Friends In Your Discord!

2014-01-04 01:28:51

Doctor Submarine wrote:

I know we're way past this at this point, but I wanted to clarify. Preserving so many super-important works of literature is hardly something to be brushed aside as unimportant. I'm not saying that there wasn't something of a decline, but the term "Dark Ages" is incredibly misleading. The first person ever to use the term "Dark Ages" used it to describe the period of time between the end of Charlemagne's rule and the beginning of the Gregorian Reforms. Aka, a period of time where the Church had little political power or ties to powerful leaders. The time period was "Dark" because the Church had little control. It was later co-opted by any number of people to describe multiple periods of time in the Middle Ages. You call something "Dark" so that you can create a negative association with something else. In this case, it's been used so much that it's basically meaningless. Not to mention the fact that plenty of places outside Europe were having a grand old time.

The context of this discussion was whether Christianity was responsible for a diminution of progress. Someone brushed this aside, claiming they were all pagans in the Dark Ages / Middle Ages. This wasn't true - for most of this 1000 year period, the big players in Europe (French, Italians, Germans, Spanish, Saxons were thoroughly Christianized.
And the term is not meaningless. It refers to a specific geographical area (Europe) and it refers to a very specific epoch: mid-5th century AD (Fall of Rome) to mid-15th century AD (Renaissance). The term is at least as, if not more, precise as "Classical Antiquity" or "Reformation" or "Renaissance" or "Enlightenment".

As for what was happening outside Europe... Sure, China had come up with printing, gunpowder, and the compass, and were sending ships to Africa in the early 15th century. But we were discussing Christianity's braking effect on progress. And there was a massive slow-down, stalling, and even reverse of any measure of progress you care to come up with: scientific understanding, living standards, human rights, etc.

Yes, it's now more PC to call it "Middle Ages" because "Dark Ages" has a judgemental tone about it. Academia likes to be very politically correct. But I'm calling a spade a spade. The "lights went out" in Europe for about 1000 years - there was virtually no advance across a whole range of intellectual fields.

If you dispute this, feel free to cite some examples where Europe progressed during this 1000 year interval.

2014-01-04 00:53:39

Sam F wrote:

Isn't it peculiar that so many ancient cultures passed down similar flood stories? Maybe it's because a great flood actually happened. Different cultures infused their own myths into the stories, but the fact that so many of them told stories of a great flood tells me that maybe Moses wasn't copying them, but referencing the same actual event.

The very first cities that were ever built are all located between the lower Tigris and Euphrates Rivers... on a flood plain. Uruk and Ur date from the 4th millennium BC... when they invented writing, epic literature, institutionalized religion with a priestly class, etc. Whenever there was a deluge in the mountains in southern Turkey, it flooded downstream. The Jews were exiled for 50 years in Babylon in the 6th century BC.

2014-01-03 20:37:51

Invid wrote:

avatar wrote:
No, the fall of Rome can't be pinned on Christianity. But the fact that it took 1000 years to regain what was lost can.
It should be noted that, while Rome fell, the rich part of the Roman empire was by then based out of Constantinople, and that Christian empire lasted for another thousand years without entering a "Dark Age". In fact, it was the Crusaders passing through the city (and sacking it a few times because, hey, they were the wrong type of Christian) who passed back word of the advanced culture there and kickstarted things back home.

Even with the Byzantium civilization, I'd question what intellectual progress it achieved. Any discoveries? Any exploration? Any technological inventions? Any improvements in human rights? Medicine? Any improvement in understanding the nature of man and the cosmos?

Reconciling Plato & Aristotle to the Bible doesn't count. Transcribing old documents from papyrus to parchment to paper doesn't count. Making shitloads of religious icons and holy relics doesn't count. Byzantium may not be quite as Dark as the west, but it's still fairly Dark compared to what came before AD450 and after AD1450.

2014-01-03 20:30:47

Eddie wrote:

Also, on a different point, as someone married to a Catholic and with a deep respect for people's faiths....there is no way historically you can look to the rise of Christianity and not see the influence of other monotheistic religions in terms of creation myths, moral code, afterlife structure, etc.
This is going to sound harsher than it is meant to be, but Christianity is akin to a Judaism/Zoroastrinism mashup fan-fic. Jesus historically existed, and the Pentateuch was in place, but many of the gaps of the old testament were filled in with elements of pre existing concepts.

Yep. And Judaism itself borrows heavily from Mesopotamia. Noah's Flood is a good example of this. The story was ripped off the Babylonians during the 6th century BC exile. There are Flood Myths (Epic of Gilgamesh) which long precede any Hebrew writing - by about 1000 years.

2014-01-03 20:26:45

Sam F wrote:

avatar wrote:
Of course, you can cherry-pick the Bible for the good-bits and ignore the bad bits, but in doing so you're already applying a pre-existing value system that does the filtering.
Yes but where do those pre-existing values come from? It's the culture in which we were raised.

The radical thinkers of the Enlightenment advocated for a DEPARTURE from the prevailing culture. You can't credit Christianity for instilling values that were advanced as a direct response against Christianity.

All the foundations of our modern liberal western society that we now take for granted (democracy, equality, right to open trial, prohibition on torture, prohibition of slavery, no religious test for office, freedom of the press, etc) came in the last 250 years when the power of the church had significantly waned.

2014-01-03 20:16:48

Doctor Submarine wrote:

This is a pretty massive generalization, especially the part about there being "virtually no progress" in any of those areas. Actually, the so-called "Dark" Ages had advancement. Just look at the Carolingian Renaissance. That's why most historians agree that the term "Dark" Ages is inaccurate.

Did you actually read the article on the Carolingian Renaissance you linked to? The so-called "achievements" throughout the 9th century are limited to the court, and the term "renaissance" is somewhat of an exaggeration and contested. How did European society actually improve? What are its great achievements, comparable to those before the Dark Ages (maths, astronomy, theatre, history) and those after the Dark Ages (discovery of the New World, anatomy, telescopes, heliocentrism, etc).

Transcribing ancient scrolls is not an 'achievement' if you don't add anything of value to them. Neither is Biblical commentary or yet more depictions of the Virgin and Child.

2014-01-03 15:31:54

Funniest. Commentary. Ever.

Laughing all the way through my chores today whilst listening to this.

2014-01-03 13:03:53

iJim wrote:

Doctor Submarine wrote:
As long as we're knocking out common arguments, here's one you all might be familiar with. See this chart?
This chart is 110% bullshit. Please never share it.
Yeah. The dark ages (by which we mean after the fall of the Roman empire and decent into superstitious chaos) had almost nothing to do with Christianity. It was precipitated by the Huns and Goths fucking Italy's shit up. The madness that followed would have occurred regardless of prevalent religion. People were still worshiping Odin in large numbers at this time.

I've never seen this chart. The first thing I notice is that it should be Babylonian not Egyptian before the Greeks. Babylonians were the first to make detailed astronomical observations, have epic literature, and compile libraries. We get our 60 minutes & 60 seconds from the Babylonians. By contrast, Egypt was an intellectually stagnant society.

No, the fall of Rome can't be pinned on Christianity. But the fact that it took 1000 years to regain what was lost can. It didn't take long before the barbarians that invaded Rome in the 5th century to be become Christian. Theoderic, one of the first Goth rulers after Rome fell, was already a Christian of sorts. Paganism was wiped out on mainland Continental Europe very rapidly - just a couple of centuries. Even Ireland and Britain became Christian by the 7th century and the northern Vikings were the last to convert - about AD1000.

The early Church fathers (e.g. Augustine) directed attention away from nature to the Holy Scriptures (Scholasticism) and this dominated intellectual life for many centuries. Ancient texts were shunned as they were pagan (Greek & Roman). Classical statues were defaced. Bronzes molten down. The Greek academies were closed by the Eastern church. Stagnation ensued: Europe became inward-looking, closed-minded, and repressive. There was even regression as much was lost. So the term 'Dark Ages' is apt. There was virtually no progress in science, philosophy, technology, exploration, drama, music, and artistic techniques.

Europe didn't start waking up again until the 15th century (printing press, Columbus, de Gama)

A good book on what we lost is Charles Freeman's The Closing of the Western Mind

http://www.amazon.com/Closing-Western-M … =&qid=

A good movie on this topic is AGORA - set in Alexandria around AD400 just when Rome was losing power and the Christians started dominating.

2014-01-03 10:31:22

It's still a common belief that religion gets the credit for our morality.

The revolution in humanitarian rights (democracy, equality, welfare, abolition, education for all, etc) came out of the Enlightenment: mainly free-thinkers, deists, secularists, etc. Paine, Voltaire, Mill, Hobbes, Hume, Locke, Spinoza, Diderot, etc.

Of course, you can cherry-pick the Bible for the good-bits and ignore the bad bits, but in doing so you're already applying a pre-existing value system that does the filtering. It's reversing cause and effect. You could do the same filtering with a Tolkien book.

But bizarrely religion gets the credit, even though it's been the cause of holding back moral progress for many centuries (slavery, racism, monarchy, misogyny, homophobia, cruel punishments, etc). Studied closely, the Bible has an Iron Age moral code that has no place today. The fact that even religious people regularly dismiss large tracts of it is telling. And the further we progress (e.g. gay rights in the 21st century), the greater the parts of the Bible that have to be swept under the carpet as embarrassing to believers.

2014-01-03 03:11:36

Okay, water behaves weirdly. What argument are you resting on this fact? That science doesn't know everything? That's fine. We've all conceded that.

Our knowledge is limited and fallible and some parts of it will most likely be corrected in the future.

But that doesn't mean that ANY OTHER way of knowing is better. What are the alternatives?

1. I have a hunch?
2. God told me in a dream ?
3. That's what we've always been taught?
4. The Pope/Ayatollah/Rabbi/Holy Man told me?

2014-01-03 02:58:49

Invid wrote:

Linking to a story about how science is solving the mystery seems to show it does make sense to science. Now, on the other hand, tide goes in, tide goes out. You can't explain that!

2014-01-03 02:53:32

One thing that's apparent after years of these conversations is that the human brain can rationalize just about any position. Human language is vague enough that one can get any conclusion from any premise ,if you've already decided a priori that's where you want to arrive at. And a few seconds Googling can provide anyone with extra arguments to back up just about any point.

Maybe it's like different people's metabolism. Some people just put on weight easier than others, given the same calories. Likewise, given the same arguments, and evidence, some people just gravitate towards a religious conclusion whilst others arrive at an atheist conclusion.

Reminds me of a secular proverb (which I don't think is quite accurate): You can't reason a person out of a position that they didn't use reason to enter into.

2014-01-03 02:40:19

I just saw Martin Freeman in the new Sherlock Holmes TV show and his acting is good, but for some reason I just don't get his Hobbit performance. It's really annoying me - because Peter Jackson did such a good job in getting great performances out of mediocre actors like Sean Astin - who just knocked it out of the park.

Freeman's Bilbo, by contrast, is opaque. I don't understand his motivations for anything he does. Sometimes he appears to be a dick, other times he's indecisive, and then a coward, and then brave, and then stupid, and then homesick, and then curious, and then obstinate, and then smart. And so on. Therefore's no consistency and there's no transparency.

2014-01-03 02:18:03

It's true that science doesn't know everything. It may even be true that science WILL NEVER know everything.

No one claims these things.

But that doesn't mean any other means at attaining knowledge (revelation, intuition, authority, tradition) is therefore superior.

The scientific method is not just the best way at attaining knowledge, but it's the only way. It's got a self-correcting mechanism built in and admits its ignorance and has achieved more in the last 400 years than any other superstition has in 6000 years.

We're just going to have to get used to admitting we don't know how the universe began. We've got to be comfortable with uncertainty, rather than placing some Creator there.

And even if you had to insert a 'first cause' there (Deism), how do you get from there to a personal God that answers prayers, cares about your personal failures, resurrects homo sapiens, punishes and rewards, etc?

2014-01-03 01:35:44

fireproof78 wrote:

Now, I know that is controversial opinion, especially in this day and age, but the idea of the Big Bang occurring and everything else just forming strikes me as long odds. In addition, the complexity of the natural world, especially things like DNA or bacteria, and their basic functioning, are detailed enough to be evidence of a conscious design. I find the conclusions of science, at times, lacking and don't believe that humans can possibly know it all.
From there, I move in to the major world religious points of view. Comparative theology is probably one of the most interesting fields of study for me. There are a lot of details to it that fascinate me, and I have given my reasons as to why the Bible is more compelling.
But, even if I didn't believe in the Bible, there idea of a creative force in this universe is not hard to imagine, due to the way the world works.

You realise that 99.9999999999999999999999% of the universe is dead. The only life we've found is a thin film of slime on one ordinary planet around one ordinary star in one ordinary galaxy, among quadrillions of planets, stars and galaxies.

And homo sapiens arrived 13.5 billion years after the universe began. Put us anywhere else in the universe and we'd rapidly die. We're only here because an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. And in a few billion years, the sun will get too hot for us and extinguish all complex life off the Earth.

That undermines the whole notion that humans are somehow the culmination of some 'creating force' of the universe. Life is the exception to the universe, a freak abnormality.

2014-01-02 21:22:43

bullet3 wrote:

It was on the edge I guess.
Personally, I would prefer if the FIYH forums stayed away from more divisive topics, next thing you know we're gonna have political threads arguing idiology, and then we gradually lose what made these forums unique: people of all walks of life coming together to bitch about movies

You can blaspheme against my Saviour, spit on my church, and curse my Holy Relics, but don't you dare suggest Nolan is a hack.

2014-01-02 19:07:13

Dave wrote:

Pastor, I think that the sense of wellbeing and joy you exhibit is really as much confirmation that your faith works for you as anyone should really need.
The atheist camp can become a little sermonising, and here especially, it's a very secular environment. While I personally disagree with your religious point of view (speaking as a godless heretic), and do want to see more people become sceptical and demand evidence, that's not what everyone wants for themselves. And that's perfectly ok.
At this stage in the thread we're at risk of putting our own personal grievance with religion on to someone else. Let's be cautious of isolating or segregating and remember what's really important - the movies, and how to make them better.

Yes, by all means, play the ball not the man. And if your beliefs make you happy, then that's fine.

On the other hand, this is a thread that specifically invites people in to defend their beliefs. There's no reason we can't have a robust discussion of the arguments. We're all grown up here, so we don't have to tippy-toe around and given certain people a privileged free pass on their claims.

If I claim that I believe in an Arab Vampire Plumber that lived 3000 years ago in Assyria, I fully expect to be challenged to back that up. Just as someone else who claims they believe in a Jewish Zombie Carpenter who lived 2000 years ago in Israel should expect to receive the same vigorous cross-examination.

2014-01-02 19:00:23

iJim wrote:

I'm sure an intellectual argument could be made in favor of it. But to my ears it's between monster movie and Gladiator parody. Just a cacophony of tribal-ish sounding noises and an oddly flat horn section.

I'm a big fan of Vangelis' music, but I also thought his score didn't really suit the material, especially the battle scenes. It worked when entering Babylon and the Roxanne track on the CD is nice on its own as is the closing credits music 'Eternal Alexander'.

He had the same problem with Mutiny on the Bounty i.e. electronic music doesn't embellish the 18th century setting. Blade Runner, on other hand, is perfectly complemented by the Vangelis sound.

There's also the fashion problem: Synth scores sound so 80s now.

2014-01-02 11:50:10

ALEXANDER (2004) - Oliver Stone 3.5 hour cut.

The most flawed of the big historical epics that came out in the early 2000s: Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, Troy, and King Arthur. Even the director says it's got problems, hence the three different cuts.

I knew about its weaknesses (casting, accents, too many characters, endless battles, etc) so I brushed up on the real Alexander with various articles, documentaries, lectures, etc. For these big epics, you ideally need a map, a genealogy, a detailed character list, a time-line, and some context. I was treating it more like a dramatised documentary. This subject matter really needs a 10-part mini-series, as it covers 20 years and a lot of the Eurasian continent. 8/10 for effort, but 4/10 for execution.

2014-01-02 10:08:47

Dorkman wrote:

Just got back.
Ugh, garbage. I learned so much from the LOTR making ofs and it's like Jackson is making the wrong choices deliberately. I almost started crying in the theater at how bad it was. I really doubt I'm going to bother with the third film.

Gee - that bad? No redeeming features? Smaug's reveal? Spiders? A couple of okay jokes? Landscape, I mean, CG porn? Ummm.... struggling here. Yeah, there's not much else I guess.

After the first one, I went in with low expectations, so wasn't disappointed as some aspects had improved over the first one. So instead of sucking real bad, it only just sucked bad.

2014-01-01 12:56:23

switch wrote:

yeah, I'm with you on Noah fireproof. That movie doesn't look interesting to me. But I thought that that was the only biblical adaptation out in 2014...?

And we gotta endure discussion of Mary Mother of Christ in 2014 as well as Exodus. Only a matter of time before Apostles versus Zombies gets greenlit.

2014-01-01 10:13:18

It's almost 50 years since we've first done this already. What's a bit underwhelming is that we've had the entire electronics and telecommunications revolution in the meantime, and yet this rover's capabilities aren't that much different from the ones that landed in the 1960s. Over a few months, it'll scratch around in the regolith a bit and take some higher-res shots. Okay [shrugs shoulders].

Good on China I suppose. Now get your arse to Mars.

2014-01-01 10:04:33

Trey wrote:

Interesting to contemplate that if you could just magnify that image far enough, at some point it would turn into porn. Weird alien porn. A couple billion times over.

If confronted with His wrath over this matter, I'd say unto the Creator 'Well don't create us with a sex drive then. Der. The God who invents testosterone and Emily Ratajkowski is just asking for things to fuck up. Bite me"

2014-01-01 02:00:07

100 billion visible galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars, each with many planets.

And the Creator of all that is supposed to care which hole you stick it in?

2013-12-31 22:49:06

Sam F wrote:

You may disagree, but an opinion on what is good or bad based on a morality that has no ultimate grounding in anything but fallible human reasoning doesn't change what is truly good from biblical standards. If you don't accept those biblical standards of good and bad, you don't accept the biblical God and that opinion of Him is therefore pointless anyway.

I'm glad that in the 21st century we DON'T take our morality from the Bible. What a barbarous world it would be. The Bible does't contain a single prohibition against slavery, but plenty of prescriptions of how to treat and punish your slave.

It's indicative that when Christianity was completely dominant throughout Europe (the Church was effectively a totalitarian regime) about 1000 years ago, we had very short harsh lives, no rights for women, gays, minorities, arbitrary cruel punishments, slavery, massive entrenched inequality, no democracy, etc. Dark Ages.

Only when the power of religion waned in the Enlightenment, did people start to experience an improvement in their well-being. Longer lives, more rights, a say in government, reduced violence, equality, etc. This was due to science, and yes, 'fallible' human reasoning. Yes, it's 3 steps forward, 2 back, but nevertheless, we worked it out for ourselves, rather than relying on a text written in the Middle Eastern iron age. The most progressive societies today are the least religious e.g. Sweden, Norway, Finland, etc - with the best statistics in literacy, health, education, equality, fair wealth distribution, low crime rates, etc.

Friends In Your Discord!

Search options (Page 17 of 52)

Posts found: 401 to 425 of 1,277

401 Reply by avatar 2014-01-04 01:28:51

Re: Is there a God and why? (373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

402 Reply by avatar 2014-01-04 00:53:39

Re: Is there a God and why? (373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

403 Reply by avatar 2014-01-03 20:37:51

Re: Is there a God and why? (373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

404 Reply by avatar 2014-01-03 20:30:47

Re: Is there a God and why? (373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

405 Reply by avatar 2014-01-03 20:26:45

Re: Is there a God and why? (373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

406 Reply by avatar 2014-01-03 20:16:48

Re: Is there a God and why? (373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

407 Reply by avatar 2014-01-03 15:31:54

Re: V for Vendetta (59 replies, posted in Episodes)

408 Reply by avatar 2014-01-03 13:03:53

Re: Is there a God and why? (373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

409 Reply by avatar 2014-01-03 10:31:22

Re: Is there a God and why? (373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

410 Reply by avatar 2014-01-03 03:11:36

Re: Is there a God and why? (373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

411 Reply by avatar 2014-01-03 02:58:49

Re: Is there a God and why? (373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

412 Reply by avatar 2014-01-03 02:53:32

Re: Is there a God and why? (373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

413 Reply by avatar 2014-01-03 02:40:19

Re: Hobbit 2 - Despoiling of Smaug (95 replies, posted in Off Topic)

414 Reply by avatar 2014-01-03 02:18:03

Re: Is there a God and why? (373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

415 Reply by avatar 2014-01-03 01:35:44

Re: Is there a God and why? (373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

416 Reply by avatar 2014-01-02 21:22:43

Re: Is there a God and why? (373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

417 Reply by avatar 2014-01-02 19:07:13

Re: Is there a God and why? (373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

418 Reply by avatar 2014-01-02 19:00:23

Re: Last movie you watched (2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

419 Reply by avatar 2014-01-02 11:50:10

Re: Last movie you watched (2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

420 Reply by avatar 2014-01-02 10:08:47

Re: Hobbit 2 - Despoiling of Smaug (95 replies, posted in Off Topic)

421 Reply by avatar 2014-01-01 12:56:23

Re: What were your TOP 5 MOVIES of 2013? (209 replies, posted in Off Topic)

422 Reply by avatar 2014-01-01 10:13:18

Re: Space Nerds (346 replies, posted in Off Topic)

423 Reply by avatar 2014-01-01 10:04:33

Re: Is there a God and why? (373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

424 Reply by avatar 2014-01-01 02:00:07

Re: Is there a God and why? (373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

425 Reply by avatar 2013-12-31 22:49:06

Re: Is there a God and why? (373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Posts found: 401 to 425 of 1,277