Shipmaster Sane
You have been weighed
Atheism is an outgrowth and response to protestantism.
Culture Rise of Atheism and the Folly of Letting Commoners Interpret the Bible
- Thread starter Shipmaster Sane
- Start date
ParadiseLost
Well-known member
Eh. I'd say atheism was more a response to Catholicism. I'd say a lot of modern atheism originated as a response by intellectuals to problems in 16th century Catholic France.
Shipmaster Sane
You have been weighed
Every atheist I've ever met in real life has issues with their protestant father. Every strawman argument they trot out is some smoothbrain protestant literalist drool.
It was literally a mistake to let the peasants read the bible. They started doing shit like denying evolution because "That werent hin no bye bull" and completely missing the point of onanism.
ParadiseLost
Well-known member
Biblical literalism is far older than Protestantism; if you live in America of course most atheists you know are going to be the children of Protestants; peasants reading the Bible far preceded any evolutionary theories; Onanism is a matter of interpretation.
Shipmaster Sane
You have been weighed
Diddnt say it wasnt.
Correct.
Which doesnt actually contradict what I said which was
Peasants interpreting the bible--->rejecting evolution later.
You're uh. You're having a lot of trouble today, huh.
It really isnt, he was pulling out, and his sin was specifically not providing the woman with children (which would solidify her position in society), but only using her for sexual release. Him jerking it on his own was literally never mentioned or implied.
ParadiseLost
Well-known member
Peasants don't interpret the Bible, peasants listen to theologians who interpret the Bible.
I meant within the broader context of the Bible.
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
Okay in terms of intellectual movements, you can't have the enlightenment, at least not as it was historically without Protestantism, thus you can't have 19th century free thinking and modern secularism.
Atheists in just a general sense have probably existed as long as man has had the ability to doubt.
In medieval times, early modern times, antiquity, there were no doubt men who privately disbelieved. (That doesn't necessarily make them atheists in the modern sense but anyway).
The reformation did weaken Christendom though, in that it allowed everyone who could read to make their mind up about the Bible, and there is some logic in the formulation of Sola Scriptura ending up as No Scriptura.
Personally I'm somewhat mixed about this, would we have the world we do know without protestantism and everything that followed from it? Might the church, might Christendom be better off? Perhaps.
I do think a unified Catholic Church would meant a stronger west in spiritual terms.
So yes I would say organized or developed irreligion is a consequence of protestantism.
Atheists in just a general sense have probably existed as long as man has had the ability to doubt.
In medieval times, early modern times, antiquity, there were no doubt men who privately disbelieved. (That doesn't necessarily make them atheists in the modern sense but anyway).
The reformation did weaken Christendom though, in that it allowed everyone who could read to make their mind up about the Bible, and there is some logic in the formulation of Sola Scriptura ending up as No Scriptura.
Personally I'm somewhat mixed about this, would we have the world we do know without protestantism and everything that followed from it? Might the church, might Christendom be better off? Perhaps.
I do think a unified Catholic Church would meant a stronger west in spiritual terms.
So yes I would say organized or developed irreligion is a consequence of protestantism.
King Krávoka
An infection of Your universe.
[Sees OP]
[Can't find the "Show ignored context"]
Am I in the "Essays" forum?
Catholiboos are disaffected crypto-Protestants who loathe their real religion because it's familiar. They categorically reject the current, Pope, or any concrete moral authority, in favor of an idealized DEUS VULT hivemind painted by shitposting.
[Can't find the "Show ignored context"]
Am I in the "Essays" forum?
Catholiboos are disaffected crypto-Protestants who loathe their real religion because it's familiar. They categorically reject the current, Pope, or any concrete moral authority, in favor of an idealized DEUS VULT hivemind painted by shitposting.
Pruned off this thread genius.
It was Post #15 or something.
D
Deleted member
Guest
Guénon argued exactly this, in fact, that Protestantism removed the mystical experience of higher knowledge from religion and in doing so reduced Christianity to essentially a state of atheism--and enabled actual atheism to follow it.
almostinsane
Well-known member
You could definitely see the beginnings of atheism in the rise of liberal Christianity, (though @Unhappy Anchovy would doubtless dispute this). With liberal Christianity holding less and less dogma to be true, many liberal Christian churches have become small, aging, social clubs.
This video demonstrates it quite nicely:
This video demonstrates it quite nicely:
King Krávoka
An infection of Your universe.
The moderators need to move these posts to a new thread titled "Size of the OP and the splitting of threads".
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Well, if you're willing to reject that Christ removed any need for intermediaries between God and man, and thus reject one of the core doctrines of Christianity, I guess there's no point in trying to argue what failures within Christianity enabled the cultural rise of atheism in the West.
King Krávoka
An infection of Your universe.
Was this ever a thing, since randos got to talk to God all the time in
Lanmandragon
Well-known member
Right what possible secular reason (as relgion has no real sway) do I have to submit to Rome? To me it seems far better to decide my own path and deal with consequences as they come. Basically why is the pope a legit authority?
Yinko
Well-known member
I don't think the core of the point is that "we should all kiss the Fisherman's Ring". Rather the point to me is that religion without a bedrock of unshakable structure is pretty weak.
If you compare the number of schisms among Christian sects that don't encourage their members to interpret the Bible vs those that do, those that do lose out massively. Protestant Churches in the US splinter so often that the concept of denominations barely even has any real meaning.
It also helps that groups like the Catholics, Orthodox, Coptic, and smaller similar groups have the weight of time and tradition to lend them psychological legitimacy, which is huge when it comes to stability. It's the difference between "I don't like this pastor so I'll go find one I do like and join their church" and "who am I do disagree with countless thousands of scholars".
If you've skimmed Augustine or Aquinas you'll see that they have rebuttals to every argument they could think of, and it is a rare theological argument that is in any way new, so they things to say about basically everything that modern religious people tend to splinter off about. You don't have to agree with what they say, but the manner of scholarship they used lists all counter conclusions and their reasoning for why they think them wrong, which means that you could also use those same logical flow-charts to see what you think is right. However, I suspect that a lot of protestant splintering and atheism would be prevented by people studying the theological texts written by prior people who wrestled with these issues rather than just relying on their own personal interpretations of the Bible.
When every could interpret the Bible, they would eventually craete their own sects.Luter saw that, and first after naming pope as antichrist made himself super-pope, becouse none of popes could change dogma and existing Tradition,but Luter could show everything he liked as TRUTH.
Before his death,he get that power to every protestant ruler.
Which eventually led to protestant rulers become mini-super-popes.
Another problem was abadonning Tradition.In practice, Tradition made popes kind of constitutional rulers, who must teach by existing law.
Protestant rulers was absolute,and could teach almost anything.
Before his death,he get that power to every protestant ruler.
Which eventually led to protestant rulers become mini-super-popes.
Another problem was abadonning Tradition.In practice, Tradition made popes kind of constitutional rulers, who must teach by existing law.
Protestant rulers was absolute,and could teach almost anything.
ParadiseLost
Well-known member
Do you honestly believe most Protestant theologians haven't read Augustine and Aquinas? You'll be hard pressed to find theologians that haven't read Augustine or Aquinas.
Augustine and Aquinas's biblical interpretations are also personal interpretations. Aquinas was a huge advocate of using reason to interpret the Bible.
I think people also ignore the reason the Protestant Reformation developed in the first place - because the Catholic churches leadership was parasitical.
Yinko
Well-known member
No, but I do honestly believe that most protestants haven't and that most people who contribute to the perpetual fracturing of Protestantism cannot readily be described as theologians.
The pressure to encourage people to read the works of the saints came after the Reformation. It was part of the Counter-Reformation, a move so socially, politically and theologically effective that some places flipped back to Catholism and there was never a second real attempt at schisming. The Catholic church only overturned this during the Second Vatican Council. That council was the single greatest mistake they ever made.
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
American Protestantism has been anti intellectual for a long long time.
This is party due to the unique history, and the revivalist periods which were often focused on emotional experience(come to Jesus and be saved).
The problem with this sort of emotional faith is that it didn’t give a good grounding in what a church or person believed and so splits were easy to make, the tendency to just get up and leave when you were dissatisfied, or didn’t like the minister meant new splits were always happening.
This is party due to the unique history, and the revivalist periods which were often focused on emotional experience(come to Jesus and be saved).
The problem with this sort of emotional faith is that it didn’t give a good grounding in what a church or person believed and so splits were easy to make, the tendency to just get up and leave when you were dissatisfied, or didn’t like the minister meant new splits were always happening.