Although I have not been religious for as long as I can remember, for a long time I had held the belief that religion was harmless and even went as far as to participate in religious rituals so as not to offend; such as bowing ones head during the chaplains prayer.
It took a science fiction novel (Hominids by Robert J. Sawyer) to open my eyes and make me realize that religion and the belief in some magical place separate from our own reality are truly destructive influences on our society.
It took a science fiction novel (Hominids by Robert J. Sawyer) to open my eyes and make me realize that religion and the belief in some magical place separate from our own reality are truly destructive influences on our society.
Taking the "organized religion is bad" stance is a popular one these days, but I'm not so sure that I agree wholeheartedly anymore. Unless you're into new-age revisionism, it's easy to cite positive moments in Western history that were influenced by the dominant Western religion (i.e. Christianity). There are negative moments as well, but there will always be good and evil in the world, independent of religion. Just because people use religion as an excuse to do evil deeds doesn't mean that it's the only available excuse. Neither Hitler's or Stalin's agenda had much to do with religion, for example.
On the plus, side, one can argue that the Judeo-Christian influence on Western culture had a lot to do with the fact that the West was -- certainly by the 18th century -- the guiding light to the rest of the world, and to this day remains, without a doubt, the most culturally advanced area of the world. Denying this is either a result of contemporary, multi-culturalist brain-washing or the legitimate feeling that individual freedom and non-oppressive governments are bad things.
Hitlers agenda have much more to do with religion than you think.
Quote:
On the plus, side, one can argue that the Judeo-Christian influence on Western culture had a lot to do with the fact that the West was -- certainly by the 18th century --
yet for the period 500AD to 1500AD apx, the Judeo-Christian on the western world was nothing but pure destruction, and it wasn't until the enlightenment era 1500+ apx, when people started to throw off en masse the fundamentalism of the previous 1000 years that the western world finally caught up to and in some ways exceeded the rest of the world.
I bet you didn't know the Romans had tools to remove cataracts, The Iraqi's were electoplating, and the greeks had measured the circumference of the sphere of the world accurately, before Jesus was even (not) born.
Infact, if Christianity had not swept the west, what we have accomplished today, might have been done by the 8th Century.
religion and the belief in some magical place separate from our own reality are truly destructive influences on our society.
Because you trade a belief in this life for a lie of a better life after death. This is why so many have nothing but a morbid contempt for themselves, the world and humanity.
for so many people religious nuts to go around claiming that Satan is a devious trickster out to screw up your life, you'd think that they wouldn't be so blind to being tricked themselves.
I was referring more to the aspects of people being taught from a young age that there is some supernatural entity controlling everything, forgiving people, and punishing those who don't follow the rules.
I know people have cited religion as their inspiration for great deeds but would there be any less great deeds if the infrastructure had instead been laid for us to inspire ourselves and each other.
Yes. Heaven knows I'll miss 'Islamofascism', the caste system and 'God Hates Fags'.
Don't confuse God with the deeds of men who claim to be acting in the name of God. Men who want to hate will always find a "reason" to justify their deeds.
the vatican is beginning to argue this point as well, a theologically rigorous religion has no basis in reality... faith cannot survive evidence...
Funny, but as obvious as it is that Catholicism has been pretty evil for virtually its entire existance, i cant help look at them today, and wonder if they are actually onto something.
It seems to be they are teaching something that only makes sense when you realise there are different levels of understanding of peoples faiths. Of course this looks contradictory, and can easily be accused by some of being 2 faced, or trying to convert by saying all things to all men.
But take this 'worship of Mary' stuff - itself it seems highly heretical when your level of understanding is poor - afterall this is a movement supposedly based on the teachings of Jesus - you'd think that it's so obviously heretical to elevate Mary equal to, or higher than Jesus, you wonder why in the hell they do it. But if you wonder enough to find out, Mary is more important than Jesus in so many ways.
Sadly, most people being dumb sheep will just go along with it, because thats what they are told to do - and my critisism of this is that the vatican do not teach 'why' it is so, but are operating on the basis of if you care enough to find out, then you will find out anyway.
That might just be the way it has to be - but I don't really aprove of it, but I kind of endorse it aswell.
yet for the period 500AD to 1500AD apx, the Judeo-Christian on the western world was nothing but pure destruction, and it wasn't until the enlightenment era 1500+ apx, when people started to throw off en masse the fundamentalism of the previous 1000 years that the western world finally caught up to and in some ways exceeded the rest of the world.
I bet you didn't know the Romans had tools to remove cataracts, The Iraqi's were electoplating, and the greeks had measured the circumference of the sphere of the world accurately, before Jesus was even (not) born.
Infact, if Christianity had not swept the west, what we have accomplished today, might have been done by the 8th Century.
I tried explaining this to my wife but unfortunately she just didn't get it.
One day I hope she'll renounce her god gang affiliations.
Don't confuse God with the deeds of men who claim to be acting in the name of God. Men who want to hate will always find a "reason" to justify their deeds.
One could argue that his brand of anti-Semitism owed a lot to blaming Jews for the death of Christ - as does a lot of anti-Jewish sentiment which was fed by the Church.
I'd argue that Hitlers persecution of the Jews was by Jewish design.
Hitlers agenda have much more to do with religion than you think. . .
yet for the period 500AD to 1500AD apx, the Judeo-Christian on the western world was nothing but pure destruction. . .
Infact, if Christianity had not swept the west, what we have accomplished today, might have been done by the 8th Century.
Listen, I'm neither a bigot or a particular supporter of organized religion. If you're trying to devalue my hypothesis by convincing yourself that I'm a supremacist, don't waste your time: the insular anecdotes you provide as evidence are barely more substantial than segovius's response (or, perhaps, deflection). I am aware that non-western societies are capable of great things as well, and that non-western people have indeed done great things in the past. The point is that the modern world is hugely and positively influenced by Judeo-Christian thought. Yes, western philosophy has a huge Greco-Roman foundation, which is generally non-religious. But that doesn't impact my argument since I don't hold that non-religious influence is bad.
To say that the 18th century's arrival was prolonged by religion is speculation, and it may be less convincing than arguing that the relatively Christian concept of manifest destiny, coupled with exploration, trade, and then the reformation were enough to bring the right elements together. It is certainly possible that these events could have occured without religion, but they did not, and they were certainly very positive.
As an aside, I read Aslan's post and wondered about his state of mind. It's ridiculous to condemn people because they don't agree with an extremely hypothetical (and likely inaccurate) position. I somehow don't think that you'll have much luck finding substantial historical theory supporting this position, and suspect that only the contemporary trend of glorifying counter-culture as intelligensia would lead anyone to honestly believe this. I can tell you for a fact that many scholarly texts attribute the bureaucracy and decadence of the late Roman Empire for the onset of the so-called Dark Ages. It is actually interesting to draw parallels between then and now.
Also, Aslan, I do suppose you realize the irony of your moniker. . .
Fortunately, I have little respect for authority, so starting off with 'Assertiveness for dummies' just puts a smile on my face
Quote:
I'm neither a bigot or a particular supporter of organized religion.
i dont recall claiming so. A bit touchy aren't you?
Quote:
If you're trying to devalue my hypothesis by convincing yourself that I'm a supremacist, don't waste your time:
Ah, I see! now - not me, or anyone here would have put your post down to that of a supremacist, so that it has crossed your mind and you feel the need to comment it, pretty much gives away that beneath the illusion of fairness and reasonability, you are trying to hide the fact that you probably are. Ask a psychologist.
But I dont mind that really, pretty much everyone is a supremacist in some way or another.
Quote:
the insular anecdotes you provide as evidence are barely more substantial than segovius's response (or, perhaps, deflection).
I could crash the AI server with susbstantial evidence of the very quick summary I gave, and believe me, i would love to go through every detail to really ram it home to some people here. But alas, it is a waste of time, because most people aren't ready or willing to hear just how depraved Christianity was in the dark ages, those that would listen - well they know it already.
Quote:
I am aware that non-western societies are capable of great things as well, and that non-western people have indeed done great things in the past.
perhaps though, you aren't really aware of just how great progress had been until Christianity, and the extent of what was lost and destroyed. Now, I know that there are examples of good things Christianity achieved and of a few good Christian writers during an otherwise barbaric period, but relative to what the Greeks, Babylonians, Romans and Egyptians had achieved for the few thousand years previous, they are but a stream to an ocean.
And don't forget that non-western peoples are still doing great things today.
Quote:
The point is that the modern world is hugely and positively influenced by Judeo-Christian thought.
Make the distinction that this only happened after a thousand years of Christian rape, pillage and destruction, and was started by people who influenced culture by rejecting Christian fundamentalist dogma, which initself forced the church to change its ideas, and i could agree with you.
Quote:
Yes, western philosophy has a huge Greco-Roman foundation, which is generally non-religious.
Um, not really, Greco-Roman culture was very religious, it just wasn't fundamentalist and morally destructive, like the Christian era that followed it.
Quote:
But that doesn't impact my argument since I don't hold that non-religious influence is bad.
The only argument you're making is that you dont really have a clue what you're talking about. I would stick to 3d modelling if this is the best you can do.
See the trouble with history, is that it gets written by the victorius. They don't often chose to incriminate themselves and describe the horrors they committed. Infact you will find that they were always the pillar of hope, that they were fighting off a ferocius evil, that their God looked after them, that they singlehandedly fought off 'Goliaths', and they bought peace and prosperity to a rabble of people.
This is true in every account of History, not just Christian. Thats one of the perks of being the winner. I don't doubt that Christianity was the winner, I just chose not to believe 2000 years of glorified propaganda.
Quote:
To say that the 18th century's arrival was prolonged by religion is speculation,
you know, I though a bit about when the 18th century might have happened if it were not for Christianity, and i chose to speculate a date that was in your favour, not mine.
I believe, that had the words 'Jesus Christ' never been put to paper, the 18th Century would have happened about 4-5th Century. Of course, the Roman Empire was in decline by the second century, which had nothing to do with Christianity (despite what their glorified propaganda will claim), so it might not have been the Romans who achieved it, however they certainly had the knowledge, expertise and wealth to. Then again if the Greek Empire had not fallen to the Romans, they might have had an 18th century a few hundred years earlier still.
Quote:
It is certainly possible that these events could have occured without religion, but they did not, and they were certainly very positive.
But indeed they had. About 2000 years earlier. Christianity threw it all away, and it took them nearly 1500 years to rediscover it all.
Quote:
As an aside, I read Aslan's post and wondered about his state of mind.
I'd worry about your own. Not in the sense that i think your ill, in the sense that uttery bought into the pile of shit that passes as history, but don't worry too much, its a common ailment that affects about 90% of your population.
Quote:
It's ridiculous to condemn people because they don't agree with an extremely hypothetical (and likely inaccurate) position.
See, the trouble is, your position is extremely hypothetical and extremely innacurate. Unfortunately because its an easy position to take and requires little effort to arrive at it, most people take that option, and to defend their lazyness or faith, they just get other like minded people to agree with them, because it makes them feel safe and happy.
I'll give you a piece of advice. What really happened isn't nice. Infact its disgusting and troubling, perverse and sick. There is no comfort to be found in knowing, you won't find many friends by knowing, and knowing can make you really unhappy and scared. That is the price you pay for wanting to know the truth. If you aint up to it - stick with the happy delusion.
Quote:
I somehow don't think that you'll have much luck finding substantial historical theory supporting this position,
clearly demonstrating you havn't made the effort to look for counter evidence to the glorified propaganda, because it exists in volume and makes a mockery out of your belief.
Quote:
and suspect that only the contemporary trend of glorifying counter-culture as intelligensia would lead anyone to honestly believe this.
you can suspect whatever you like, all it shows is that you don't know.
Quote:
I can tell you for a fact that many scholarly texts attribute the bureaucracy and decadence of the late Roman Empire for the onset of the so-called Dark Ages.
I know you can, however I could find a scholarly text that shows God made the universe in 6 days. You can have an infinite amount of scholarly texts, but shit happens, because there is only one true version of history.
Quote:
It is actually interesting to draw parallels between then and now.
about the only smart thing you've so far said.
So tell me, you smack of all the virtues of someone who has just found faith, so what is it? Jehovah's witness?
Who cares, treat each other nice and never do something you don't feel is right, and we'll be fine. Religion is a semantic and misguided aim to achieve the same thing as common sense.
I have reorganized your post into more solid chunks.
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
...
I could crash the AI server with susbstantial evidence of the very quick summary I gave, ...
....
I'll give you a piece of advice. What really happened isn't nice. Infact its disgusting and troubling, perverse and sick. ... See the trouble with history, is that it gets written by the victorius. ... This is true in every account of History, not just Christian. Thats one of the perks of being the winner. I don't doubt that Christianity was the winner, I just chose not to believe 2000 years of glorified propaganda
....
See, the trouble is, your position is extremely hypothetical and extremely innacurate. Unfortunately because its an easy position to take and requires little effort to arrive at it, most people take that option, and to defend their lazyness or faith, they just get other like minded people to agree with them, because it makes them feel safe and happy. ... clearly demonstrating you havn't made the effort to look for counter evidence to the glorified propaganda, because it exists in volume and makes a mockery out of your belief.
...
however I could [ed: with sarcasm] find a scholarly text that shows God made the universe in 6 days . ... So tell me, you smack of all the virtues of someone who has just found faith, so what is it? Jehovah's witness? ... The only argument you're making is that you dont really have a clue what you're talking about. I would stick to 3d modelling if this is the best you can do.
Since you haven't even attempted to provide any sort of theories -- even crackpot theories -- I have nothing to go by other than a claim that you can crash the AI server. But before I go further, I will mention that, like me, you began your retort with a disclaimer. It's the sort of thing I have to do these days because it's still chic to play the "bigot card" as a viable means of debate. I'm not sure why you are so defensive, though. If I touched a nerve I apologize, since I know I wasn't descriptive enough: by "Listen" I meant "Cool down and consider..." If I wanted to be authoritative I might have used "See, ..."
I'm glad that you notice that history is written by the victorious. I don't see this as necessarily a bad thing -- merely Darwinian. Personally, I support the concept of evolution in genetics as well as in cultural affairs. Usually the winner will be the best. Sometimes not, but there have been enough battles that it's not statistically likely that Judeo-Christian-influenced western culture is a loser masquerading as a winner. I suppose that when a big winner fades away, you get a dark age. That's ancillary, though, and is another topic entirely.
It is less ancillary, though, to question your position that my hypothesis (which is of course hypothetical) is "extremely inaccurate," or that I am merely "lazy" and am defending a faith made of swiss cheese. First off, if I were lazy, I wouldn't be arguing with you, and secondly, you have no knowledge of my faith (or lack thereof) and hence are not prepared to make a mockery of anything. If you had definitive evidence there is no god, I would first ask you how I could build a device that turns a square wave into a sinusoid with peak-to-peak gain, since you would certainly have had discovered these things on your way to discovering all the secrets of the universe. The bonus would be that I know I can't comprehend the secrets of the universe, but I could certainly make a killing with that device.
Getting back to the strict topic, I can accept that history has been grisly. I don't see why that's relevant. Would it have been other-than-grisly should religion have not existed? Probably not. There are plenty of things to fight over that have no religious context. You also try to derail me by hinting that appauling deeds have been commited in the name of the God and the Church. I happen to be aware of such events, and I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Again, there's no evidence that similar events would not have happened if religion did not exist. Since time didn't pass the way you indicate you would have prefered, trying to show that history would have been better without religion is no less difficult than proving that there is no god.
If you choose to continue this debate, I would avoid making assumptions about people that think differently than you. Instead you should focus on the idea itself. Again, that is simply that I disagree that history would have been better without religion. To make one final example, the theme that it's hazardous to assume how other, dissimilar people think is common in many works of western literature, not the least of which is Paradise Lost. I mention this because it's an example of philosophically relevant work, heavily influenced by both Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman thinking: in other words, it's very western. Despite being very dull, it does present some positive concepts that would not likely have existed without religion.
Now for argumentally unrelated and perhaps ill-advised part:
Faith is not new to me, nor is it emotional. I believe in God because the universe is too great (infinite, actually) for me to assume that there is no god. I believe in the Christian interpretation because it's the only one I'm aware of that offers ascension and vast knowledge as a reward for nothing more than simple, self-recognition of one's own insignificance. Buddhism is interesting too, but it's inferior because it is confined to the human conciousness.
I suppose I should thank you for considering that I'm at least good at something [3D modeling], but I can't say that I have been overwhelmed by the brilliance of yours, or any of the other derisive viewpoints I've read on AI. In fact, I took a step back and really scrutinitized the structure of this whole debate, and yours is definitely thrasymacan in delivery. I've been around long enough to know that both you and Segovius have a lot of quality knowledge in the areas of religion, but I have been extremely underwhelmed by your philosophical deliveries and capacities for rational analysis. As far as I can tell, you made this thread so that you could masturbate each other over it, and for no other purpose.
Since you haven't even attempted to provide any sort of theories -- even crackpot theories -- I have nothing to go by other than a claim that you can crash the AI server. But before I go further, I will mention that, like me, you began your retort with a disclaimer. It's the sort of thing I have to do these days because it's still chic to play the "bigot card" as a viable means of debate.
well, put it another way, if you get stopped by the police for speeding and you get out the car, throw your arms around and start yelling "I didn't rob the store"...well I wan't calling you a bigot, and neither was anyone else.
Quote:
I'm not sure why you are so defensive, though. If I touched a nerve I apologize, since I know I wasn't descriptive enough: by "Listen" I meant "Cool down and consider..." If I wanted to be authoritative I might have used "See, ..."
See, i was just ribbin you anyway!
Quote:
I'm glad that you notice that history is written by the victorious. I don't see this as necessarily a bad thing -- merely Darwinian.
Listen, the true account of history is not dependant upon who was the fittest, strongest or most vocal in persuading others that their account is true.
Now, no-one is debating that Christians came out the winners after the fall of Romanity, what is up for discussion though is whether their account of what happened for the next 1000 years is what they claim it to be.
You seem to recognise that Rome was in decline, which for a large part had nothing to do with Christianity, at least until Constantine took power.
Yet ask the average Christian how Rome fell, and they'll tell you wonderful stories about how Paul was thrown in prison for his teaching, how Nero set light to thousands of them, how they were thrown to the lions for sport, etc etc, yet they kept their faith, nerve and virtue and overcome a ruthless culture and destroyed it, bringing a ray of light to an evil pagan world.
No doubt, you can imagine that I think that this account is a pile of steaming.
Here is the account, as I see it. Needless to say, this is overly simplified to make it consise and not take down the server.
Paul never existed anyway. The life, and letters of Paul, come from one called Apollonius. I'm sure as you've studied this topic enough to debate it with some honesty, that you will know all about Apollonius and Paul. If not, consider what is written at this link.
Personally, I believe that Apollonius was Paul, but I have also read evidence to the contrary, so I can't claim to know this 100%. Also be aware, that upon further study of Apollonius, you will find that many things attributed to him, clearly lie in the realm of miracles and mythology, So as often happens, a real history is overlaid with glorification and wonders. I could even found the case that the entire life of Apollonius is fiction, based on someone earlier, who this is I havn't yet found out.
But the point, is that to have a serious debate, you have to have read and understand *all* the evidence, regardless of wether you believe it or not.
No doubt, you believe quite literally, as most Christians do that Paul was Paul and the account is the literal truth. Sadly, you can only arrive at that point, if you refuse to do the homework, and speak from a position of ignorance and arrogance.
As it is with Nero. Nero was a tyrant, but the Christians were not even on his radar.
Yes, a few Christians might have been thrown to the lions, but so were vastly more non-Christians.
Christians claim they were persecuted for their beliefs. That doesn't hold with the fact that documents exist that show the Emperors and govenors discussing how to deal with this minor supersticious cult, and deciding to be tolerant of them, which is something Rome endorced throught the empire regardless of belief, because it made their occupations much easier. Infact, upon conquering, many of the beliefs and teachings of other religions filtered back into the native Roman religion.
Yes, some Christians were executed, but they were executed not for their beliefs, but because their actions clearly put them in the frame for criminal activities - if you look you can find that some were executed, because they held such a morbid perverse view of life, practically asking for themselves to be made martyrs, that Rome just fulfilled their wishes, solely because they found such contempt for life to be distasteful.
Now you might not believe a word of that, but evidence for such exists - regardless of whose evidence is right or wrong, the honest thing to do if you want an honest debate, is to study all of it.
Let me suggest, that the Christian version exists, not as an account of true history, but as a parable of the challenges you will face when becoming a Christian - and a way to give you hope and courage when you face people....like me.
Quote:
But there have been enough battles that it's not statistically likely that Judeo-Christian-influenced western culture is a loser masquerading as a winner.
Its the winner masquerading as the truth. No one doubt Christianity emerged victorius, just their account of how it came to be.
Quote:
I suppose that when a big winner fades away, you get a dark age.
Christianity was the big winner though, so why did we get a dark age when they won?
Quote:
It is less ancillary, though, to question your position that my hypothesis (which is of course hypothetical) is "extremely inaccurate," or that I am merely "lazy" and am defending a faith made of swiss cheese. First off, if I were lazy, I wouldn't be arguing with you, and secondly, you have no knowledge of my faith (or lack thereof) and hence are not prepared to make a mockery of anything.
well, you gave away so many clues - and ignoring the Christian aspects of this discussion, you dropped a couple of complete clangers that give away your understanding of the topic/
Quote:
If you had definitive evidence there is no god, I would first ask you how I could build a device that turns a square wave into a sinusoid with peak-to-peak gain, since you would certainly have had discovered these things on your way to discovering all the secrets of the universe. The bonus would be that I know I can't comprehend the secrets of the universe, but I could certainly make a killing with that device.
do you want to go for it analog or digital.?
Sugestion, put the square wave through a very narrow Band Pass filter and wire the output back to the input to create resonance. Flatten the rejected frequencies (energy) from the BPF with a bridge rectifier to provide power for the transistor. Assuming you dont tap the output of the sinewave, you should have created a sinewave with a higher peak to peak, but lower overall energy than the incoming square.
Ofcourse, I could be talking out my crack
Quote:
Getting back to the strict topic, I can accept that history has been grisly. I don't see why that's relevant. Would it have been other-than-grisly should religion have not existed? Probably not.
You're giving me the impression that you only refer to a valid religion as 'Christianity', and all other forms of worship or philosophy just dont exist, or are just athiest.
Quote:
There are plenty of things to fight over that have no religious context. You also try to derail me by hinting that appauling deeds have been commited in the name of the God and the Church. I happen to be aware of such events, and I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Again, there's no evidence that similar events would not have happened if religion did not exist. Since time didn't pass the way you indicate you would have prefered, trying to show that history would have been better without religion is no less difficult than proving that there is no god.
its just insanity what you're saying. Various religions took us from cave dwellers to highly advanced, functioning democracies - like the greeks. Because of the Gods, not despite them. What Im stressing, is that the Church after it formed went about the process of intentionally destroying all the progress humans had made over thousands of years, because it misunderstood (not likely but hey!) just exactly the meaning of what it had inherited. The people in the early church were psychotics, madmen.
I've stressed that this period lasted 1000 years, of which during this time, virtually nothing notable came out of the western world under christianity's rule. The only things Christianity did well was making torture devices. I've said this changed in the renaissance, when people rejected this cruel barbarism, and started to rebuild the knowledge they'd lost.
Renaissance means rebirth. Humanity had died under Christendom, and was reborn only when rejecting the fundamentalism. Of course, under this era, the church reluctantly began to change aswell, so you find examples of Christianity benefitting society and helping to shape it - As you claim.
Quote:
Again, that is simply that I disagree that history would have been better without religion.
Again, Christianity is not the only valid religion, and given the evidence of how utterly devastating the first 1000 years of Christian rule was, its almost bordering on insanity to suggest that it would have been no better, or worse during this period if Christianity didn't exist.
What if the Romans had not embraced Christianity at all? Everything would have played out very differently from then on.
What if a form of Greek philosophy and religion had reformed. What if the library of Alexandria had not been torched by the Pope?
Quote:
To make one final example, the theme that it's hazardous to assume how other, dissimilar people think is common in many works of western literature, not the least of which is Paradise Lost. I mention this because it's an example of philosophically relevant work, heavily influenced by both Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman thinking: in other words, it's very western. Despite being very dull, it does present some positive concepts that would not likely have existed without religion.
The best thing you could do, is just spend a few months looking at greek culture and religion, and wonder where all this beauty and spirituality, knowledge and wisdom went.
Quote:
Now for argumentally unrelated and perhaps ill-advised part:
Faith is not new to me, nor is it emotional. I believe in God because the universe is too great (infinite, actually) for me to assume that there is no god. I believe in the Christian interpretation because it's the only one I'm aware of that offers ascension and vast knowledge as a reward for nothing more than simple, self-recognition of one's own insignificance. Buddhism is interesting too, but it's inferior because it is confined to the human conciousness.
Well, there you go, I couldn't care less if you believe in God. Great! well done! Say 'hello' from me, the sinner over in the corner!.
However, why does belief in God, numb one to finding out the truth about what really happened? Surely a genuine belief in God requires you to seek out truth, however nasty it could turn out to be.
Quote:
and yours is definitely thrasymacan in delivery.
thanks!:devil well whatever dude.
Quote:
I've been around long enough to know that both you and Segovius have a lot of quality knowledge in the areas of religion, but I have been extremely underwhelmed by your philosophical deliveries and capacities for rational analysis.
I'd probably only want to give that sort of credit to Seg.
See, the problem is, firstly, i dont research this stuff (anymore) specifically to argue about it with you or others, sometimes it just crops up in discussion and thus I make my little contribution!
secondly, Its very easy, when you have a very narrow viewpoint (not saying you in particular) - lets suppose it is "Believe in Jesus and you will be saved - screw everything else - it comes from Satan" - easy to have a clear, consise, rational, philosophically pleasing debate, because there is nothing to consider.
Now, considering I don't make notes, draw diagrams, catalogue/index my materials for easy reference, i dont practise talking points, there isn't a website I know of that has a list of cute answers to give to people who don't agree with me (like the hundreds there are for Christianity) I've even deleted all my bookmarks (thousands of them!) recently, and decided to start afresh...well, what Im saying is that everything I type comes straight from memory. I dont even plan my next sentance, and English wasn't a favourite subject of mine at school. Im holding thousands of memories of evidence, many contradictory POV's and try to evaluate it all to give a fair and honest opinion of what I think the truth is, even if you think Im biased. Well of course I am, im biased to finding out the truth, If you or anyone else can provide a better explanation that explains more of this mystery, i'd be biased to accept that.
If it comes out garbled and spidery, im sorry, its just the way it has to be.
Quote:
As far as I can tell, you made this thread so that you could masturbate each other over it, and for no other purpose.
well, seeing as I find that extremely funny, i'll promise to you, that the next time that naughty Segovius derails my thread about Cosmology with God, I'll spank his little bottom.
BTW, you might also contemplate, if you think were in bed together, that most of the opinions about divinity Segovius and myself hold are further apart than any other two posters on this board - You try telling him why God isn't the highest principle
Comments
Originally posted by southside grabowski
What a sad world this will be if all faith is lost.
Yes. Heaven knows I'll miss 'Islamofascism', the caste system and 'God Hates Fags'.
It took a science fiction novel (Hominids by Robert J. Sawyer) to open my eyes and make me realize that religion and the belief in some magical place separate from our own reality are truly destructive influences on our society.
Originally posted by AsLan^
It took a science fiction novel (Hominids by Robert J. Sawyer) to open my eyes and make me realize that religion and the belief in some magical place separate from our own reality are truly destructive influences on our society.
Taking the "organized religion is bad" stance is a popular one these days, but I'm not so sure that I agree wholeheartedly anymore. Unless you're into new-age revisionism, it's easy to cite positive moments in Western history that were influenced by the dominant Western religion (i.e. Christianity). There are negative moments as well, but there will always be good and evil in the world, independent of religion. Just because people use religion as an excuse to do evil deeds doesn't mean that it's the only available excuse. Neither Hitler's or Stalin's agenda had much to do with religion, for example.
On the plus, side, one can argue that the Judeo-Christian influence on Western culture had a lot to do with the fact that the West was -- certainly by the 18th century -- the guiding light to the rest of the world, and to this day remains, without a doubt, the most culturally advanced area of the world. Denying this is either a result of contemporary, multi-culturalist brain-washing or the legitimate feeling that individual freedom and non-oppressive governments are bad things.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Hitler's
Hitlers agenda have much more to do with religion than you think.
On the plus, side, one can argue that the Judeo-Christian influence on Western culture had a lot to do with the fact that the West was -- certainly by the 18th century --
yet for the period 500AD to 1500AD apx, the Judeo-Christian on the western world was nothing but pure destruction, and it wasn't until the enlightenment era 1500+ apx, when people started to throw off en masse the fundamentalism of the previous 1000 years that the western world finally caught up to and in some ways exceeded the rest of the world.
I bet you didn't know the Romans had tools to remove cataracts, The Iraqi's were electoplating, and the greeks had measured the circumference of the sphere of the world accurately, before Jesus was even (not) born.
Infact, if Christianity had not swept the west, what we have accomplished today, might have been done by the 8th Century.
Originally posted by AsLan^
religion and the belief in some magical place separate from our own reality are truly destructive influences on our society.
Because you trade a belief in this life for a lie of a better life after death. This is why so many have nothing but a morbid contempt for themselves, the world and humanity.
for so many people religious nuts to go around claiming that Satan is a devious trickster out to screw up your life, you'd think that they wouldn't be so blind to being tricked themselves.
Originally posted by segovius
You think too much
I know that, and I embrace it
I know people have cited religion as their inspiration for great deeds but would there be any less great deeds if the infrastructure had instead been laid for us to inspire ourselves and each other.
EDIT: This post was in response to Splinemodel
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Yes. Heaven knows I'll miss 'Islamofascism', the caste system and 'God Hates Fags'.
Don't confuse God with the deeds of men who claim to be acting in the name of God. Men who want to hate will always find a "reason" to justify their deeds.
Moe
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
the vatican is beginning to argue this point as well, a theologically rigorous religion has no basis in reality... faith cannot survive evidence...
Funny, but as obvious as it is that Catholicism has been pretty evil for virtually its entire existance, i cant help look at them today, and wonder if they are actually onto something.
It seems to be they are teaching something that only makes sense when you realise there are different levels of understanding of peoples faiths. Of course this looks contradictory, and can easily be accused by some of being 2 faced, or trying to convert by saying all things to all men.
But take this 'worship of Mary' stuff - itself it seems highly heretical when your level of understanding is poor - afterall this is a movement supposedly based on the teachings of Jesus - you'd think that it's so obviously heretical to elevate Mary equal to, or higher than Jesus, you wonder why in the hell they do it. But if you wonder enough to find out, Mary is more important than Jesus in so many ways.
Sadly, most people being dumb sheep will just go along with it, because thats what they are told to do - and my critisism of this is that the vatican do not teach 'why' it is so, but are operating on the basis of if you care enough to find out, then you will find out anyway.
That might just be the way it has to be - but I don't really aprove of it, but I kind of endorse it aswell.
Originally posted by MarcUK
yet for the period 500AD to 1500AD apx, the Judeo-Christian on the western world was nothing but pure destruction, and it wasn't until the enlightenment era 1500+ apx, when people started to throw off en masse the fundamentalism of the previous 1000 years that the western world finally caught up to and in some ways exceeded the rest of the world.
I bet you didn't know the Romans had tools to remove cataracts, The Iraqi's were electoplating, and the greeks had measured the circumference of the sphere of the world accurately, before Jesus was even (not) born.
Infact, if Christianity had not swept the west, what we have accomplished today, might have been done by the 8th Century.
I tried explaining this to my wife but unfortunately she just didn't get it.
One day I hope she'll renounce her god gang affiliations.
Originally posted by southside grabowski
Don't confuse God with the deeds of men who claim to be acting in the name of God. Men who want to hate will always find a "reason" to justify their deeds.
Moe
so what is your reason?
Originally posted by MarcUK
so what is your reason?
Reason for what? Are you suggesting that I hate?
Originally posted by segovius
One could argue that his brand of anti-Semitism owed a lot to blaming Jews for the death of Christ - as does a lot of anti-Jewish sentiment which was fed by the Church.
I'd argue that Hitlers persecution of the Jews was by Jewish design.
Originally posted by southside grabowski
Reason for what? Are you suggesting that I hate?
nah, I think you have Moe-love for everyone
Originally posted by MarcUK
Hitlers agenda have much more to do with religion than you think. . .
yet for the period 500AD to 1500AD apx, the Judeo-Christian on the western world was nothing but pure destruction. . .
Infact, if Christianity had not swept the west, what we have accomplished today, might have been done by the 8th Century.
Listen, I'm neither a bigot or a particular supporter of organized religion. If you're trying to devalue my hypothesis by convincing yourself that I'm a supremacist, don't waste your time: the insular anecdotes you provide as evidence are barely more substantial than segovius's response (or, perhaps, deflection). I am aware that non-western societies are capable of great things as well, and that non-western people have indeed done great things in the past. The point is that the modern world is hugely and positively influenced by Judeo-Christian thought. Yes, western philosophy has a huge Greco-Roman foundation, which is generally non-religious. But that doesn't impact my argument since I don't hold that non-religious influence is bad.
To say that the 18th century's arrival was prolonged by religion is speculation, and it may be less convincing than arguing that the relatively Christian concept of manifest destiny, coupled with exploration, trade, and then the reformation were enough to bring the right elements together. It is certainly possible that these events could have occured without religion, but they did not, and they were certainly very positive.
As an aside, I read Aslan's post and wondered about his state of mind. It's ridiculous to condemn people because they don't agree with an extremely hypothetical (and likely inaccurate) position. I somehow don't think that you'll have much luck finding substantial historical theory supporting this position, and suspect that only the contemporary trend of glorifying counter-culture as intelligensia would lead anyone to honestly believe this. I can tell you for a fact that many scholarly texts attribute the bureaucracy and decadence of the late Roman Empire for the onset of the so-called Dark Ages. It is actually interesting to draw parallels between then and now.
Also, Aslan, I do suppose you realize the irony of your moniker. . .
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Listen,
Fortunately, I have little respect for authority, so starting off with 'Assertiveness for dummies' just puts a smile on my face
I'm neither a bigot or a particular supporter of organized religion.
i dont recall claiming so. A bit touchy aren't you?
If you're trying to devalue my hypothesis by convincing yourself that I'm a supremacist, don't waste your time:
Ah, I see! now - not me, or anyone here would have put your post down to that of a supremacist, so that it has crossed your mind and you feel the need to comment it, pretty much gives away that beneath the illusion of fairness and reasonability, you are trying to hide the fact that you probably are. Ask a psychologist.
But I dont mind that really, pretty much everyone is a supremacist in some way or another.
the insular anecdotes you provide as evidence are barely more substantial than segovius's response (or, perhaps, deflection).
I could crash the AI server with susbstantial evidence of the very quick summary I gave, and believe me, i would love to go through every detail to really ram it home to some people here. But alas, it is a waste of time, because most people aren't ready or willing to hear just how depraved Christianity was in the dark ages, those that would listen - well they know it already.
I am aware that non-western societies are capable of great things as well, and that non-western people have indeed done great things in the past.
perhaps though, you aren't really aware of just how great progress had been until Christianity, and the extent of what was lost and destroyed. Now, I know that there are examples of good things Christianity achieved and of a few good Christian writers during an otherwise barbaric period, but relative to what the Greeks, Babylonians, Romans and Egyptians had achieved for the few thousand years previous, they are but a stream to an ocean.
And don't forget that non-western peoples are still doing great things today.
The point is that the modern world is hugely and positively influenced by Judeo-Christian thought.
Make the distinction that this only happened after a thousand years of Christian rape, pillage and destruction, and was started by people who influenced culture by rejecting Christian fundamentalist dogma, which initself forced the church to change its ideas, and i could agree with you.
Yes, western philosophy has a huge Greco-Roman foundation, which is generally non-religious.
Um, not really, Greco-Roman culture was very religious, it just wasn't fundamentalist and morally destructive, like the Christian era that followed it.
But that doesn't impact my argument since I don't hold that non-religious influence is bad.
The only argument you're making is that you dont really have a clue what you're talking about. I would stick to 3d modelling if this is the best you can do.
See the trouble with history, is that it gets written by the victorius. They don't often chose to incriminate themselves and describe the horrors they committed. Infact you will find that they were always the pillar of hope, that they were fighting off a ferocius evil, that their God looked after them, that they singlehandedly fought off 'Goliaths', and they bought peace and prosperity to a rabble of people.
This is true in every account of History, not just Christian. Thats one of the perks of being the winner. I don't doubt that Christianity was the winner, I just chose not to believe 2000 years of glorified propaganda.
To say that the 18th century's arrival was prolonged by religion is speculation,
you know, I though a bit about when the 18th century might have happened if it were not for Christianity, and i chose to speculate a date that was in your favour, not mine.
I believe, that had the words 'Jesus Christ' never been put to paper, the 18th Century would have happened about 4-5th Century. Of course, the Roman Empire was in decline by the second century, which had nothing to do with Christianity (despite what their glorified propaganda will claim), so it might not have been the Romans who achieved it, however they certainly had the knowledge, expertise and wealth to. Then again if the Greek Empire had not fallen to the Romans, they might have had an 18th century a few hundred years earlier still.
It is certainly possible that these events could have occured without religion, but they did not, and they were certainly very positive.
But indeed they had. About 2000 years earlier. Christianity threw it all away, and it took them nearly 1500 years to rediscover it all.
As an aside, I read Aslan's post and wondered about his state of mind.
I'd worry about your own. Not in the sense that i think your ill, in the sense that uttery bought into the pile of shit that passes as history, but don't worry too much, its a common ailment that affects about 90% of your population.
It's ridiculous to condemn people because they don't agree with an extremely hypothetical (and likely inaccurate) position.
See, the trouble is, your position is extremely hypothetical and extremely innacurate. Unfortunately because its an easy position to take and requires little effort to arrive at it, most people take that option, and to defend their lazyness or faith, they just get other like minded people to agree with them, because it makes them feel safe and happy.
I'll give you a piece of advice. What really happened isn't nice. Infact its disgusting and troubling, perverse and sick. There is no comfort to be found in knowing, you won't find many friends by knowing, and knowing can make you really unhappy and scared. That is the price you pay for wanting to know the truth. If you aint up to it - stick with the happy delusion.
I somehow don't think that you'll have much luck finding substantial historical theory supporting this position,
clearly demonstrating you havn't made the effort to look for counter evidence to the glorified propaganda, because it exists in volume and makes a mockery out of your belief.
and suspect that only the contemporary trend of glorifying counter-culture as intelligensia would lead anyone to honestly believe this.
you can suspect whatever you like, all it shows is that you don't know.
I can tell you for a fact that many scholarly texts attribute the bureaucracy and decadence of the late Roman Empire for the onset of the so-called Dark Ages.
I know you can, however I could find a scholarly text that shows God made the universe in 6 days. You can have an infinite amount of scholarly texts, but shit happens, because there is only one true version of history.
It is actually interesting to draw parallels between then and now.
about the only smart thing you've so far said.
So tell me, you smack of all the virtues of someone who has just found faith, so what is it? Jehovah's witness?
Originally posted by MarcUK
...
I could crash the AI server with susbstantial evidence of the very quick summary I gave, ...
....
I'll give you a piece of advice. What really happened isn't nice. Infact its disgusting and troubling, perverse and sick. ... See the trouble with history, is that it gets written by the victorius. ... This is true in every account of History, not just Christian. Thats one of the perks of being the winner. I don't doubt that Christianity was the winner, I just chose not to believe 2000 years of glorified propaganda
....
See, the trouble is, your position is extremely hypothetical and extremely innacurate. Unfortunately because its an easy position to take and requires little effort to arrive at it, most people take that option, and to defend their lazyness or faith, they just get other like minded people to agree with them, because it makes them feel safe and happy. ... clearly demonstrating you havn't made the effort to look for counter evidence to the glorified propaganda, because it exists in volume and makes a mockery out of your belief.
...
however I could [ed: with sarcasm] find a scholarly text that shows God made the universe in 6 days . ... So tell me, you smack of all the virtues of someone who has just found faith, so what is it? Jehovah's witness? ... The only argument you're making is that you dont really have a clue what you're talking about. I would stick to 3d modelling if this is the best you can do.
Since you haven't even attempted to provide any sort of theories -- even crackpot theories -- I have nothing to go by other than a claim that you can crash the AI server. But before I go further, I will mention that, like me, you began your retort with a disclaimer. It's the sort of thing I have to do these days because it's still chic to play the "bigot card" as a viable means of debate. I'm not sure why you are so defensive, though. If I touched a nerve I apologize, since I know I wasn't descriptive enough: by "Listen" I meant "Cool down and consider..." If I wanted to be authoritative I might have used "See, ..."
I'm glad that you notice that history is written by the victorious. I don't see this as necessarily a bad thing -- merely Darwinian. Personally, I support the concept of evolution in genetics as well as in cultural affairs. Usually the winner will be the best. Sometimes not, but there have been enough battles that it's not statistically likely that Judeo-Christian-influenced western culture is a loser masquerading as a winner. I suppose that when a big winner fades away, you get a dark age. That's ancillary, though, and is another topic entirely.
It is less ancillary, though, to question your position that my hypothesis (which is of course hypothetical) is "extremely inaccurate," or that I am merely "lazy" and am defending a faith made of swiss cheese. First off, if I were lazy, I wouldn't be arguing with you, and secondly, you have no knowledge of my faith (or lack thereof) and hence are not prepared to make a mockery of anything. If you had definitive evidence there is no god, I would first ask you how I could build a device that turns a square wave into a sinusoid with peak-to-peak gain, since you would certainly have had discovered these things on your way to discovering all the secrets of the universe. The bonus would be that I know I can't comprehend the secrets of the universe, but I could certainly make a killing with that device.
Getting back to the strict topic, I can accept that history has been grisly. I don't see why that's relevant. Would it have been other-than-grisly should religion have not existed? Probably not. There are plenty of things to fight over that have no religious context. You also try to derail me by hinting that appauling deeds have been commited in the name of the God and the Church. I happen to be aware of such events, and I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Again, there's no evidence that similar events would not have happened if religion did not exist. Since time didn't pass the way you indicate you would have prefered, trying to show that history would have been better without religion is no less difficult than proving that there is no god.
If you choose to continue this debate, I would avoid making assumptions about people that think differently than you. Instead you should focus on the idea itself. Again, that is simply that I disagree that history would have been better without religion. To make one final example, the theme that it's hazardous to assume how other, dissimilar people think is common in many works of western literature, not the least of which is Paradise Lost. I mention this because it's an example of philosophically relevant work, heavily influenced by both Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman thinking: in other words, it's very western. Despite being very dull, it does present some positive concepts that would not likely have existed without religion.
Now for argumentally unrelated and perhaps ill-advised part:
Faith is not new to me, nor is it emotional. I believe in God because the universe is too great (infinite, actually) for me to assume that there is no god. I believe in the Christian interpretation because it's the only one I'm aware of that offers ascension and vast knowledge as a reward for nothing more than simple, self-recognition of one's own insignificance. Buddhism is interesting too, but it's inferior because it is confined to the human conciousness.
I suppose I should thank you for considering that I'm at least good at something [3D modeling], but I can't say that I have been overwhelmed by the brilliance of yours, or any of the other derisive viewpoints I've read on AI. In fact, I took a step back and really scrutinitized the structure of this whole debate, and yours is definitely thrasymacan in delivery. I've been around long enough to know that both you and Segovius have a lot of quality knowledge in the areas of religion, but I have been extremely underwhelmed by your philosophical deliveries and capacities for rational analysis. As far as I can tell, you made this thread so that you could masturbate each other over it, and for no other purpose.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
As far as I can tell, you made this thread so that you could masturbate each other over it, and for no other purpose.
ha...now thats good stuff. i love this board
(yes i have nothing interesting to add to this thread, i am such a lazy ass, i will go back to the tv now for its my religion)
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Since you haven't even attempted to provide any sort of theories -- even crackpot theories -- I have nothing to go by other than a claim that you can crash the AI server. But before I go further, I will mention that, like me, you began your retort with a disclaimer. It's the sort of thing I have to do these days because it's still chic to play the "bigot card" as a viable means of debate.
well, put it another way, if you get stopped by the police for speeding and you get out the car, throw your arms around and start yelling "I didn't rob the store"...well I wan't calling you a bigot, and neither was anyone else.
I'm not sure why you are so defensive, though. If I touched a nerve I apologize, since I know I wasn't descriptive enough: by "Listen" I meant "Cool down and consider..." If I wanted to be authoritative I might have used "See, ..."
See, i was just ribbin you anyway!
I'm glad that you notice that history is written by the victorious. I don't see this as necessarily a bad thing -- merely Darwinian.
Listen, the true account of history is not dependant upon who was the fittest, strongest or most vocal in persuading others that their account is true.
Now, no-one is debating that Christians came out the winners after the fall of Romanity, what is up for discussion though is whether their account of what happened for the next 1000 years is what they claim it to be.
You seem to recognise that Rome was in decline, which for a large part had nothing to do with Christianity, at least until Constantine took power.
Yet ask the average Christian how Rome fell, and they'll tell you wonderful stories about how Paul was thrown in prison for his teaching, how Nero set light to thousands of them, how they were thrown to the lions for sport, etc etc, yet they kept their faith, nerve and virtue and overcome a ruthless culture and destroyed it, bringing a ray of light to an evil pagan world.
No doubt, you can imagine that I think that this account is a pile of steaming.
Here is the account, as I see it. Needless to say, this is overly simplified to make it consise and not take down the server.
Paul never existed anyway. The life, and letters of Paul, come from one called Apollonius. I'm sure as you've studied this topic enough to debate it with some honesty, that you will know all about Apollonius and Paul. If not, consider what is written at this link.
http://www.geocities.com/nephilimnot...of_tyanna.html
Personally, I believe that Apollonius was Paul, but I have also read evidence to the contrary, so I can't claim to know this 100%. Also be aware, that upon further study of Apollonius, you will find that many things attributed to him, clearly lie in the realm of miracles and mythology, So as often happens, a real history is overlaid with glorification and wonders. I could even found the case that the entire life of Apollonius is fiction, based on someone earlier, who this is I havn't yet found out.
But the point, is that to have a serious debate, you have to have read and understand *all* the evidence, regardless of wether you believe it or not.
No doubt, you believe quite literally, as most Christians do that Paul was Paul and the account is the literal truth. Sadly, you can only arrive at that point, if you refuse to do the homework, and speak from a position of ignorance and arrogance.
As it is with Nero. Nero was a tyrant, but the Christians were not even on his radar.
Yes, a few Christians might have been thrown to the lions, but so were vastly more non-Christians.
Christians claim they were persecuted for their beliefs. That doesn't hold with the fact that documents exist that show the Emperors and govenors discussing how to deal with this minor supersticious cult, and deciding to be tolerant of them, which is something Rome endorced throught the empire regardless of belief, because it made their occupations much easier. Infact, upon conquering, many of the beliefs and teachings of other religions filtered back into the native Roman religion.
Yes, some Christians were executed, but they were executed not for their beliefs, but because their actions clearly put them in the frame for criminal activities - if you look you can find that some were executed, because they held such a morbid perverse view of life, practically asking for themselves to be made martyrs, that Rome just fulfilled their wishes, solely because they found such contempt for life to be distasteful.
Now you might not believe a word of that, but evidence for such exists - regardless of whose evidence is right or wrong, the honest thing to do if you want an honest debate, is to study all of it.
Let me suggest, that the Christian version exists, not as an account of true history, but as a parable of the challenges you will face when becoming a Christian - and a way to give you hope and courage when you face people....like me.
But there have been enough battles that it's not statistically likely that Judeo-Christian-influenced western culture is a loser masquerading as a winner.
Its the winner masquerading as the truth. No one doubt Christianity emerged victorius, just their account of how it came to be.
I suppose that when a big winner fades away, you get a dark age.
Christianity was the big winner though, so why did we get a dark age when they won?
It is less ancillary, though, to question your position that my hypothesis (which is of course hypothetical) is "extremely inaccurate," or that I am merely "lazy" and am defending a faith made of swiss cheese. First off, if I were lazy, I wouldn't be arguing with you, and secondly, you have no knowledge of my faith (or lack thereof) and hence are not prepared to make a mockery of anything.
well, you gave away so many clues - and ignoring the Christian aspects of this discussion, you dropped a couple of complete clangers that give away your understanding of the topic/
If you had definitive evidence there is no god, I would first ask you how I could build a device that turns a square wave into a sinusoid with peak-to-peak gain, since you would certainly have had discovered these things on your way to discovering all the secrets of the universe. The bonus would be that I know I can't comprehend the secrets of the universe, but I could certainly make a killing with that device.
do you want to go for it analog or digital.?
Sugestion, put the square wave through a very narrow Band Pass filter and wire the output back to the input to create resonance. Flatten the rejected frequencies (energy) from the BPF with a bridge rectifier to provide power for the transistor. Assuming you dont tap the output of the sinewave, you should have created a sinewave with a higher peak to peak, but lower overall energy than the incoming square.
Ofcourse, I could be talking out my crack
Getting back to the strict topic, I can accept that history has been grisly. I don't see why that's relevant. Would it have been other-than-grisly should religion have not existed? Probably not.
You're giving me the impression that you only refer to a valid religion as 'Christianity', and all other forms of worship or philosophy just dont exist, or are just athiest.
There are plenty of things to fight over that have no religious context. You also try to derail me by hinting that appauling deeds have been commited in the name of the God and the Church. I happen to be aware of such events, and I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Again, there's no evidence that similar events would not have happened if religion did not exist. Since time didn't pass the way you indicate you would have prefered, trying to show that history would have been better without religion is no less difficult than proving that there is no god.
its just insanity what you're saying. Various religions took us from cave dwellers to highly advanced, functioning democracies - like the greeks. Because of the Gods, not despite them. What Im stressing, is that the Church after it formed went about the process of intentionally destroying all the progress humans had made over thousands of years, because it misunderstood (not likely but hey!) just exactly the meaning of what it had inherited. The people in the early church were psychotics, madmen.
I've stressed that this period lasted 1000 years, of which during this time, virtually nothing notable came out of the western world under christianity's rule. The only things Christianity did well was making torture devices. I've said this changed in the renaissance, when people rejected this cruel barbarism, and started to rebuild the knowledge they'd lost.
Renaissance means rebirth. Humanity had died under Christendom, and was reborn only when rejecting the fundamentalism. Of course, under this era, the church reluctantly began to change aswell, so you find examples of Christianity benefitting society and helping to shape it - As you claim.
Again, that is simply that I disagree that history would have been better without religion.
Again, Christianity is not the only valid religion, and given the evidence of how utterly devastating the first 1000 years of Christian rule was, its almost bordering on insanity to suggest that it would have been no better, or worse during this period if Christianity didn't exist.
What if the Romans had not embraced Christianity at all? Everything would have played out very differently from then on.
What if a form of Greek philosophy and religion had reformed. What if the library of Alexandria had not been torched by the Pope?
To make one final example, the theme that it's hazardous to assume how other, dissimilar people think is common in many works of western literature, not the least of which is Paradise Lost. I mention this because it's an example of philosophically relevant work, heavily influenced by both Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman thinking: in other words, it's very western. Despite being very dull, it does present some positive concepts that would not likely have existed without religion.
The best thing you could do, is just spend a few months looking at greek culture and religion, and wonder where all this beauty and spirituality, knowledge and wisdom went.
Now for argumentally unrelated and perhaps ill-advised part:
Faith is not new to me, nor is it emotional. I believe in God because the universe is too great (infinite, actually) for me to assume that there is no god. I believe in the Christian interpretation because it's the only one I'm aware of that offers ascension and vast knowledge as a reward for nothing more than simple, self-recognition of one's own insignificance. Buddhism is interesting too, but it's inferior because it is confined to the human conciousness.
Well, there you go, I couldn't care less if you believe in God. Great! well done! Say 'hello' from me, the sinner over in the corner!.
However, why does belief in God, numb one to finding out the truth about what really happened? Surely a genuine belief in God requires you to seek out truth, however nasty it could turn out to be.
and yours is definitely thrasymacan in delivery.
thanks!:devil well whatever dude.
I've been around long enough to know that both you and Segovius have a lot of quality knowledge in the areas of religion, but I have been extremely underwhelmed by your philosophical deliveries and capacities for rational analysis.
I'd probably only want to give that sort of credit to Seg.
See, the problem is, firstly, i dont research this stuff (anymore) specifically to argue about it with you or others, sometimes it just crops up in discussion and thus I make my little contribution!
secondly, Its very easy, when you have a very narrow viewpoint (not saying you in particular) - lets suppose it is "Believe in Jesus and you will be saved - screw everything else - it comes from Satan" - easy to have a clear, consise, rational, philosophically pleasing debate, because there is nothing to consider.
Now, considering I don't make notes, draw diagrams, catalogue/index my materials for easy reference, i dont practise talking points, there isn't a website I know of that has a list of cute answers to give to people who don't agree with me (like the hundreds there are for Christianity) I've even deleted all my bookmarks (thousands of them!) recently, and decided to start afresh...well, what Im saying is that everything I type comes straight from memory. I dont even plan my next sentance, and English wasn't a favourite subject of mine at school. Im holding thousands of memories of evidence, many contradictory POV's and try to evaluate it all to give a fair and honest opinion of what I think the truth is, even if you think Im biased. Well of course I am, im biased to finding out the truth, If you or anyone else can provide a better explanation that explains more of this mystery, i'd be biased to accept that.
If it comes out garbled and spidery, im sorry, its just the way it has to be.
As far as I can tell, you made this thread so that you could masturbate each other over it, and for no other purpose.
well, seeing as I find that extremely funny, i'll promise to you, that the next time that naughty Segovius derails my thread about Cosmology with God, I'll spank his little bottom.
BTW, you might also contemplate, if you think were in bed together, that most of the opinions about divinity Segovius and myself hold are further apart than any other two posters on this board - You try telling him why God isn't the highest principle