The implication is there. And yes, of course some cities evolved around monasteries, just as they did around missions in California, as well as around forts and castles for protection and community. But the tone of the thread is that anything important in civilization evolved because of the Church. Do you really believe that to be true???
Pepband.
Ditto.Pepband.
You believe that the Roman Catholic Church, not the Roman or Greek Civilizations, built Western Civilization.
Fair enough.
Please cite one item, in support of your view, that came only from the Roman Catholic Church.
I disagree with your assessment. The implication is what you saw not what was there. I believe that because of the members of the Church and their faith that civilization benefited. I take from your tone that you believed it had no impact? What others are saying here is that record of contribution is being covered up as being related to the faith.
Galileo is not irrelevant.So you admittedly just brought up an irrelevant story to a discussion that you have no actual interest in engaging in?Proof of failure regarding Galileo has nothing to do with whether or not the Church built Western civilization, you appear to know this- why bring it up? Didnât you read the OP?
Yes, to state that cities evolved from monks is to state that all cities can be sourced back to monks.
No to say that cities grew up around monastaries is a fact. To say that it means that all cities can be sourced back to monks is unfounded addition to what is said. :tsktsk:
The premise that needs to have evidence is that cities did not grow up around monastaries which is what the premise is not the false premise of all which is a strawman argument.
It is your contention that all cities were meant. This is a false premise as I said a strawman argument.But, the above, notwithstanding, did monks initiate Rome and Athens?
The premise is that cities evolved because of the monks.No to say that cities grew up around monastaries is a fact. To say that it means that all cities can be sourced back to monks is unfounded addition to what is said. :tsktsk:
The premise that needs to have evidence is that cities did not grow up around monastaries which is what the premise is not the false premise of all which is a strawman argument.
It is your contention that all cities were meant. This is a false premise as I said a strawman argument.
You canât add words to what a person says then demand they prove what they didnât say.
Thank you, for the advise to read my history; may I suggest you do the same and not read just your own.
Oh, isnât that a case of the pot calling the kettle black?!Before sifting the bias in others, should we not sift out the bias in ourselves?
Notice the sentence I underlined. Is it true, or is it false? Monastries were dotted all over Europe, is true. No one refutes that. People settled around them seems to be true, for there are many, many examples of that occuring. And citis did indeed evolve from those monastic settlements, which means that the presence of and the abilities of the Monks did indeed lead to the development of cities. The history books show us this is true.
Now, take note how he has made a quantum leap in logic to ask about all cities in the world, when Pepband Mom only wrote of European monastries and cities. Iâm still trying to figure out whether Whadyamean was being mischievous, or simply cannot do very simple logical calculus in his head. I suppose Iâd better be charitable and say he wasnât being deliberately mischievous. With certainty, though, we can say that to ask about all cities in the world when the subject of the post to which he was responding was European monastries is to make not only a quantum leap in logic, but the logic used leads to the utmost rediculous conclusions. For instance, the country Iâm in wasnât even âdiscoveredâ when the European monastries were founded, yet, if we accept Whadyameanâs logic, weâd be agreeing that monks caused cities to grow here! Silly idea, reallyâŚ
Well, Curious, did you see the word âallâ in Pepband Momâs post? adrift pointed out yet another obvious point from Pepband Momâs post; the simple statement that cities evolved around monastries. Surely you saw that and didnât make the same silly little logical error that Whadyamean made? adrift them asked a simple little question that, logically, flows directly from Pepband Momâs post. âNow do you have evidence that this isnât true?â So far, no-one has bothered to answer that question. Certainly you havenât.
Notice how almost each sentence he writes changes the subject of the discussion? He says the âimplication is thereâ, meaning that it can be implied that all the cities in the world evolved because of monks settling all over Europe. In a sense, thatâs true, but only if you accept that the monastries founded by monks were a factor in the Catholic Church building western civilisation. However, it is obvious you reject that, because you have stated that you donât believe it. Whadyamean canât keep his logic straight, however, because he states that".⌠the âtoneâ of the thread is that anything important in civilisation evolved because of the Church" He has broadened out Pepband Momâs original subject, which was the development of cities around monastries in Europe to now include âanything important in civilisationâ. The inference from that is that the Church is somehow responsible for the Pramids of Egypt, the Inca temples and even the Eiffel Tower. Now, anyone even remotely capable of doing logic 101 would say thatâs absurd. You and Whadyamean are guilty of hasty generalisations.
There is a single, very obvious answer to that question of yours. However, the point is, the subject has now been extended from monastries and cities in Europe to âany itemâ that is exclusively Roman Catholic! There are lots of things that are exclusively Roman Catholic, however, the question is, would it matter if there were no items that came from the catholic Church? After all, a builder can build a house and yet none of the items used in the construction necessarily come from the builder. Thus, even if it were the case that the Catholic Church supplied nothing of its own, it still doesnât mean the Church didnât build Western Civilisation, as the thread topic asks.
In your first sentence you purpetuated the same flawed logic Whadyamean used. The great flaw is that you used a particular as proof for a general conclusion. You need more than one particular example to even have a basis for deducing something, Curious. Logic 101 again. To simplify it for you, to state that cities evolved from monks does not lead to the conclusion that all cities can be traced back to monks. Unless, of course, you are in kindergarten, where all sorts of conclusions are possible.
You have made an attempt at putting your argument into the form of a syllogism and to then arrive at a conclusion based on deductive thinking.
When you show manners, not even good manners, Iâll consider responding to your . . . âthoughts.â