[Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Sethomas

I think the best example is the present-day atheism scene. In my experience, there's a significant number of people who are well-informed about their motives for not believing in a god, and they shape their understanding of the world in a coherent manner taking the absence of god as a reasonable a priori. Far, far more abundant however are kids (some of whom are quite old) who are atheist because they associate atheism with intellectualism and prefer the idea of a world without God as an easy out. Most atheists have no clue what the arguments for and against theism are, they just have a strong emotional association with atheism that makes them equate religion with a very narrow definition that suits their needs. To put it bluntly, most atheists I've met identify as such (as opposed to "non-religious" or "agnostic") because they want to be perceived as intelligent without being bothered by the tedium of intellectual exploration.

I find this a bit unfair. Theism is getting left behind in culture, and kids today aren't really brought up religious. It doesn't take much effort to be an atheist anymore, and the desire to look like an intellectual falls a far second to not really caring enough to learn about god. Most atheists don't have a clue what the arguments for and against god are because they are atheists, and have better things to think about than god. HAVING SAID THAT, I think it will make a big come-back in the youth reasonably soon, after they start teaching it in schools more often, and mainly for the same reason - laziness.

As "The Age of Faith", the Middle Ages have to be slandered. It's necessary for the medieval people to be dunces in order for modern society to feel good about itself.

Yeah, I've thought the same as you, too. As if it could have been anything different. As if the people scoffing at the intelligence of a 12th century peasant would have been any smarter had they been born in those times and that place.

I'm pretty convinced that without the Church the West would be a cultural wasteland and socio-economically we'd look like Sub-Saharan Africa.

Well, it's hard to imagine large society developing without religion, but it's not the church that sets the West apart from Africa, it's agriculture, and a staple food in wheat that Sub-Saharan Africa just doesn't have.

The next time the world's great empire falls, I don't think we'd do a better job than the Europeans did after Rome.

Well, don't get me wrong, it was and is a very hard period with a lot of problems, but would you say that Russia and Eastern Europe is doing worse after the break up of the USSR than all of Europe after Rome? I wouldn't, but I probably don't know as much about the fall of Rome as you do.

Fun fact that everyone should know and nobody does: "The Dark Ages" was a moniker designated for "The Low Middle Ages", which accounts for only half of the medieval period.

That's pretty patronising. I knew that and I bet a lot of other people here know that too.

Anyway, I'm guessing you copy/pasted that from your blog or something (it would be an awful waste to type it all out on i-mockery.com political forum) but I read it and those where my thoughts.