|
Post by Colliohn on Apr 10, 2004 21:09:49 GMT -5
I'm tired of all this shit about god and Jesus and whatever. Some people need to wake up and realize they aren't special, they aren't part of anything bigger, and they sure as hell aren't going to any sort of heaven when they die. If they insist on allowing the Disease to fester within themselves, that's their own problem; but when people come to me and harrass me and post Bullshit, hypocricital quotes up on my High School walls, I get a little bit pissed. I'm sure some of you would agree with me: those of us who are uninfected have an obligation to prevent the Disease from spreading any farther than it already has.
Would our world be better if everyone was a 'good christian'? Sure. But you know what else? We would slowly revert back to the dark ages, because no one would have any urge to be creative, or to think for themselves, or to go beyond the possible and transcend the limits that have been placed upon us by the Bible-thumpers. We'd be a society of conformists who would be perfectly happy to kill themselves if they believed their god wished it.
Now, if we had a world without any religion, and we were all mature enough to deal with the REALITY that there isn't any god or gods, and that when we die we just, simply, die; then we would have a perfect world. No fighting in the middle east, no worries of Bush corrupting our gov't by trying to inlude the Disease of religion into it, and we'd lower overall conflict in the world close to 0. We could have a centuries long golden age of discovery and technology, because there wouldn't be good ol' Bush and his Zealot friends shooting down every good idea that might make their god seem a little bit less impressive. Had we not had religion get in our way, we'd easily have colonized half the solar system, and earth would be a utopia with all the technological advances we'd have made. No reliance on fossil fuels, cars that run on water, just to name a couple. Oh, not to mention the complete lack of poverty.
But guys, remember, we don't have any of this because we've got a huge portion of our population who needs a big all-mighty teddy bear to hug when they go to bed at night, because they couldn't handle a world where death was final, or where they were just another head of cattle in the stampede and weren't anything special, and because they are afraid of the unknown universe around us and would rather hide in a little hole rather than discover the infinite wonder surrounding us.
|
|
|
Post by niacinamide on May 22, 2004 15:15:39 GMT -5
So much hate, so young, so sad...
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on May 22, 2004 21:34:10 GMT -5
Had we not had religion get in our way, we'd easily have colonized half the solar system, and earth would be a utopia with all the technological advances we'd have made. No reliance on fossil fuels, cars that run on water, just to name a couple. Oh, not to mention the complete lack of poverty. Ok I'm going to bed and I'm quite tired, but I'll quickly respond on this small point for now. Colliohn, you hate the fact that people adopt gods for themselves, but in that paragraph you adopt your own god: man. It seems that you believe that man can do anything if he just puts his mind to it. Be careful in adopting this philosophy. In doing so, you fail to account for man's failures and imperfections.
|
|
|
Post by Colliohn on May 22, 2004 22:02:07 GMT -5
We can do anything given enough time and effort. Show me a known limit that has not yet been broken or at the very least not learned more about and had progress made on it.
I fully account for our failures and imperfections. If I didn't, I'd have put us a lot father ahead than I did. Naturally we'd make mistakes and blow some things up here and there, by accident or on purpose. But the point I'm making is that we have the potential for so much more than we've achieved, and that religion is a major factor in setting us back. A belief in an afterlife could prevent a scientist from going that extra mile to develop a life-saving or life-extending drug that would keep millions of people alive and healthy for a few extra years; why skip church or prayer to find the answer when he's going to heaven after he dies anyway?
FYI: One of my pet peeves is this 'making man into a god' bolsh. Emphasizing the good in humanity and looking at our future optimisitcally is far, far from 'making man into a god'.
|
|
pericles
Novice
Advocatus Diaboli
Posts: 55
|
Post by pericles on Jun 1, 2004 8:54:45 GMT -5
A nice theory, but flawed in its application. It may well be true, but one can hardly apply it to a Christian doctor, and that seems to be the point you are trying to make.
The Christian doctor not only believes in heaven; he believes in hell, and desires to save others from that fate. If he can create a chance for others to convert a non-Christian, he is succeeding.
In any event, the idea is blown apart by a quick study of history. It is noticeable that science was only developed once in the world - in midaeval Europe, under Christianity. Far from restricting science, Christianity is the very cause of its existence.
The claims that Christianity itself restricted science are unfounded in the historical record. Christian theology was not the source of the oft-repeated conflict between the Catholic church and scientists; rather it was the natural tendency for any institution that has power to suppress new ideas and progress. And even then, far too many of the supposed examples of Christian suppression of science are fabricated myths.
In Russia under the Communists genetics was repressed as a "bourgeois" science, and in Nazi Germany physics was significantly damaged by the Nazi portrayal of it as a "Jewish" science. So far, no historians have attempted to prove that atheism is inconsistent with science, although that is the conclusion one could reach if we are to accept the evidence for Christianity's repression of the sciences.
|
|
pericles
Novice
Advocatus Diaboli
Posts: 55
|
Post by pericles on Jun 1, 2004 10:02:30 GMT -5
The terminology is, admittedly, not very precise, but the basic idea of humanists making man into a god is supportable. A Christian puts his hope in the future in God, while an humanist puts it in humanity and the things it can achieve. A Christian believes in the saving power of Christ, while a humanist believes in the saving power of science and progress. As these come from humanity, it is safe to say that while humanists may not worship mankind as their god, or treat it the same way as a religious person might, they are raising it up on a pedestal and putting their faith in it. Therefore, it is a fair expression to say that humanists are making mankind their god.
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Jun 1, 2004 14:49:31 GMT -5
Thanks for explaining what I meant Pericles
|
|
|
Post by Colliohn on Jun 9, 2004 0:24:33 GMT -5
In any event, the idea is blown apart by a quick study of history. It is noticeable that science was only developed once in the world - in midaeval Europe, under Christianity. Far from restricting science, Christianity is the very cause of its existence. The claims that Christianity itself restricted science are unfounded in the historical record. Christian theology was not the source of the oft-repeated conflict between the Catholic church and scientists; rather it was the natural tendency for any institution that has power to suppress new ideas and progress. And even then, far too many of the supposed examples of Christian suppression of science are fabricated myths. Wow. You must never have learned about ancient China, India, the Americas... Wow. To say that Science only developed in Europe under Christianity is one of the most ignorant things I've ever heard. The Chinese were developing science before the JEWS existed, much less Christ and then the expansion of Christianity into Europe. The Aztecs, Incas etc. had some of the most advanced Astronomy techniques of their times, and they developed independently from the Europeans, and in the case of the Incas, before the Europeans. Same goes for the Egyptians. Oh, and the best for last... You ever hear of a place called Greece? You know, all those dudes in togas who developed the scientific method and all that good stuff--once again, before Christ. Secondly, the dark ages were caused by ignorance as well as helped along very greatly by Christianity in Europe. The word Heretic derived from this period because of all the dissenting views, including those of people who chose to look at the world scientifically and were punished by the church for doing so.
|
|
|
Post by Colliohn on Jun 9, 2004 0:25:43 GMT -5
The terminology is, admittedly, not very precise, but the basic idea of humanists making man into a god is supportable. A Christian puts his hope in the future in God, while an humanist puts it in humanity and the things it can achieve. A Christian believes in the saving power of Christ, while a humanist believes in the saving power of science and progress. As these come from humanity, it is safe to say that while humanists may not worship mankind as their god, or treat it the same way as a religious person might, they are raising it up on a pedestal and putting their faith in it. Therefore, it is a fair expression to say that humanists are making mankind their god. Who said anything about pedestal or faith? I put faith in no god, and believe in no 'saving power'. I simply don't need the crutch.
|
|
pericles
Novice
Advocatus Diaboli
Posts: 55
|
Post by pericles on Aug 25, 2004 20:22:31 GMT -5
Actually, the Greeks did not come up with the scientific method. Francis Bacon did, as can easily be found by looking up "scientific method" in any encyclopedia. For an easy reference, try this: ise.uvic.ca/Library/SLTnoframes/ideas/bacon.htmlAnd he was well after Christ - to the order of one and a half millenia, I believe. ;D
|
|
jk
Novice
Posts: 84
|
Post by jk on Aug 27, 2004 16:45:15 GMT -5
Bacon may have coined the phrase scientific method but is was being used before it had a term. Galileo was using before bacon had a term. I did not however mean to say that the Greeks came up with a scientific method. They had some components going for them but whoever really had the most prominate name at the time made up the laws of science. I like the one where they said that things fall because they have mass. The world would be alot simpler if we could just stick to such rules. However there was really no scientific break throughs during the midieval. Remember this is the time period where people didnt really like to take bathes more than a few times a year for fear of dying. Albeit that soap was invented around the 700's. However one of the predominate philosophies at the time was that things happen because God wills it. There is a flood in a small village because god wills it. Your crops are ruined by locausts because got wills it. You are randomly attacked by a rabit mouse with testicular cancer because God wills it. Now I believe in Karma and what goes around comes around. But the idea that a being is going to be watching ya then punish your whole village just cause you sleep with the neighbor's husband is a little far fetched. I think i got off track. No but there was a whole scientific community in the middleast before people started going there to reclaim the holy land and spread disease. The arabs were all calculating the starts and other nifty astronomy stuff. If wanted i can find examples. But i dont think the christians who wanted to kill the phasicians for exuming bodies and disecting them were helping the progress of medicine. okay im done now.
|
|
pericles
Novice
Advocatus Diaboli
Posts: 55
|
Post by pericles on Aug 31, 2004 19:03:39 GMT -5
No, the Greeks had nothing like the scientific method. That is why Bacon invented it. As for a supposed lack of scientific breakthroughs during the midaeval period, a whole host of new inventions were made, such as mills, camshafts, mechanical clocks, compasses, and many other items. By the end of the midaeval period Europe was significantly farther ahead in technology and science than any other region in the whole world.
Exactly! The Byzantine Empire (and they were Christians) had advanced science and technology significantly in the Middle East, but was then attacked by the Muslims who invaded their territory. ;D
Seriously, please do not try to play the "evil Christians who attacked the innocent Muslims" angle. It doesn't work, and is not supported by the historical record.
Does not compute. This also is inconsistent with history, and is a myth started by A. D. White in his book A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. As a matter of fact, dissection was prohibited in the classical world by the Greeks and Romans, not by midaeval Christians. The idea of dissecting humans was started by professors at midaeval universities funded by the Roman Catholic Church. That is hardly consistent with claims that the Christians wanted to kill them for it.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Sept 4, 2004 21:06:12 GMT -5
Actually, in the early European world, Christian (Catholic?) monasteries were responsible for the keeping of dead bodies and the early church did consider it a sin to dissect (defile) the human body. This DID slow the progress of scientific examination of the body. Women were believed to have inverted internal penises until body dissections revealed the existence of the uterus. The result of this discovery was the pathologisation of "excessive" female sexuality("hysteria", "nymphomania"). This socio-historical information comes from my university studies of the Sociology of Sex and Sexuality, including the work of Michel Foucault (especially The History of Sexuality (Vol. 1).
|
|
pericles
Novice
Advocatus Diaboli
Posts: 55
|
Post by pericles on Sept 4, 2004 23:44:40 GMT -5
That is quite interesting, because I have read the exact opposite. Maybe some did monasteries did have these practices Foucault speaks of. It is for certain, however, as we have extremely good documenting of it, that the earliest dissections of humans by men such as Andreas Vesalius and Mondino de' Luzzi were performed in universities specifically run and financed by the Catholic church.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Sept 5, 2004 4:02:43 GMT -5
okay, fair enough, but that could have been(and, IMO, probably was) more politically or financially, rather than spiritually, motivated, considering the hugely powerful and materialist Catholic Church. In other words, this may not have been an expression of Christian values, but of greed or power (the other churches are strangely silent
|
|