Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Micro102]

As for things inspiring discoveries... a want for a trade route to India, exploration into unknown waters, found America instead. The evidence? Tons of documentation. See how easy that was? Now, do the same with religion in there or I can't take your dismissal of my statement as serious.

Say that Columbus's ship sunk. We would have found America anyway, because a Portugese ship had lost is course while on it's way to Africa, and hit South America. (See, even without the want for a shorter route, America would have been explored).

As for the other things, google them. Wikipedia can easily provide the answers you need. Why did you think Einstein moved to America?

As for bible related sciences:
Bible intrepretation
Religious studies

Interpretation of text isn't a science.  That isn't to say it's useless, but it simply doesn't fill any of the requirements to be a science.

Religious studies... well, it is a science, but it's about studying the nature of religious beliefs rather than examining whether they're true.  The fact that legitimate scientific papers have been published which examine why people believe conspiracy theories doesn't mean that the conspiracy theories themselves have scientific basis.

Sorry, I meant Hermeneutics, which is indeed the art and science of text intrepretation. Exegese is just when it happens to be the bible.

wow just like religion. Having a conclusion and finding evidence to support it. So what if another ship found America? How does that prove the theory that nothin is dependant on one factor?

And there is a reason why Wikipedia is not considered a viable source of information for papers. Get your info from peer reviewed material.

Please provide evidence that religion was a force that led to an important discovery that might of not been discovered earlier without religion. And I would take any amount of advancement over works of art, even if the artists weren't able to get inspiration from anything else.

How can I provide evidence that doesn't conflict with speculation? We can say anything might have been discovered earlier and justify it with the presence or absence of any number of things. What I will say is this, any good that religion has done could have been done through means other than religion. But the opposite is also true. Religion has caused no harm that could not have been caused without religion.

Also, I find the idea that progress in all cases is greater than art to be a little brash. Art inspires and is inspired by progress just as much as anything else and progress has caused problems as well as given us solutions. I also think art is more important to society than you're giving it credit for.

O this is gonna be fun. Where to begin.'

"Religion has caused no harm that could not be caused without religion". People killing their family to send them to heaven before the end of the world, people killing their family by trying to treat diseases with prayer, the carrying over of many narrowminded ideas from 1000s of years ago, the lessons of the holy books that promote slavery, discrimination, and death to others; the criminal activity of the Vatican moving pedophiles around to rape more children in order to save face, 9/11, and you know what? I'm gonna say the Holocaust too. Shall I go on?

Art is important, but religious art isn't. It's just freaking beautiful.

Also, I was trying to be nice. Notice I said "might not" instead of "would not". Leaving room for possabilities that it was really religion that caused it. As I am confident that there is no actual solid evidence.

[10ebbor10]

As for things inspiring discoveries... a want for a trade route to India, exploration into unknown waters, found America instead. The evidence? Tons of documentation. See how easy that was? Now, do the same with religion in there or I can't take your dismissal of my statement as serious.

Say that Columbus's ship sunk. We would have found America anyway, because a Portugese ship had lost is course while on it's way to Africa, and hit South America. (See, even without the want for a shorter route, America would have been explored).

As for the other things, google them. Wikipedia can easily provide the answers you need. Why did you think Einstein moved to America?

As for bible related sciences:
Bible intrepretation
Religious studies

Interpretation of text isn't a science.  That isn't to say it's useless, but it simply doesn't fill any of the requirements to be a science.

Religious studies... well, it is a science, but it's about studying the nature of religious beliefs rather than examining whether they're true.  The fact that legitimate scientific papers have been published which examine why people believe conspiracy theories doesn't mean that the conspiracy theories themselves have scientific basis.

Sorry, I meant Hermeneutics, which is indeed the art and science of text intrepretation. Exegese is just when it happens to be the bible.

wow just like religion. Having a conclusion and finding evidence to support it. So what if another ship found America? How does that prove the theory that nothin is dependant on one factor? It means that the discovery of America wasn't based on said single factor, because it would have been if said factor is eleminated. Nothing ever is.

And there is a reason why Wikipedia is not considered a viable source of information for papers. Get your info from peer reviewed material.
Of course, just like you always cited scientific papers with every fact you said.

Please provide evidence that religion was a force that led to an important discovery that might of not been discovered earlier without religion. And I would take any amount of advancement over works of art, even if the artists weren't able to get inspiration from anything else.

How can I provide evidence that doesn't conflict with speculation? We can say anything might have been discovered earlier and justify it with the presence or absence of any number of things. What I will say is this, any good that religion has done could have been done through means other than religion. But the opposite is also true. Religion has caused no harm that could not have been caused without religion.

Also, I find the idea that progress in all cases is greater than art to be a little brash. Art inspires and is inspired by progress just as much as anything else and progress has caused problems as well as given us solutions. I also think art is more important to society than you're giving it credit for.

O this is gonna be fun. Where to begin.'

"Religion has caused no harm that could not be caused without religion". People killing their family to send them to heaven before the end of the world, people killing their family by trying to treat diseases with prayer, the carrying over of many narrowminded ideas from 1000s of years ago, the lessons of the holy books that promote slavery, discrimination, and death to others; the criminal activity of the Vatican moving pedophiles around to rape more children in order to save face, 9/11, and you know what? I'm gonna say the Holocaust too. Shall I go on?Causality=/= Correlation. Do you have any scientific studies to prove these things, to indicate that this are not depressed people killing their family, people being distrustfull of medicine(have a lot of these), conservationists, the justifications of an economical system(Many religious people actually protested against slavery and such), just racism in general, whitewashing attempts by a major organisation, a nationalist group trying to defend itself against American imperialism( or even an American complot ) or the creation of a common enemy to reinforce nationalism. You don't need to go on, you need to provide facts that clearly state the link between the religion involved and the action.

Art is important, but religious art isn't. It's just freaking beautiful. Religious art is a major factor of art history. Can't just ignore it.

Also, I was trying to be nice. Notice I said "might not" instead of "would not". Leaving room for possabilities that it was really religion that caused it. As I am confident that there is no actual solid evidence.

[Micro102]

I'd also like to point out that religious people making important discoveries does not mean religion was the cause of those discoveries. It would have some credibility if one of these people said  that some non human being taught it to him. But that hasn't happened. Mendel used the scientific method to determine the way the peas had offspring, nothing religiously oriented.

@10ebbor10 I love how you asked me to look everything up then ask me to cite everything for you. I WILL cite everything for you. But in exchange, I want an apology if you deem the citations reliable. It will have to be later today when I get home. My phone is not capable of this level of multitasking.

[fqllve]

O this is gonna be fun. Where to begin.'

"Religion has caused no harm that could not be caused without religion". People killing their family to send them to heaven before the end of the world, people killing their family by trying to treat diseases with prayer, the carrying over of many narrowminded ideas from 1000s of years ago, the lessons of the holy books that promote slavery, discrimination, and death to others; the criminal activity of the Vatican moving pedophiles around to rape more children in order to save face, 9/11, and you know what? I'm gonna say the Holocaust too. Shall I go on?

People can think the world is going to end without religion (see: 2012, Y2k, etc) and want to spare their family from that. People can treat their sick family members with nonreligious snake oils and non-cures (see: homeopathy). Cultural conservativism exists outside of religion. Nonreligious societies have been just as quick to devalue human life as religious ones. I will admit that Catholic doctrine seems to promote pedophilia, but that doesn't mean the situation requires religion. Any organization could be structured as such. Are you saying it's impossible to fly planes into buildings without religion? Hitler was not particularly religious, though he was influenced by some insane supernatural and occult beliefs. Really the Holocaust was more about notions of racial purity and scapegoating than it was about anything religious.

Art is important, but religious art isn't. It's just freaking beautiful.

Large portions of historical art are religious, so they certainly are archaeologically important at the very least. The foundations of Western classical music lie in religious art. Religious art can be just as innovative and influential as nonreligious and often has been. It can say just as much about the world and it can be just as bleak and as grotesque.
Think of all the myriad paintings depicting religious scenes (even discounting the ones done of dubious faith), the masses of Bach and Mozart and the requiems of Brahms and Faure, much of the great architecture of the ancient world was for religious structures and much early literature has origins in transcribing religious tales. To say that religious art isn't important is to not understand art.

Also, I was trying to be nice. Notice I said "might not" instead of "would not". Leaving room for possabilities that it was really religion that caused it. As I am confident that there is no actual solid evidence.

You can't say what might have been discovered earlier or what would have been discovered earlier without religion anyway. Because we don't live in a world without religion anything like that would be speculation. Now, there are certainly cases where you can make a reasoned judgment, but it's not like I could still provide evidence to the contrary because you are asking for evidence that doesn't conflict with hypothetical. That whole avenue of discussion seems pointless to me.

I'd also like to point out that religious people making important discoveries does not mean religion was the cause of those discoveries. It would have some credibility if one of these people said  that some non human being taught it to him. But that hasn't happened. Mendel used the scientific method to determine the way the peas had offspring, nothing religiously oriented.

...no one said anyone used religion to make scientific discoveries. I certainly wouldn't say that because I'm an atheist. Rather, I specifically said it was their motivation. As in, it was belief in their deity that motivated them to pursue lines of scientific inquiry. I'm not aware that Mendel actually expressed that belief in God was what made him undertake his studies, but I know that Spinoza and ibn-al-Haytham explicitly did.

[alexandertnt]

Albert Einstein was said to be religious and his discoveries are "God's work in action".

I can't remember where I read/heard that though.

My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and enoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.

I think it is pretty safe to assume that Albert Einstein was an agnostic, given that the quote you gave is vauge and incomplete plus sounds alot like it could have been taken out of place.

Yeaaah I guess it's "scientific" in that it's the study of something but that's still pretty much splitting hairs.  It doesn't mean that the Bible's claim have any scientific basis.

It does mean that the intrepretations ain't something someone just made up. Which was the point I was trying to prove.

Please do not try to prove a point by declaring something as being a science, which is well defined.

Religion has caused no harm that could not have been caused without religion.

really? Religion gives people a false belief in how the universe works, an outdated belief that can have been around for thousands (and even longer) of years. When people are satisfied they know all, they stop seeking out how the universe actually works, the sort of facts that can be actually be utilised and yield something. Plus, some religions in particular don't take well to people thinking differently to them not because they are possibly wrong, but because it is merely a different viewpoint. This hinders progress, since it effectively places an unquestionable scaffolding in place.

People can think the world is going to end without religion (see: 2012, Y2k, etc) and want to spare their family from that. People can treat their sick family members with nonreligious snake oils and non-cures (see: homeopathy). Cultural conservativism exists outside of religion. Nonreligious societies have been just as quick to devalue human life as religious ones. I will admit that Catholic doctrine seems to promote pedophilia, but that doesn't mean the situation requires religion. Any organization could be structured as such. Are you saying it's impossible to fly planes into buildings without religion? Hitler was not particularly religious, though he was influenced by some insane supernatural and occult beliefs. Really the Holocaust was more about notions of racial purity and scapegoating than it was about anything religious.

Never did anyone say that religion is the only cause of bad things, but that it can lead to and contribute to bad things. "Are you saying it's impossible to fly planes into buildings without religion" I don't know how you could work this implication from the quote you are responding to. Micro102 is neither saying that nor implying that.

Also, I find the idea that progress in all cases is greater than art to be a little brash. Art inspires and is inspired by progress just as much as anything else and progress has caused problems as well as given us solutions. I also think art is more important to society than you're giving it credit for.

"Art inspires and is inspired by progress just as much as anything else" is an assertion.

Causality=/= Correlation. Do you have any scientific studies to prove these things.

This study on Christian Science may be quite interesting.

Religious art is a major factor of art history. Can't just ignore it.

Of course it is. But like you said Causality !-> Correlation. Perhaps Art in a significate form may have existed without religion?

Also, I am not sure what the big deal over Art is in respect to religion is.

Large portions of historical art are religious, so they certainly are archaeologically important at the very least. The foundations of Western classical music lie in religious art. Religious art can be just as innovative and influential as nonreligious and often has been. It can say just as much about the world and it can be just as bleak and as grotesque.
Think of all the myriad paintings depicting religious scenes (even discounting the ones done of dubious faith), the masses of Bach and Mozart and the requiems of Brahms and Faure, much of the great architecture of the ancient world was for religious structures and much early literature has origins in transcribing religious tales. To say that religious art isn't important is to not understand art.

I think what the person you were quoting was trying to say is that the religious aspects of Art are not beautiful, but the art itself it. That is, religius art is important, but its the art itself, not the religiousness of the art that is important.

But again, why the focus on Art? I think it is pretty safe to say that without religion, art would have existed.

[Strife26]

There's a lot of things that correlate with religion, one way or another. Almost like religion's been one of the driving factors of human behavior for the last . . . ever or something.

It seems like a pretty pointless hole to argue down to me. Why don't we argue the pertinence of pants? I mean, the Roman's weren't great fans of them until the later stages of their empire, after all.


Religon's a great motivator. Maybe even *the* great motivator. What it motivates is, one way or another, not religion's fault.

[alexandertnt]

Religon's a great motivator. Maybe even *the* great motivator. What it motivates is, one way or another, not religion's fault.

Religion is not an intelligent entity. It can not be faulted for anything itself, it is just a word. However, religion is the name given to a type of human behaviour and that can be faulted.

[Micro102]

@fqllev I'm not gonna quote that block of text so ill just split up 4 responses.

OK, people can kill and hurt for similar reasons, but not the same reasons. You have people killing others to spare them from the end of the world. Half for non religious reasons, half for religious ones. Why keep one half? Because the other half is there? Also please tell me where yo got that hitler wasn't religious. He used religious propaganda and speeches all the time. And even if he wasn't religious, the soldier that carried out the Holocaust and the people who supported it were. Religion was the justification.

I'm gonna stand by my statement that I'd rather have the technology. Its not like art would disappear, there would just be more non religious art.

I feel like this is going to explode into a philosophical debate, so I'm just gonna agree with you.

I saw some posts that may have implied it, so I just put the argument out there.

[fqllve]

really? Religion gives people a false belief in how the universe works, an outdated belief that can have been around for thousands (and even longer) of years. When people are satisfied they know all, they stop seeking out how the universe actually works, the sort of facts that can be actually be utilised and yield something. Plus, some religions in particular don't take well to people thinking differently to them not because they are possibly wrong, but because it is merely a different viewpoint. This hinders progress, since it effectively places an unquestionable scaffolding in place.

And only religion causes these things? Only religion makes people be so sure in their beliefs that their curiosity dies? Only religion stifles dissent? To be sure, religion does do these things. But they do not require religion. Boorishness and cruelty seem to be innate qualities of man, and if religion has done anything to them it is only a matter of degree, and I'm not convinced that's the case either.

OK, people can kill and hurt for similar reasons, but not the same reasons. You have people killing others to spare them from the end of the world. Half for non religious reasons, half for religious ones. Why keep one half? Because the other half is there? Also please tell me where yo got that hitler wasn't religious. He used religious propaganda and speeches all the time. And even if he wasn't religious, the soldier that carried out the Holocaust and the people who supported it were. Religion was the justification.

Because I doubt that just because we get rid of the religious reasons people are going to cut back on their killing. It'll just happen under nonreligious terms. Actually, I doubt it's possible to get rid of religion at all because people seem to love supernatural thinking, but that's another topic.

I'm not aware of anything that suggests that Hitler was particularly religious, but if you've got any citations I'd be interested in them. However, in all the propaganda I've seen religious-themed stuff has been the minority. Now that might be a trick of historical revisionism, but the stuff I've seen was mostly apologetics for anti-semitism in light of the fact that Jesus was Jewish. In those cases it's questionable whether or not religion was even being used as a justification. Of course there are more direct examples, but they don't seem like the foundation of the Nazi propaganda movement. And remember further that the Holocaust was based heavily on ideas of eugenics, yet no one (except crazy people) blames the theory of natural selection for it.

[Graknorke]

I reckon people have a valid point with the violence thing. If the Bible were to be published now, unaffiliated with any established religion, it'd be pulled by the government immediately for inciting people to kill people for all of the "crimes" they commit.

[alexandertnt]

And only religion causes these things?

Did I say that? I did not.

Only religion makes people be so sure in their beliefs that their curiosity dies? Only religion stifles dissent?

I Did not say that.

I never said any of these things, what made you think I implied these things?

To be sure, religion does do these things. But they do not require religion. Boorishness and cruelty seem to be innate qualities of man, and if religion has done anything to them it is only a matter of degree, and I'm not convinced that's the case either.

Religion is the name for a set of human beliefs. They are entirly human. Arguing agains't the word "religion" would be silly and serve no purpose. When I say that religion causes bad things to happen, I am not referring to a vague and undefined entity, I am referring to the ideas and concepts that make up religion, and their further effect on the human mind when actively embraced by people. Blind faith and absolutism in particular opens the door for bad things to happen, since by definition it can go agains't all observations and logic. Boorishness and cruelty are inflicted sometimes (since you seem to create implications relating to thing happening/being "solely" or "only" where none exists) because religion gives people an excuse to do these things for some supposed greater and absolute good, without questioning these beliefs.

Religion, almost by definition, is definite belief in "something" regardless of evidence, observation or logic. If it were otherwise it would be Science.

Because I doubt that just because we get rid of the religious reasons people are going to cut back on their killing. It'll just happen under nonreligious terms. Actually, I doubt it's possible to get rid of religion at all because people seem to love supernatural thinking, but that's another topic.

"getting rid" of religion sounds like an active, rather than passive approach. I don't think anyone really wants to actively get rid of religion. I would like people to think rationally and clearly about the world, so that many bad things could be avoided, since a number of them are built on the absolute of religion.

If religion were to disappear, that would not in any way prevent killings or other horrors from occuring, I don't think anyone would say this (it seems to imply that religion would be the cause for all horrors, which is silly). But it may reduce them by removing an influence, or a style of thought that provides safe harbour for ridiculous excuses to end peoples life.

I reckon people have a valid point with the violence thing. If the Bible were to be published now, unaffiliated with any established religion, it'd be pulled by the government immediately for inciting people to kill people for all of the "crimes" they commit.

There is some nasty stuff in the Bible (often overlooked by the more moderate's, since its apparently not possible for the unquestionable-and-True text to say or advocate things that would be considered abhorrent in todays society), But as for it being banned would depend on where in the world it is. America couldn't ban it, due to Free Speech. Australia abolished it's list of banned books some time ago and no longer censor books. Although they are the only two countries I know about in regards to the banning of books.

[Graknorke]

So they're not even allowed to censor a book that literally tells you to kill, well, a whole bunch of people really. Non-Christian family members, women who have sex outside of marriage, homosexuals, your children if they claim to be a prophet and aren't, and all of that.
Those are the ones I can remember off the top of my head anyway, there's probably more.

I think that things like that (instructions to kill people) are not permitted, for reasons of not wanting people killing each other.

[Strife26]

Well yeah, censorship's an innately bad thing for various reasons. Now, if you wanted to make a claim that any number of followers of the book actually tried to kill women who had sex outside of marriage, then you'd almost have a leg to stand on. But in the world we live in? Where it's an accepted fact that killing people's bad?

[fqllve]

I Did not say that.

I never said any of these things, what made you think I implied these things?

Because my quote, which you were responding to, was "Religion has caused no harm that could not have been caused without religion." Which is to say, that any harm religion has caused could have been caused by something else. Which is to say that without religion these things would still exist. That was my only point, nothing more, and if you are not arguing against that I have to wonder what you are arguing against.

Religion is the name for a set of human beliefs. They are entirly human. Arguing agains't the word "religion" would be silly and serve no purpose. When I say that religion causes bad things to happen, I am not referring to a vague and undefined entity, I am referring to the ideas and concepts that make up religion, and their further effect on the human mind when actively embraced by people. Blind faith and absolutism in particular opens the door for bad things to happen, since by definition it can go agains't all observations and logic. Boorishness and cruelty are inflicted sometimes (since you seem to create implications relating to thing happening/being "solely" or "only" where none exists) because religion gives people an excuse to do these things for some supposed greater and absolute good, without questioning these beliefs.

Religion, almost by definition, is definite belief in "something" regardless of evidence, observation or logic. If it were otherwise it would be Science.

I... I'm not even sure what your point in this is. I am not arguing that the word religion is innocent (of course it is, words are always innocent). I am arguing that religion is innocent of absolutism and blind faith because blind faith and absolutism exist outside of religion and they can be applied to anything with results that are just as disastrous. Blind faith and absolutism are responsible for the problems they cause, not the ideas they are applied to.

"getting rid" of religion sounds like an active, rather than passive approach. I don't think anyone really wants to actively get rid of religion. I would like people to think rationally and clearly about the world, so that many bad things could be avoided, since a number of them are built on the absolute of religion.

If religion were to disappear, that would not in any way prevent killings or other horrors from occuring, I don't think anyone would say this (it seems to imply that religion would be the cause for all horrors, which is silly). But it may reduce them by removing an influence, or a style of thought that provides safe harbour for ridiculous excuses to end peoples life.

I didn't say prevent, I said cut back. I don't think people would even cut back because it's not like there is any shortage of safe harbors for people with crazy beliefs, and even if there were in the absence of religion people would likely just invent new ones. Look at states that have either eradicated or heavily regulated religion such as the USSR, PRC, and NK. Even disregarding governmental violence, were these countries any more peaceful without religion as a justification for violence? Particularly the PRC is a good candidate to look at, because using a religious justification for a crime would just make the crime worse there, yet China has crime rates about what you'd expect.

You could say that the people still follow their religions, just not openly, but to that I would say there's not other way to speculate about what might happen because we haven't any other data. But I'm not willing to condemn something that's been so historically and culturally significant because a world without it might be less violent.

[Graknorke]

Well yeah, censorship's an innately bad thing for various reasons. Now, if you wanted to make a claim that any number of followers of the book actually tried to kill women who had sex outside of marriage, then you'd almost have a leg to stand on. But in the world we live in? Where it's an accepted fact that killing people's bad?

Here's the legal thing I'm thinking of. Wikipedia because summary.
Basically, if you tell someone to commit a crime with the expectation of them doing it, you're breaking the law.