• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Open Letter to VyckRo

Dogma's Demise

New Member
arg-fallbackName="Dogma's Demise"/>
Hello VyckRo,

I see you have made another blog post about atheism (well specifically New Atheists on the Internet and how horrible they are) so here's my response. Now you did raise some points about vulgarity and how it hinders real discussion, fine, I won't do it this time. (Or try not to anyway.)
VyckRo said:
At that time, I found a video on YouTube extremely offensive and extremely vulgar. Not even today can I understand how one can expect you to listen to their side of the story after they spit in your face, call you an idiot, and show you the finger. Until then, I had never had any connection with any discussion on religious/atheist themes. Until that time, I had never paid atheism any attention, but you know what they say, "the first impression matters". It does, and especially when that impression is confirmed again and again, without any exceptions.

This applies both ways, VyckRo. Consider the kind of "first impression" you are making on an atheist who comes to your channel, for example when they see videos like "Atheism = Lack of Culture" or comments like "Communism is the political expression of atheism", or even that "So far your only political expression has been communism" (paraphrasing here so feel free to correct it), that is false historically as well as I've shown you the case with Ataturk, an atheist who founded a modern non-communist democratic state. Now what do you suppose Turkey would be like today if Ataturk had been, let's say a devout Muslim instead?

Secondly, you have been shown multiple times that political ideology and religious belief (or unbelief) don't really have much in common. What is inherently communistic or even left-wing about atheism? And when examples are shown to you (HowTheWorldWorks, SE Cupp who are right-wing or Pat Condell, MartinJWillett which at the very least have strong right-wing tendencies) your response is always "these people are just deluded", which the implication that if you're atheist, communism is the only way to go.

As I said, it works both ways.

Thirdly, about this whole apparent left-wing/atheist alliance, at least in America, have you ever considered that maybe the reason many atheists stay away from the right is because the GOP has such horrible socially conservative policies and tends to be allied with religious loonies?

And about the anger, I suspect the anger is mostly the result of years of anti-atheist marginalization going on in society, including the first world country USA as well as the madness displayed by many highly devout theists whether it's evangelist creationists in America who want to hijack the science class or Muslims who believe in the implementation of Sharia and the destruction of "western civilization from within" or I dunno, Orthodox Christian far right-wingers from Noua Dreapta or PNC who want to turn Romania into a theocracy or Catholic officials who discourage the use of condoms when there's an over-population and HIV crisis in Africa.

All over the world atheists are marginalized, even for the most trivial remarks about religion, it happens in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Malaysia, even secular Turkey. Now luckily in USA there is a first amendment, but discrimination still happens socially.

You said:
VyckRo said:
So, if modern atheists do not want a discussion, what do they want? I think they want to be offensive for the pleasure of being offensive. I think they want to humiliate just for the sake of it. The first objection that I almost always hear is "but...not all atheists are like that!". OK, maybe it is so; still, this is a discussion about those who are, and in particular, the current of the new-atheists.

How many atheists do you actually know? I mean all you've seen so far is a minority of a minority. There are millions of atheists in Sweden alone for example who have no interest in any kind of pro-atheism activism.

Second, there's a difference between mocking people and mocking ideas, but because some people are so attached to these ideas, they take it as a personal attack.

VyckRo said:
But what differentiates criticism of religion as done by the new-atheists from a normal criticism is that, in the case of the new atheists, it becomes obsessive.
That is, applied to any other protected group (yap, religion is a protected group), this would be called, depending on the case: xenophobia, racism, or anti-semitism."Obsessive" is the keyword here, because, for most new-atheists, religion is the cause for all that is evil, and for nothing that is good.

This is a forum with plenty of "new atheists", so I'm going to ask everyone right now: Do you agree with the statement that "religion is the cause for all that is evil, and for nothing that is good"? I'll go even further, how many of you agree that "religion is the cause for half that is evil, and for almost nothing that is good"?

I mean maybe you've misunderstood some of the things you've read, but I seriously doubt that many atheists are deluded enough to think that once religion is gone the world will be this great scientifically advanced utopia.


Now speaking of the good done by religion, last time we talked you mentioned how the Christian world preserved the knowledge of the Greeks and helped develop western civilization. That's all well and good, but my point is I'm not worried that somehow the past will be magically erased if everyone became atheist. For example schools and hospitals might have been closely tied with the church in the beginning, well now they're secular and certainly don't need any church to function.

Secondly, that's one religion and these days Christianity is becoming an increasing liability, often exploited for control and financial gain or to oppress homosexuals. If you asked me about Islam, I can honestly say that the world would probably be a better place right now if Islam never existed, imagine no more Ottoman conquests, no more totalitarian regimes based on Sharia, no more Middle Eastern conflict and global terrorism, no more problems of Sharia creeping into Europe.

VyckRo said:
There is a difference between a person that today criticizes an action of their government, and tomorrow will criticize a social attitude, and one day will criticize a religion or a religious leader, and so on, and a person who criticises only religion every day (day after day).

I criticize a lot of things actually, it's just that this is the only side of me I'm showing right now. Now I wouldn't exactly describe myself as "activist" because I do very little compared to other people who are indeed activists. But that's what activists do. They tend to focus on a single issue.

I also don't think it's comparable to racism, at least it's not a perfect comparison. Beliefs (religious or otherwise) actually define who you are, as opposed to race which is not only a superficial cosmetic aspect of someone, but also unchangeable, so that's another reason racism is unacceptable. Same with antisemitism, it often doesn't have anything to do with criticism of Judaism, it's just pure hate against Jews based on their origin. So if I cannot judge what kind of person you are based on what you believe, then I can't really judge you at all. I certainly believe citizens are and should be equal under the law regardless of what they believe and that everyone can worship whatever they want as long as they don't impose it on others but don't expect me to take seriously all the wild claims made by religions.

Anyway, there are plenty of other strawman that follow, for example not all new atheists (yes that includes YouTube atheists) believe the whole Dark Age thing brought about by Christianity, see CardinalVirtues, skepticalheretic. Maybe I will respond later, but this little thing caught my eye:

VyckRo said:
P.S
I wonder how history will remember these people? over 50-100 years, some historian that will study their movement, will probably find difficult to understand how these people that lived in an oasis of freedom have wasted this great opportunity in attacking their own cultural model.

I assume you're talking about the western model since most new atheists are westerners.

Not sure if you noticed but European and American cultures are not purely Christian or "Judeo-Christian" or whatever term you prefer. It's also a secular humanist culture. I don't know many "new atheists" who want to destroy western culture, give us some examples.

There is however a tendency for cultural relativism (or as I like to call it multiculty dhimmitude) so maybe westerns todays aren't so keen to defend their culture from the demands of Islamic culture. But that goes for Christian westerners like this guy:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7232661.stm

And you really think it's atheists "attacking" the cultural model when you have a high-ranking Christian defending Sharia law?
 
arg-fallbackName="australopithecus"/>
Dogma's Demise said:
Now speaking of the good done by religion, last time we talked you mentioned how the Christian world preserved the knowledge of the Greeks and helped develop western civilization.

That was actually the Islamic world. VyckRo can't claim that one for Jesus I'm afraid.
 
arg-fallbackName="australopithecus"/>
So, while Christendom was wallowing in self imposed stagnation the Middle East was preserving, expanding and improving Greco-Roman technology, science and philosophy. If Vyck wants to claim something for Christianity then he can claim self flagellation and guilt.
 
arg-fallbackName="Dogma's Demise"/>
That doesn't make any sense, so basically it was Byzantines (i.e. Christians) who preserved the knowledge of the Greeks and passed it on to the Islamic world (without which they'd never get off the ground on their own) and later to Western Europe, and you're saying they were "wallowing in self imposed stagnation" while the Islamic world made this great progress in technology, science and philosophy.

Let's not exaggerate, the "Christian Dark Age vs. Enlightened Islam" is a caricature and we should know better, especially when this skewed version of history is exploited by Muslim apologists who are trying to convince Europeans and Americans that Islam played a disproportionate role in shaping the west, so that unwanted Islamic values can creep into western culture unopposed. After all, if Islam helped create the west and you're being so hostile against Islam, you're a hypocrite, right? :D No, not really, it's emotional blackmail. We don't owe Islam anything because of something that happened 800 years ago, especially when it's an almost complete liability in the present.

Not to say I fully agree with VyckRo, I agree with some of what he says, but he is playing a similar game, trying to guilt atheists into not criticizing Christianity because of the role it played in the past (which let's be honest, you can't deny and say it's always been a force for evil all the time and ignore for example the fact that schools started around the church), as if denouncing Christianity is somehow going to erase the past.

Kind of like saying throwing out my toys will erase my childhood.
 
arg-fallbackName="australopithecus"/>
Dogma's Demise said:
[...]especially when this skewed version of history is exploited by Muslim apologists who are trying to convince Europeans and Americans that Islam played a disproportionate role in shaping the west, so that unwanted Islamic values can creep into western culture unopposed.

Who? Name names.

The only difference between you and Vyck are the targets you chose. That's it.
 
arg-fallbackName="Dogma's Demise"/>
Hamza Tzortzis comes to my mind, with this smile and calm tone, he's always trying to portray Islam or the Sharia in a good light. Snake oil salesman type, there was an interview with him on a show called (The Deen Show) where he said you wouldn't have smart phones without Islam. :lol: His friendly personality however can be misleading since he does view Islam as both a religion and a political ideology and he's stated he wants a Caliphate. You can find plenty of his material online.

Now look, I'm not denying there was a "Golden Age of Islam", but I find it pretty troubling when a western leader talks in terms of "civilization's debt to Islam" as if it actually meant something. Talk about being diplomatic, but this is over-doing it. There is no "debt" to pay.
 
arg-fallbackName="VyckRo"/>
First of all, sorry for I've marked your message on YT as spam. Initially I wanted to reply that I just do not have time.
Things are this way, as skeptical philosophy say, to any argument you can oppose a counterargument equally convincing.
"As this:
the World exist?
How do you know that there is a world outside your own perception?"

Total skepticism is therefore anti-producriv, atheists generally adopt total skepticism combined with "a priori" idea and a kind of "confirmation bias".
Therefore as underline and Dostoevsky(or Peter Tutea) Talking with an atheist is non-productive. The atheist will always find reasons for "his unbelief" and never take in consideration his opponents arguments (Atheists believes his opponent to be handicapped anyway),
- Right now I'm very busy.
1. during the week I work at a thesis useful to my professional career, and I am always at the computer writing something, or in the state archives, army, police, summarizing some folders.
2. For the weekend I took a job as operator polls which allows me to arrange my time as I want.

Conclusion, I do not have time for endless discussions in which to talk to "lawyers" that start from the premise that they have to find counter-arguments to everything what I say.

I hope I do not have to remind everyone that atheist generally adopt the tactic of "I'm busy".
 
arg-fallbackName="VyckRo"/>
australopithecus said:
Dogma's Demise said:
Now speaking of the good done by religion, last time we talked you mentioned how the Christian world preserved the knowledge of the Greeks and helped develop western civilization.

That was actually the Islamic world. VyckRo can't claim that one for Jesus I'm afraid.


This idea is one of the myths of modern and past atheism, which makes me believe that atheism is a religion.
This thesis was launched in on our modern YT debate by the atheist-apologist, Tfandarfoot. Today when I have about 20 treaties of Byzantinology I look upon this thesis with a big smile.

All the great civilizations of ancient Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, were unable to passed off their knowledge after their civilization disappeared.In China we have extraordinary technological inventions in the Middle East amazing knowledge of mathematics and astronomy etc.
Still ... Today only archaeologists can decipher the text of those civilizations. With one major exception, Greek civilization, she survived through the Orthodox Church and the Byzantine Empire.
The ancient agora became in orthodoxy "ecumenical council" and the church fathers Basil the Great and John Chrysostom were scholars of greek philosophy. They used in their discussions with pagans and heretics aristotelian terminology (as being, essence, etc.) and platonic methods of debate. For Orthodoxy the ancient philosophy and literature have always been a source of pride, even in Romania on the exter walls of medieval churches, we find Aristotle, Plato, Archimedes, etc..
Greek culture has given Christianity the dynamism, of a universal religion, but at the same time she brought many heresies that only Christianity has known. For example Arianism came from Neo-Platonic philosophical school, and start from the idea that at first there was "one" and "one" is the origin of everything.

The last great library of antiquity the "Imperial Library of Constantinople" was neighbor for a milieniu whit the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.


http://www.amazon.com/Lost-West-Forgotten-Byzantine-Civilization/dp/0307407969
http://books.google.ro/books/about/Hellenisches_und_Christliches_im_fr%C3%BChby.html?id=WBUvAAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y
or in Romanian
http://www.nemira.ro/byzantivm/elenic-si-crestin-in-viata-spirituala-a-bizantului-timpuriu--2006
My blog also
http://vyckro.blogspot.ro/2012/03/about-atheists-socialist-prof.html
 
arg-fallbackName="VyckRo"/>
That was actually the Islamic world. VyckRo can't claim that one for Jesus I'm afraid.
In brief...

Islam appeared about the years 600, and they conquered the territories of "Greek Culture" between 700-800. The western Roman Empire fell in 476, and the Byzantine Empire (fell) in 1453, when the Muslims conquered it, and all its greek scholars emigrated to the West, bringing with them numerous lost books & papyrus ... and generating what is now called "rebirth". =between A (476), C ( 600) and D ( 700-800) ther is a gap... see?=
Also I do not see from what the Muslims saved the "Greek Culture" considering that this was OK in Constantinople until 1453. Saved ... means from something. And preserved involve from disappearance. Sooo ???



Maybe someone can now make a picture of how atheism looks through my eyes.
ooo oo oo ...and let's do not forget they banned science and they declared knowledge evil ... yahhh
...and refused to look through Galileo telescope... and banned dissection ... and believed that the earth is flat...Imagine where we were without these people ... ( just take as an example of the Australian aborigines, the population of the Amazon or tribes of Africa ). :lol: :D :mrgreen:

-----------------
PS
And now that we're in discussion with your on Orthodox, do not forget to bring up the:
- Inquisition ..."witches burned at the stake" :facepalm:
- The Atonement of Christ ..."I am insulting because your religion is insulting for me" :facepalm:
- The Rapture .... "these people are dangerous" :facepalm:
- The "sola scriptura" .... "but, but the bible says to kill the old testament" ... "so who says which part of that book to listen and which to do not" ..."I caught you there Christian idiot ...haaa!". :facepalm:

facepalm! facepalm! facepalm! ...and it is assumed that these people (the atheist) are smart.
 
arg-fallbackName="Inferno"/>
Incredible. VyckRo, may I suggest you make your texts slightly more readable? I tried to understand what you said in your last post (Re: Islamic world preserving knowledge) but I can't make heads or tails out of it.

For one, you don't use any year numbering system. I understand you're talking about CE, but what with you switching between later and earlier dates at random (first 600, then 7-800, then 476? What sort of order is that?) you're making your argument more confusing than it need be.

Then of course, you're using dates I'm not familiar with. In what Universe did the Muslims conquer "the territories of Greek Culture" between 7-800 CE? No sir, that happened nearly 500 years later, starting in 1299 CE and ending with the capture of Constantinople in 1453 CE by the Ottoman Empire. That is the only way one can understand your claim: That Muslims conquered the Greek Byzantine Empire.
If that's not what you're saying, then you need to make yourself more clear.

As for your question "from what did Islam save the Greek Culture?", well the answer is quite easy. In 830 CE, al-Ma'mun established the "House of Wisdom", transferring Greek, Persian and Indian wisdom to the Muslim world. In Muslim Spain, Al-Hakam II gathered books from the Islamic world. This library was later one of the centres of translation from Arabic to Latin. I could go on, naming easily a dozen or so Muslim intellectuals of that time period, who (re)-introduced philosophy (which at that time was also science) and medicine into Spain.
I'll give you one rather striking example and then be done with it. When the Christian Crusaders under Richard I of England fought with Saladin in 1192 CE, they couldn't claim the territories, so Richard I had a three-year truce with Saladin, which allowed Christian pilgrims to enter Jerusalem. These pilgrims found something remarkable: The Muslims would wash very frequently and spray themselves with perfume. They thought it very woman-like and didn't adopt this, for fear of becoming weak and soft. In the end though, they noticed that the Muslims were less likely to die of disease and so on, simply because they kept clean. And where did the Muslims get this idea from? Why, from Roman bath houses and Greek bathing areas. And who forgot these, undoubtedly helpful, practices? The Christian countries of Western Europe in the Middle Ages, also called Dark Ages. My new theory? They're not called "dark ages" because of a lack of sources but rather because the skin of the people was so dirty.
 
arg-fallbackName="Dogma's Demise"/>
Inferno, in defense of VyckRo, I think he's referring to these conquests:

Now this is Byzantine Empire before Islam came along:

Justinian555AD.png


This is the Islamic expansion, after Mohammed's death the Muslims started pouring out of the Arabian Peninsula conquering all in their path.

800px-Map_of_expansion_of_Caliphate.svg.png


So yes, they did capture "territories of Greek Culture".

VyckRo said:
Conclusion, I do not have time for endless discussions in which to talk to "lawyers" that start from the premise that they have to find counter-arguments to everything what I say.

This I find very strange, so even when I do agree with some of the things you say you'll insist I'm trying to find "counter-arguments to everything what I say".

Then you re-affirm that notion that the Dark Age is an atheist myth even though not everyone believe that. Haven't you watched that video by CardinalVirtues I sent you?
 
arg-fallbackName="Inferno"/>
Dogma's Demise said:
Inferno, in defense of VyckRo, I think he's referring to these conquests:

If that is the case, and I'll have to wait for him to confirm this, then he's extremely bad at making himself understood. When talking about Greek philosophers, the only way to understand "Greek territories" is "the place they lived at". The conquests you're talking about add absolutely nothing to the discussion, so I wonder why he would talk about them.
 
arg-fallbackName="Dogma's Demise"/>
he_who_is_nobody said:
I find it funny that someone who claims to be busy has time to post thrice in two days.

Well actually it's triple-posting, I don't know why he just didn't post a single one.
 
arg-fallbackName="australopithecus"/>
VyckRo said:
This idea is one of the myths of modern and past atheism, which makes me believe that atheism is a religion.

Are we playing spot the non-sequitur? Because I just spotted one.
 
arg-fallbackName="VyckRo"/>
Inferno said:
Incredible. VyckRo, may I suggest you make your texts slightly more readable? I tried to understand what you said in your last post (Re: Islamic world preserving knowledge) but I can't make heads or tails out of it.

For one, you don't use any year numbering system. I understand you're talking about CE, but what with you switching between later and earlier dates at random (first 600, then 7-800, then 476? What sort of order is that?) you're making your argument more confusing than it need be.

Then of course, you're using dates I'm not familiar with. In what Universe did the Muslims conquer "the territories of Greek Culture" between 7-800 CE? No sir, that happened nearly 500 years later, starting in 1299 CE and ending with the capture of Constantinople in 1453 CE by the Ottoman Empire. That is the only way one can understand your claim: That Muslims conquered the Greek Byzantine Empire.
If that's not what you're saying, then you need to make yourself more clear.


The actual Muslim conquests of "territories of Greek Culture"occur between 630 to 718 but the Islamization of those territorial and there stabilization is somewhere between 700-800.
( so "mia culpa" I had in mind the period of Islamization of those territories (Jeruslim, Alexandria, Antioch)

small chronology
636. The conquest of, Byzantine Syria by Arabs (the invasion began in 634 by the successor of Muhammad: the Rashidun Caliphs Abu Bakr and Umar ibn Khattab)
638 The conquest of Byzantine Palestine & Jerusalem by Muslims
640-642 takes place the conquest of Byzantine Egypt by Muslims (after destruction of the Byzantine forces at Heliopolis) on November 8, 641, after a fourteen month of siege Alexandria was conquered.
644-650 Muslims conquer Cyprus, Tripoli, and they extend up the Afghanistan
639-698 Arab conquests of North Africa:
718 The siege of Constantinople
718-863 is the period of the stabilization of the frontier ( somewhere along the mountains of eastern Anatolia).

I guess anyone who possesses a culture should have to hear of the "Caliph Omar dilemma" told in front of the Library of Alexandria.
Caliph Omar is reported to have said that if the books of the library contain other teachings than those in the Qur'an, they were useless and should be destroyed; but if the books did however contain the teachings of the Qur'an, then they were superfluous and should be destroyed.
 
arg-fallbackName="VyckRo"/>
Inferno said:
For one, you don't use any year numbering system. I understand you're talking about CE, but what with you switching between later and earlier dates at random (first 600, then 7-800, then 476? What sort of order is that?) you're making your argument more confusing than it need be.

The problem was simple if the Roman empire has collapsed in 476, and Islam appeared around the year 600, and they came to control the territories of Greek culture after 700, then where is the contact between the Roman Empire and the Arab world? This was always a huge dilemma for Western skeptics.
"In reading the autobiography of that distinguished Orientalist Sir Denison Ross, there is a letter received from some inquirer which contains the sentence remarking what a good thing it would be if we could find out "how, and in what form, the Greek and Latin writers found their way to the ken of the Arab or Persian or Turkish student" (Sir Denison Ross, Both Ends of the Candle, n.d., p. 286)."

See?? When Muslims come to have the knowledge the Greeks, the Western Roman Empire was only a memory, so ... in the case your atheist leaders do not want to argue that Muslims were perfected archaeologists ... well we need a keeper, for that "lost knowledge". But still, if your atheist leaders want to go on that idea, I have a killing question for they: If Muslims have "recovered" the knowledge of the Romans hundred years after the empire no longer exists, why they have not used "their magic" to recover the knowledge of "Egypt", "Sumerians" and so on
 
arg-fallbackName="VyckRo"/>
Inferno said:
As for your question "from what did Islam save the Greek Culture?", well the answer is quite easy. In 830 CE, al-Ma'mun established the "House of Wisdom", transferring Greek, Persian and Indian wisdom to the Muslim world. In Muslim Spain, Al-Hakam II gathered books from the Islamic world. This library was later one of the centres of translation from Arabic to Latin. I could go on, naming easily a dozen or so Muslim intellectuals of that time period, who (re)-introduced philosophy (which at that time was also science) and medicine into Spain.
I'll give you one rather striking example and then be done with it. When the Christian Crusaders under Richard I of England fought with Saladin in 1192 CE, they couldn't claim the territories, so Richard I had a three-year truce with Saladin, which allowed Christian pilgrims to enter Jerusalem. These pilgrims found something remarkable: The Muslims would wash very frequently and spray themselves with perfume. They thought it very woman-like and didn't adopt this, for fear of becoming weak and soft. In the end though, they noticed that the Muslims were less likely to die of disease and so on, simply because they kept clean. And where did the Muslims get this idea from? Why, from Roman bath houses and Greek bathing areas. And who forgot these, undoubtedly helpful, practices? The Christian countries of Western Europe in the Middle Ages, also called Dark Ages. My new theory? They're not called "dark ages" because of a lack of sources but rather because the skin of the people was so dirty.

see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_of_Venice

Greek knowledge began to infiltrate easily into West Europe since the Arab conquest of Syria, and the iconoclast, and westerners have slowly regained interest in what they have lost.
Read this I do not want to copy-paste
My Blog
 
arg-fallbackName="VyckRo"/>
australopithecus said:
VyckRo said:
This idea is one of the myths of modern and past atheism, which makes me believe that atheism is a religion.

Are we playing spot the non-sequitur? Because I just spotted one.

No as proved by the fact that none of you is able to give up the myth whit the "enlightened Islam" and the "Christian Dark Ages"
 
Back
Top