Did Christianity hold Europe back?

Post Reply New Topic

The Islamic texts make this crystal clear. Women are "deficient in intelligence and religion". You can't tell anyone so blind as a Western 'progressive feminist' though.

Yup - in general, when religion - especially of the Abrahamic variety - is allowed to, it chains people and narrows their thoughts to only that which is allowed by their religion.

Yet, it never ceases to amaze me how many women are devoutly religious, and claim that they are happy and fulfilled - even when under the subjugation of a patriarchal religion like Christianity, Judaism, or Islam! How can they be so blind?

I think there must be an in-built psychological desire in some people to be treated like crap by others and even themselves in many cases.

The women your talking about have probably learned to be content with what they have because that's all they know. As for the whole religion holding back human progress bit, yes, religion is doing that, but a religion doesn't have any power if no one believes in it. It's because people believe in religion, and allow religion to be the be-all and end-all of their thoughts, that religion is holding the world back, just like in the Middle Ages.

Religion mainly rules by fear. Without it, the two blights on humanity that are Christianity and Islam would be nowhere.

Fear and ignorance ... one can't exist without the other.

This. And often violence too.

Though that doesn't quite explain why violence amongst some religious groups is still a problem even in more enlightened countries. I'm referring to things like FGM, witch-burning and other abuses. They know that it's wrong and they know that the society in which they live sees it as abnormal and abhorrent, yet they still do it anyway.

A religion can't commit evil actions by itself. A religion is more of a concept, and concepts can't directly harm people. Certain concepts can influence people to harm others, but it's the people doing the bad actions in the end.
Christianity, as I said earlier, was supposedly created by a peaceful, loving God. (You could argue that Jesus wanted to improve Judaism, not create a new religion, but that's not the point.) Jesus, as far as I know, never intended to start wars. Heck, if we're to believe the Bible, he was crucified on the Cross to cleanse people of their sins - their bad actions.
I don't know much about Islam, but I do know that not all Muslims are extremists and/or terrorists. Not every Muslim is against women's rights. And I heard that one Islamic country had a female prime minister.
Anyway, basically what trying to say here is that religions aren't necessarily evil. I, to be honest with you, am nonreligious and an atheist, but we don't need to accuse all religions of being evil. Their are plenty of good people in the world who are part of a religion.

Yes, but without the religion as back-up, a lot of this could be averted.



But most terrorists in the world today - by a considerable margin - are Islamic terrorists.



True, but Islam is against women's rights. It calls women "deficient in intelligence", according to at least three hadith verses, all collected by Muhammad al-Bukhari, the most respected of all the Muslim sahih scholars.



And do you know what happened to her? She was forced to flee into exile because of threats on her life. Two months after she returned to Pakistan, she was murdered by Islamic terrorists.

1. And if there was no such thing as religion, there would be something influencing people to do the same bad things. It's just human nature.

2. That still doesn't mean every single Muslim is a terrorist.

3. And the Bible says similar things about women that Christians now ignore. If modern ideas have any say in the matter, Islam might change it's mind too.

4. I stand corrected on the part about the minister. But hey, it was still a major achievement that any woman in a Middle Eastern country got a position in the government.

Religion offers answers to questions that concern the human heart. It offers people consolation, joy and fellowship. Of course, if you think religion rules by fear, then you're going to see it in purely negative terms and miss the other things - the positive things - like the great artworks and acts of charity it has inspired. If you looked inward, you might realize that your own moral fanaticism has a distinctive religious flavor. The spectre of Christianity haunts Western Europe still - that part of the continent is living off the moral capital of Christianity, and probably always will. That brings me to a question: how do you reconcile your nihilism with your humanism? If you agree that humanity germinated from physics, chemistry and chance, then human beings have no inherent value. Humanity is pretty worthless, cosmically speaking. In that case, why shouldn't Israeli doctors sterilize Ethiopian women? What's wrong with the way women in the Islamic world are treated? If you believe that humans are worthy of dignified treatment, then that would betray your nihilism and point to a deeper source of value, rather than sentimentalism.

You have a very good point, and I agree with you, even though I am nonreligious. Thank you for bringing that up.

Answers like...?



Of course, we see so much of this in the world, especially from those most devoted to their religion



I don't think anyone will argue against great artwork that was done, but unfortunately while art is great, actions speak louder than words. Even religious artwork itself often reinforces the rule by fear, portraying suffering at the hands of the devil for those who "deserve" it for their heresy



The places that are removing themselves from the "moral capital of Christianity" seem to be doing better than those that aren't. The specter of Christianity does haunt Western Europe but not in a positive fashion. Also, I find the term "moral fanaticism" hilarious and telling about where you really stand



That is a pretty big jump. As per usual you are projecting your own understanding of morality and science onto others... Knowing that life originated from matter and physical processes does not take its "value" away. On the contrary, it makes it all that more precious when you consider its apparent scarcity in the universe.



Humanity is not "worthless" nor is is "worth anything". It simply exists. As sentient beings we have the capability of seeing things in a way most other life does not. Inherent to this is the ability to empathize, which is the root of morality, not religion.



This is simply absurd. You really need to stop projecting your ignorance of secular thought onto those. We get it, you have no idea how a non-religious mindset works. If the only reason you help others is because of fear of a hellish afterlife due to some deity's value system then you simply lack morals. When Tequila acts in a moral or kind fashion it is not out of subconscious fear but because... he is a moral person

In Defense of Telekon:

1. The answers religion provides depends on which religion you're talking about, and who is following that religion.

2. I suppose you are going to ignore the "acts of charity" part.

3. This section of the forums is where you can debate Politics, Philosophy, and Religion. You are allowed to express your views on those subjects here. And that's exactly what Telekon was trying to do, in my opinion. He isn't "projecting your own understanding of morality and science onto others ..." he doesn't have the power to do that. He's just expressing his opinion.

4. We have the "capability" to "empathize" and have morality, but that doesn't mean everybody is a good person. Nor does it mean that people are good and religion is bad.

5. I think Telekon was being sarcastic in the last part (please correct me if I'm wrong, Telekon.)


But:

1. Vigilans does bring up a good point about the artwork.

2. I honestly do think it is better to do good out of your own choice, and not because you fear a "hellish afterlife".


To be frank with you all, I don't think religion is particularly good or bad. Religion has its good parts, and has its bad parts, as just about everything else does, including people. I don't believe in any religion, but I'm not going to call all religions immoral because of that.

That still doesn't tell me what any of those answers are. Telekon probably has Christianity in mind when saying that so I don't think my question deserves such a nebulous response



No I just don't disagree with it, there are countless religious charities



Telekon's arguments against atheism always amount to the same thing. I have been here for many years as has Telekon and his arguments have not changed at all. He projects his concepts of what atheists are onto those he argues with and then bases all his arguments against them on these straw men. Its nothing new and projection is a power all human beings have



That's not the point, my point is that morality does not start with the external influence of religion



Nope