christians in the east from Christians in the west. That fight did turn out the lights in the West. It cut the west off from thousands of years of civilized development and knowledge. That is why the renascence is a generation of knowledge.

The same goes for the European “Dark Ages”. As used by Petrarch who introduced it, the idea referred to certain aspects of cultural development in Western Europe as compared to the Classical era, not to Islam.

I do not understand that argument? The Koran tells people to educate themselves and when they were trading and enjoying a golden age, it was very much a Muslim goal to collect books and be educated. That was not at all true in Europe. Christianity still stands against science and seems to promote ignorance with a Republican argument about the literate elite not being with the people, and the 2012 Texas Republican agenda being to prevent education for higher-order thinking, and their fight to have creationism taught as science. The Bible begins with a story of God cursing humans because of their desire for knowledge and Christians have much to say about that. And as I said before, if it were not for pagan knowledge moving Europe toward science and the modern age, we would still be throwing our sewage out the window and wallowing in our filth and ignorance. Talk about distorted history. The belief that it is Christianity that got us to where we are today just isn't right. And even today, churches are telling their people not to wear masks or to get vaccinated. Yeah, just throw your sewage out the window and burn people as witches if the well is polluted and causing people to die. The old testament has rules for cleanliness and Christians not only ignored them but persecuted Jews.

It was never meant to compare Christian Europe with the Islamic world. It must have been after WWII, when it was fashionable to denigrate European history and culture, and above all, Christianity, that the trend emerged to contrast a “European Dark Age” with an “Islamic Golden Age”.

Huh? The facts are not the facts but only denigrate European history? That makes no sense to me.

The name of the period refers to the movement of so-called barbarian peoples—including the Huns, Goths, Vandals, Bulgars, Alani, Suebi, and Franks—into what had been the Western Roman Empire. The term “Dark Ages” is now rarely used by historians because of the value judgment it implies.

- Encyclopedia Britannica

In addition to the value judgment, the term is also based on a number of historical inaccuracies and falsehoods. In reality, Europe experienced a high degree of sophistication and, especially, technological development at this time.

Developing technology is not equal to understanding science. For thousands of years, civilizations developed technology. That does not become science until the right questions are asked, and that began in Athens. Science is investigated but technology is created and science conflicts with Christianity. Technology does not conflict with Christianity, but without science the development of technology is retarded and without science, people are living in the dark. This is a big problem when people are afraid of science and the lies of Satan.

[/quote]Also, we need to remember that the “Islamic Golden Age” would not have taken place without the Greek and Roman culture preserved by the Greek East which was Christian.[/quote]

For exactly the same reason Christians would still be in the dark ages if it were not for renasaunce.

{quote]IMHO the claim A, that “Christianity destroyed Greek and Roman culture” is contradicted by the fact B, that the Muslim Arabs got their knowledge of Classical science, medicine, philosophy, etc. from Christian Europe![/quote] ? You are neglecting history.

As to the Celts, their religion reportedly involved human sacrifice:

So did the Hebrews leading to the story of God telling someone to kill his son and then saying not to do. And Jesus is a human sacrifice is he not? Why people believe this human sacrifice was necessary is beyond me. There is no science in that notion.

According to Roman sources, Celtic Druids engaged extensively in human sacrifice. According to Julius Caesar, the slaves and dependents of Gauls of rank would be burnt along with the body of their master as part of his funerary rites. He also describes how they built wicker figures that were filled with living humans and then burned.

Human sacrifice - Wikipedia

And it would be useful if you had some sources for "Christians starving Celts to death" as personally I am not aware of any ....[/quote]

I have to run but real quick, what you said of the Celts does not change the fact that they had better morals than the Romans and the world is still fighting over this moral issue, especially the Muslims and US Christians.

Yep; that's exactly why empiricism tries to militarise the term, as can be seen in this thread. Athena may have. a desire to take advantage of that process in her discussions with her nephew. Denying a distinction between belief and truth might look like a good move, but it plays into the hands of those who would peddle bullshit; identifying bullshit relies on identifying a difference between what is true and what someone believes. — Banno

To be clear, that is an opinion, not a fact. And in the good old days, we called talking about others gossip.

This thread has really deteriorated. I would love to clean it up by deleting the personal attacks that should never become part of a thread or just close it to stop the bad behavior.

He thinks he is, yes. I happen to disagree, often. He looks at history with Walt Disney's eyes, searching for vilains and heroes. — Olivier5

This thread is not about him and it should be against the rules to derail threads by making the topic the person who made a post. If anyone wants to make personal comments, please send me a personal message and when posting in the thread, please stay on topic.

I don't think complicated historical events can be broken down into monolithic stages like this. Metaphysical mutations don't seem like good explanations for historical events, IMO. The material basis (like advancements in trade technology) is what drives events; ideological changes are an effect, not the cause. It doesn't make any sense to me that one region of the planet progressed simply because the inhabitants started believing in something different. It just seems more like mythology than history. — darthbarracuda

I want to bring this post in play because I agree with it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=countries+surrounding+afghanistan&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&sxsrf=AOaemvKStUpx_tH7CK5ZZ7NRxKrvbbnoqQ:1631714083731&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=EJNHhDRYoVHDHM%252CXMbzPN4GBml2lM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kSP-vxUoxiGbyeXoFpeVLzwU2Yw3Q&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjWodfSkIHzAhVhCjQIHY-SAeIQ9QF6BAgHEAE#imgrc=EJNHhDRYoVHDHM

Look at the countries around Afghanistan. Which ones is the US friendly with? Do you suppose the US failed because it has absolutely no interest in those countries succeeding? What would trade agreements with those countries look like? Afghanistan is land locked so how is it going to trade with the rest of the world? And darthbarracuda, might you tell us what can be expected if there is no trade because you may understand this better than I do.

Indeed. Apo has a strong bias in favour of Christianity and against Islam. It colors everything he says about history. He's basically a Christian apologetic.
7 hours ago — Olivier5

He is very well informed and makes good arguments and he really makes me think. There is a thread about what we want from philosophy and he gives me everything I want. I just worry about offending him. We all feel passionate about something and it is really hard when someone is attacking what we feel passionate about. I would settle for some Christians have done wonderful things, and some Muslims have done wonderful things, and most people mean well. However, the success of a nation is about resources, climate, and trading.

One other point I want to make is, our efforts in Afghanistan may have succeeded if we had built on Islam. It is just as good for democracy as Christianity is. When everything is made legitimate with a belief in a God it goes much better. That is what people will fight for.

↪Athena And good science depends on good observation. — Olivier5

No, we must NOT stop at observation. For so many reasons we can be totally wrong and the link I posted is an excellent explanation of that. Please, pay attention to the explanation of fast and slow thinking before making another argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqXVAo7dVRU

The Greek East itself, whose Christian rulers provided the Muslims with all the medical, scientific and philosophical corpus of the Classical (Greek and Roman) tradition, was under extreme external pressure. It had already become greatly weakened as a result of endless wars with Persia and lost two important provinces, Syria and Egypt, to the Muslim Arabs early on. In addition to being under constant attack from Arabs, Slavs, Bulgars, Germanic and other tribes, the East was infamously attacked by the West. — Apollodorus

That seems like a distorted history to me. Christians destroyed the pagan temples that were places for studying math and medicine and they clung to Jesus's word that we do not have to wash our hands or follow the laws practiced in Judism that were based on experience and health issues. A problem for the Jews, was an incomplete understanding of the science of sanitation and avoiding food poisoning. Moses took his people through a desert where burying human waste was a good health practice, but in a wetter Juresalem, it meant contaminating the water supply and lead to spreading disease and death. At the same time, Christians picked up the eastern notion of demons and demons possessing us and making us sick and that lead to returning to superstition and an inferior understanding of health issue that the Greek medicine. Come on, Christian Europeans dumped their waste in the streets, and burned Jews as witches because they were using herbs for healing, and when plagues came they really persecuted Jews, because the Christians had a very superstitious notion of disease, and to this day some of them are rejecting science and refuse to wear masks or to get vacinated while they pray to Jesus to protect them.

If Evanical Christians and Texas Republicans were not so anti science and anti education for indepentent thinking, I would not care so much about how the religion effects our lives. But there is also knowing how Christians displacing all the indignous people in their path. Not even converting to Christianity saved some of these people, and certianly not people with dark skin who the Bible said were cursed by God and justified their slavery. Please, can we get away from religion? The subject has been very damaging to my friendships with Christians. I am so torn between keeping friends and everything thing I think is very important like liberty and justice and what truth has to do with all our understanding of the world and our decisions, such as occupying Aghanstan with a complete disrespect of Islam and totally failing to help them achieve a strong and united nation. What we did was wrong and we seriously need to give up the notion that we are superior. Our superiority is only temporary as civilizations rise and fall. Our democracy and the search for truth was supposed to avoid the pit falls of previous civilizations, but instead of this making us stronger, it has us pitted against each other as strongly as Sunni and Shia Muslims and the Taliban are pitted against each other. I stand for democracy and that necessrialy is a stand against religion. God did not reveal knowledge of health and good government. Both were the result of human beings trying to figure things out.

Well, the reason I am using history to make a point is that you cannot philosophize about a topic that involves historical events without first establishing what the historical facts are.

History is largely open to interpretation of historical evidence and it can become subject to misinterpretation and distortion.

The idea of “European Dark Ages” is a case in point. Precisely because it is often used to denigrate European or Western history and culture, it is necessary to see what the truth of it is.

The first thing that becomes obvious is that there is a curious tendency among present-day Westerners to forget that the Roman Empire in the 300’s AD was split in two halves: the Eastern part centered on Constantinople (Greece) and controlled by the Greeks, and the Western part centered on Rome (Italy) and controlled by Romans.

Equally forgotten (or deliberately ignored?) is the fact that the Eastern part lasted for more than a millennium and largely preserved the Greek and Roman culture of the original Roman Empire, including the civic structures, public baths, forums, monuments, and aqueducts of pre-Christian Rome in working condition.

In contrast, the Western part from the 400’s onwards was overrun by Germanic tribes, disintegrated into many separate kingdoms, and lost much of its Greek and Roman heritage.

The second thing that becomes evident from this is that if there was anything like a “Dark Ages”, it was a) in the Western half of the Empire only and b) it was not the result of Christian rule but the result of rule by Germanic warriors who were among the greatest fighters Europe had ever seen, but had no advanced culture and no knowledge or experience of running an empire based on urban civilization.

Meantime, the so-called “Golden Age of Islam” came about in Muslim-dominated Persia, through the cultural fusion of mostly Greek and Persian traditions.

For example, all the Greek medical works available to the Muslim rulers of Persia were obtained from the Christian Eastern Roman Empire and translated into Arabic by Christian scholars like Hunayn ibn Ishaq:

Various translations of some works and compilations of ancient medical texts are known from the 7th century. Hunayn ibn Ishaq, the leader of a team of translators at the House of Wisdom in Baghdad played a key role with regard to the translation of the entire known corpus of classical medical literature. Caliph Al-Ma'mun had sent envoys to the Byzantine emperor Theophilos, asking him to provide whatever classical texts he had available. Thus, the great medical texts of Hippocrates and Galen were translated into Arabian, as well as works of Pythagoras, Akron of Agrigent, Democritus, Polybos, Diogenes of Apollonia, medical works attributed to Plato, Aristotle, Mnesitheus of Athens, Xenocrates, Pedanius Dioscorides, Kriton, Soranus of Ephesus, Archigenes, Antyllus, Rufus of Ephesus were translated from the original texts.

Medicine in the medieval Islamic world - Wikipedia

Moreover, this cultural fusion had already started in pre-Islamic times in urban centers like Harran, Ctesiphon, Gundeshapur, Bishapur and Nishapur, where Christian, Sabian, Zoroastrian, Pagan, Buddhist, and other scholars cooperated in the advancement of learning.

So, the Muslim rulers merely continued what the Persians, Greeks and others had already started centuries before, and only after they were forced to do so by the Persian-Arab revolution of 751 that put the Abbasids in charge. At the same time, the Muslim Arab conquests cut off Europe’s links with Asia, arguably imposing a period of relative isolation on the whole continent. The Greek East had established contact with Persia and India, sending emissaries to China to obtain silk worms for the production of silk in the 500’s. Now all trade with India and the Far East had to be conducted through Muslim-controlled lands.

The Greek East itself, whose Christian rulers provided the Muslims with all the medical, scientific and philosophical corpus of the Classical (Greek and Roman) tradition, was under extreme external pressure. It had already become greatly weakened as a result of endless wars with Persia and lost two important provinces, Syria and Egypt, to the Muslim Arabs early on. In addition to being under constant attack from Arabs, Slavs, Bulgars, Germanic and other tribes, the East was infamously attacked by the West.

The Western attack on the Greek East happened as follows. On becoming Pope in 1198, Innocent III called for a Crusade to liberate the Holy Land from Muslim occupation. Unlike in the previous Crusade when the kings of England, Germany and France had personally led the armies, the new call to arms was answered by French and Venetian knights and barons. En route, a plan was hatched to reinstate Eastern Emperor Alexios Angelos (who had been deposed) in return for financial and military assistance in the campaign against the Muslims.

The Greeks rejected the new emperor and the plan ended with the Crusader army in 1204 attacking, conquering, plundering, burning down, and largely destroying Constantinople, with priceless works of art being lost in the process, and many of its citizens slaughtered. The Crusade against Islam turned into a Crusade against Christians and the Pope himself called it “the work of darkness”. The Greeks finally recaptured their capital in 1261 but their empire never recovered.

Fourth Crusade - Wikipedia

We can see why, in these circumstances, Christian Europe at the time was unable to produce a Golden Age of its own. The causes of this were not religious but political. Europe was cut off from the rest of the world by Muslim states in North Africa and the Mid East. The West was too divided and caught up in internal conflict. The East was forced to defend itself against external attacks and gradually lost all its territories to finally fall to the Turks in 1453.

So, I think it is critical to maintain a balance and some degree of objectivity when dealing with historical events that are at the center of the discussion.

Besides, if we are saying that “Islam saved us from the Dark Ages”, then on what basis can we tell the Taliban that they are wrong to enforce Islam in their own country? IMO the “Dark Ages Theory” tends to undermine the Western claim that we can “enlighten” or “civilize” the Islamic world and seems to be the wrong strategy. — Apollodorus

Your account of history is not the same as mine and I rather we stay on good terms than be right about a different account of history. But I think there are somethings we need to consider that are releviant to today and Aghanistans chances of surviving.

All advanced nations are dealing with a barbarian invasion today. In the past, some of those invaders were Christian, just not the same Christianity as Rome had settled on. You know the fight over if Jesus was God or the son of god and when a person must be baptized, etc..

Many of those invading barbarians were people fleeing the Huns or disease, and they did not move in to fight with Rome, but as in the US they were just trying to survive, and some were treated very badly, leaving them to starve to death and to a buffer against violant invaders.

The Celts were not insane and violent people but they did not have a centralized government. Instead, they were spread out and had an amazing road system connecting them. An argument can be made for them being morally superior to Romans because of how they cared for the young, injured, and elderly. And the Romans were chasing after tin the mineral resources held by Celts and others.

After the Romans
Celtic Britain was a valuable asset to Rome, producing significant amounts of grain and beef to feed the military. Its mineral reserves, especially iron, lead, tin, gold and copper, were also successfully exploited.Aug 18, 2020
The Celts in Britain: everything you need to know - History Extra — Historyextra

Constantine moved east because the silver and gold mines of the west were depleted and there was a huge gold mine in the east. Constantinople was closer to the gold and easier to defend and Rome in the west was bankrupt and hard to defend. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/currency-and-the-collapse-of-the-roman-empire/ Rome in Italy had been the center of world trade until its supply of silver and gold was exhausted. And here is Constantinope as the center of trade routs. https://www.google.com/search?q=constantinople+trade+routes&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&sxsrf=AOaemvJK8ZM_-CAGs9tDY31ZpiZ27iYaRw:1631634801596&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=MR5YwuA3bIXkbM%252CirPXjD8s2xW4BM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kSouV1aKEJhWJtTpCX5ZsW-jeQX3g&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjz9oGm6f7yAhXMxZ4KHaKgBUAQ9QF6BAgIEAE#imgrc=MR5YwuA3bIXkbM

Aghanstan benefitted from the Silk road and cultural exchange, but the Silk road, and all cities along it, declined when shipping replaced the need for this land route. https://en.unesco.org/silkroad/countries-alongside-silk-road-routes/afghanistan . Afghanistan is land locked and I can not think of any landlocked nation that has done well.

We can not expect landlocked and poor nations to succeed as Roman succeeded long before it was Christian. That is totally unrealistic. And so is the notion that Christianity is what causes nations to succeed and that not being Christian is why nations fail. The success of a nation does not depend on religion. The success of a nation depends on resources, trade routes, liberty and cultural exchange. We are in serious trouble if people believe national success is about religion. That just is not so, however, liberty is very important to success, and Christians who became literate in Greek and Roman classics did become more liberal and did replace Biblical kingdoms with democracy.

So how do you propose determining what is a fact and what isn't, if you cannot trust what you see? — Olivier5

In a trial, this is done by calling in many witnesses and questioning each one of them, and a jury of peers listens to the arguments and then debates a person's innocence or guilt. This is not perfect and it would be a whole lot better if attorneys were wo/men of integrity who understood the importance of knowing the truth and trial by jury, and if they lived for these values instead of a quick easy buck. Sigh, I think my love of the principles of democracy colors my arguments. But let us move to science.

When Moa became the leader of China he had absolute power and made very bad farming decisions. This was called the Great Leap.

The Great Leap resulted in tens of millions of deaths, with estimates ranging between 15 and 55 million deaths, making the Great Chinese Famine the largest famine in human history. — Wikipedia

In modern countries today we have leaders who ignored the science of dealing with a pandemic and millions of people are dying. Something that could be avoided with leadership that relies on science. Truth in science is about observation and testing what is thought to be true with experiments and peer review. That is the best we can do to have some certainty about facts and our survival and liberty can depend on good science.

If we have different definitions of the term 'fact' what would determine who is right? I would say the only reasonable answer to that would be common usage, and from what I have observed common usage is on my side.
— Janus

I don't think so. The common usage is rather: "a statement recognized as true by many folks, and beyond reasonable doubt". And for that to be the case, there needs to be evidence for the statement, therefore some accurate observation must be done. — Olivier5

Excellent comments and Olivier I want to highlight your use of the legal term, "beyond a reasonable dought". However, Janus, you immediately made a Black man's trail in the South flash to mind. Horrible things have happened in the South because prejudice can so interfere with our judgment.

As we shift from believing Darwinism to an understanding of the effect of poverty, our approach to social justice is changing. The democratic characteristic of equal opportunity requires things like free lunches because hunger interferes with the ability to learn and for sure we need to work on equal education because our children do not have an equal opportunity without equal education. Our understanding of facts makes a huge political difference.

I thought long ago it was agreed we can not trust what we think we see and our experience of the same thing may not agree. Just because we think it, it does not make it true. If Israel and Palestine taught the same history there would be less friction between them and the US is waking up to a different understanding of confederate statues.

My copy of the Democracy Series grade school textbooks begins each book with a list of democratic characteristics. One character of a democracy is the pursuit of truth. We can see from the examples I have given that agreeing on truth can lead to peace instead of war. That makes determining what a fact is very important.

The universe can't be there (even if eternal and infinite) if not created by gods. — Laguercina

How do you validate the existence of gods?

Olivier5
2.8k
your definition of fact still relies on truth; just dishonestly.
— Banno

Of course, and so does yours. And there no dishonesty about it. You should try and relax a bit. — Olivier5

If it can not be validated how can it be an accepted fact?