GC has written about it, so I will not.
However this comment, by he that will not be named, has got me thinking
Christian Western Civilization is proof that the Bible is of divine nature.
Authentic human rights are a product of Christian Western Civilization.
I’m studying a course on the Middle Ages by Dr. Daileader who got his Ph D. in history from Harvard University.
Even secular studies of the Middle Ages include instruction on the profound influence of Christianity.
How does one get here, really?
Random thoughts 
His moniker should be Silence of Thought. Lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think I agree with that
LikeLike
Not even with echolocation does he know where he is half the time
LikeLike
I think all the time, not half
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually I was referring to som.
LikeLike
I understand that is why I said it must be all the time
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah… thinking is good, unless you think yourself out of religious boxes. Then it’s evil 😉
LikeLike
“How does one get here, really?”
Indoctrination and warped logic.
“’Im studying a course on the Middle Ages by Dr. Daileader who got his Ph D. in history from Harvard University.”
Hopefully this helps in the long run.
I do think he’s right in that Christianity has had a profound influence on Western Civilization.
That by no means proves that Christianity is divine in nature.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I don’t dispute that Christianity has had a lot of influence in places where majority are Christians, what would you expect? That should be rather obvious don’t you think?
But saying that because it has had such influence it is divine is fallacious.
I think even he migrated into the lecturer’s head, if it were possible, it wouldn’t change him
LikeLiked by 3 people
Oh yeah, I totally agree. lol.
LikeLike
How? An unfortunate list of possibilities, some of which are almost synonyms: drugs, brain damage, indoctrination. SoM’s view is so badly warped and entrenched that no amount of reality can alter his firmly held beliefs. Reality must fit into his model and that’s that.
LikeLike
You don’t think spending time with the PhD he mentions may change his thinking?
LikeLike
No. There is no change possible in such a brittle model without it’s utter collapse. And that’s never going to happen. Only if what he’s hearing intentionally aligns with SoM’s faith-based model will it be accepted as ‘fact’. Otherwise, it’ll be the atheists fault, another atheist delusion, yada, yada, yada.
LikeLike
He usually manages to tie all things he disagrees with to atheism
I think if he woke up and there was inclement weather, he would curse atheists
LikeLike
Again, funny how reality must fit his model!
LikeLike
“Christian Western Civilization is proof that the Bible is of divine nature.”
Huh?
LikeLike
Huh? That’s more like it
LikeLike
Troll speak. Either that, or he’s one of the most illiterate people on the planet. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I gave him the benefit of doubt: the most illiterate person on the planet 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haha
LikeLike
And that, I am being kind
LikeLike
Christian Western Civilization is proof that: idiots procreate.
Authentic human rights are a product of: modern society.
The way this person thinks is like me saying “dogs have fleas, therefore cats climb trees.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hahaha ha
Now, you can do well in a theology class.
LikeLike
Pfft! They would toss me right out of theology class! With a “and don’t come back!” for good measure.
Logical conclusions aren’t exactly their strong point. Therefore they don’t want no stinking logical conclusions in theology class.
LikeLike
Well, hang on a second there. Theology class is all about logic and deductions. That’s why all the arguments are presented in this form by theologians. The logical is fine. The form of the argument is fine. The problem is assuming the premises are, in reality, true and this is the issue. Assuming the premises are true is how believers jump the shark of reality and why no matter what you bring to the table as evidence from reality contrary to, in conflict or incompatible with, the faith-based belief, it’s rarely going to have any merit. In the minds of sophisticated believers especially,reality is not allowed to arbitrate the premises or properly derived conclusions. That’s how belief in Oogity Boogity! survives.
LikeLike
Well by starting with a flawed premise, how does one reach a logical conclusion? (unless the conclusion is that the premise is flawed) At what point does bending reality around so that it appears to fit ones premise become a logical conclusion?
Therin lies my beef. I can’t even see it as philosophy unless philosophy is being applied to things we can all accept as real, probable, or testable theory. I see (philosophy of theology) more as a formal waste of time under an umbrella of fairness if anything… IMO philosophy has no place in theology class ( Except to rule out leprechauns, gods, and unicorns, but why would they want to do that?) And theology has no place in philosophy class except as an example of how not to reach a conclusion. 🙂
Theologians are great pretenders of philosophy. They can put on the show, but I have yet to see anything by them that didn’t boil down to oogity boogity in the end. Albeit buried under an enormous word salad.
Please don’t think I’m trying to be contradictory in any way here, I think we are close to the same page.
When I said they won’t want no stinking logical conclusions, I meant my conclusions (and a rip off of the Mel Brooks/Blazing Saddles movie line). They would still be quite happy with whatever oogity boogity they can manipulate to their own ends. After they threw me out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
it’s my experience that philosophers take illogical umbrage at the notion of their ‘art’ being subject to the scientific method in any way. I’ve seen some professional philosophers go to rather remarkable lengths to find some means to make it ‘practical’. Yet when someone does just this (I’m thinking specifically of Harris and his thesis about measurable morality), it’s the Ides of March all over again and out come a hundred philosophical knives to make sure no such advance will be tolerated.
So when we start any claim about reality with premises in an axiomatic form like logic, we are doomed to fool ourselves because it’s the wrong form. What we need is some Bayesian reasoning that accounts for reality and allows reality itself to be used as the final arbiter of our claims in some independent form. In other words, we allow reality to help shape our beliefs about it rather than the religious/philosophical approach of using our beliefs to shape our understanding of reality. This is where people like SoM simply go off the rails of good reasoning and think themselves dedicated to ‘facts’ that ‘respect’ science.
Nuh uh. Fool me once…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, and I should have included Sociology in the same religious/philosophical category. Truly, I despise and utterly reject sociology as a legitimate academic field of study. Its theft of psychology and anthropology is so brazen it’s a wonder more people don’t share my disdain for its paucity of truth value.
LikeLike
I certainly can find no fault with that. Allowing belief to shape our reality is an ass backwards way of thinking that systematically puts roadblocks in the way of practical reasoning.
Thus we get an SOM. and others just like him.
I didn’t know these quotes were attributed to SOM at first, but with my limited experience with him I’ve no trouble believing it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then, my friend, you don’t meet SoM a lot. His comments are the some of the strangest string of words I have come across. I don’t know how he links his premises to the conclusions. One thing is clear though, he takes pride in being absurd
LikeLike
No no no. I don’t generally try to interact with SOM or anyone like him. The experience leaves me banging my head on the desk multiple times and it isn’t good for my health and well being.
Anyone that can make claims like “dogs have fleas, therefore cats climb trees” and be proud of it, I find the best option is to look for the door. There is no reasoning with that kind of broken.
Even knowing that it is difficlut at times not to respond, and I have. But we all know the futility.
LikeLike
I have for a long time gathered enough restraint not to respond to him. He sometimes tries to get me into a conversation but I don’t bother.
LikeLike
Good. No sense banging your head against the wall. None of us want to see you in the ER with a fractured cranium due to interaction with a religiot 🙂
LikeLike
They will just tell you your conclusions are wrong and Jesus will bless you
LikeLike
And I will tell them “fuck you too!”
😉
LikeLike
The idea of human rights, I would say, originated in the process called Enlightenment. It has nothing to do with the Bible.
I know the courses of Dr. Daileader (I have them as audio books, available on Audible (without the printed materials)). They are excellent and I can recommend them. History teaching at its best. However, they contain absolutely nothing that could lead to such conclusions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nannus, the author of that comment lives in a reality that is his own
LikeLiked by 1 person