fCraft Forums

Sanjar Khan wrote:More important than any of the things I have mentioned?

Saving lives more important than european expansion? Yes, I think so.

That expansion made saving lives possible.

Sanjar Khan wrote:Can we stop going in that direction? "Eugenics".

So we're jumping straight from "saving lives" to "selective breeding" huh?

Sanjar Khan wrote:That expansion made saving lives possible.

Scientific advances made that expansion possible.

So we're jumping straight from "saving lives" to "selective breeding" huh?

What? That was at the killing people thing.

Scientific advances made that expansion possible.

So did religious zeal, and religion made those advances possible.

Sanjar Khan wrote:What? That was at the killing people thing.[/.quote]

Ah, my mistake.

Sanjar Khan wrote:So did religious zeal.

And I'm sure that improving lives was the main goal of such an expansion.

It's not about the goal, it's about the result.

Religion is a poison that infects us and slows down our progress as a species.

As said, religion was one of the driving factors behind for example the European Expansion. This in turn led to globalization of trade, the exchange of knowledge and culture and later led to the scientific revolution, in which religion again played a positive role. This is why I share the belief of my professors that religion has done the exact opposite of slowing down our species.

Sanjar Khan wrote:It's not about the goal, it's about the result.

If a woman tried to poison her child with bleach but found that it cured a disease that the child had instead, would you praise her?

...(Trying to stir this back on track) So yeah, honestly I think it'll be our own stupidity that destroys us. Going to wars because of resources, and inevitably ending it with a bang (Nuclear warfare). Thats how i see it, with plenty of nuclear warheads still able to be used throughout the world.

Desosus wrote:

Sanjar Khan wrote:It's not about the goal, it's about the result.

If a woman tried to poison her child with bleach but found that it cured a disease that the child had instead, would you praise her?

I edited my post, read above. I meant the goal and result of the expansion, not in general. I thought that was clear enough by the way the argument was unfolding.

Imagine a world without religion and imagine a world without science. Which would you prefer to live in?

That is a very scientific question of you, and not even relevant to the debate. Did I ever express that it was a matter of preference? Again, I am trying to convey the importance of religion for science in history.

Also have to remember that the Bible was written by nomads. They wrote what the beliefs of the time period were. If it was written today, it would be totally different so that point is actually irrelevant. The actual BELIEFS of the religion (This goes with the Ten Commandments which mention no killing) have nothing to do with killing. They are merely the views of the writer of said chapters.

Desosus wrote:Imagine a world without religion and imagine a world without science. Which would you prefer to live in?

Primitive beings didn't seem to have a problem surviving without science. Yet, religion dates back to before data has been recorded.

Sanjar Khan wrote:That is a very scientific question of you, and not even relevant to the debate. Did I ever express that it was a matter of preference? Again, I am trying to convey the importance of religion for science in history.

Well I am a scientist. As I said, I don't deny that religion has done good things and you cannot refute that it has done bad things. If we want to sit around and tally up a score, we'll be here till we both die of old age or aneurysms.

I do however believe that global trade etc. would all still have happened without the influence of religion which is what I was getting at.

Yes, and again, the thing I am getting at that it has by NO MEANS slowed down the progress of mankind, which is what you claimed.

KingCrab wrote:Also have to remember that the Bible was written by nomads. They wrote what the beliefs of the time period were. If it was written today, it would be totally different so that point is actually irrelevant. The actual BELIEFS of the religion (This goes with the Ten Commandments which mention no killing) have nothing to do with killing. They are merely the views of the writer of said chapters.

Ah hang on now, you said that no religion talks about killing people. I just listed you a handful of places where it does. What do you base your religion on EXCEPT for the books which are its foundation? There is nothing else.

Sanjar Khan wrote:Yes, and again, the thing I am getting at that it has by NO MEANS slowed down the progress of mankind, which is what you claimed.

I believe that scientific progress would have been made without religion, but that some of the obstacles in it's way would not have been present without the motivations supplied at least in part by religious belief.

I must add, religion is not solely a book.

No major religion I know of talks about killing others.

Lol.

Desosus wrote: Ah hang on now, you said that no religion talks about killing people. I just listed you a handful of places where it does. What do you base your religion on EXCEPT for the books which are its foundation? There is nothing else.

A foundation is a basis. It is not a literal rule set. If every religion stayed with its original text, the entire world would be in a religious war.

Science is based up a foundation created by some previous discovery. The same is with religion, over the years it has to change.

KingCrab wrote: A foundation is a basis. It is not a literal rule set. If every religion stayed with its original text, the entire world would be in a religious war.

Do you believe that the bible is the word of god?

If yes, then why don't you do what it says to do and kill all those people?
If not, then why do you believe that there is a god as opposed to a series of groups and individuals who wrote some stories?

Desosus wrote:

Sanjar Khan wrote:Yes, and again, the thing I am getting at that it has by NO MEANS slowed down the progress of mankind, which is what you claimed.

I believe that scientific progress would have been made without religion, but that some of the obstacles in it's way would not have been present without the motivations supplied at least in part by religious belief.

I am not saying there would have not been progress without religion, I am saying that it contributed to it. Significantly. You mentioned Galileo as an example of religion standing in the way of progress. This is true, however it's indirect contributions which I have tried to portray these past posts outweigh this setback, as I tried to explain with my example of Claudius. Besides, can you not think of periods in time where existing scientific beliefs stood in the way of new insight and therefore progress?
Can you, as a result, not acknowledge that we would not have been as far as we are now without religion?

Do you believe that the bible is the word of god?

If yes, then why don't you do what it says to do and kill all those people?
If not, then why do you believe that there is a god as opposed to a series of groups and individuals who wrote some stories?

The law of the Old Testament has served its purpose already. Jesus came and fulfilled that law, so why don't you try reading the New Testament as well as the Old?

._. Trying to ignore...

Sheesh then I'll quit.

Adios

Sanjar Khan wrote:._. Trying to ignore...

Ditto

M1_Abrams wrote: The law of the Old Testament has served its purpose already. Jesus came and fulfilled that law, so why don't you try reading the New Testament as well as the Old?

Revelation 2:20-23

Mark 7:10

A foundation is a basis. It is not a literal rule set. If every religion stayed with its original text, the entire world would be in a religious war.

As I would like to say again, if not taken literally, you are picking and choosing for yourself the bits you want, thus rendering the bibles' "guidelines" worthless. Perhaps as SanJar said earlier, it is that you seek reassurance for your morals from this book... while ignoring the other more ummm genocidal/rascist/sexist/homophobic parts.

Trepvalkyrie wrote:

A foundation is a basis. It is not a literal rule set. If every religion stayed with its original text, the entire world would be in a religious war.

As I would like to say again, if not taken literally, you are picking and choosing for yourself the bits you want, thus rendering the bibles' "guidelines" worthless. Perhaps as SanJar said earlier, it is that you seek reassurance for your morals from this book... while ignoring the other more ummm genocidal/rascist/sexist/homaphobic parts.

As science likes to turn their head on the disasters such as Chernobyl?

KingCrab wrote:

Trepvalkyrie wrote:

A foundation is a basis. It is not a literal rule set. If every religion stayed with its original text, the entire world would be in a religious war.

As I would like to say again, if not taken literally, you are picking and choosing for yourself the bits you want, thus rendering the bibles' "guidelines" worthless. Perhaps as SanJar said earlier, it is that you seek reassurance for your morals from this book... while ignoring the other more ummm genocidal/rascist/sexist/homaphobic parts.

As science likes to turn their head on the disasters such as Chernobyl?

Er... What?