Yakub said: Protestantism arguably did. Catholicism and Islam were pretty science friendly historically. You should give The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Max Weber a read. It basically explains how Protestantism basically drove the Industrial Revolution and I'm inclined to agree with him. Meanwhile, ignoring the Golden Age of Islam, for most of history Islam pushes people to return to the days of the Prophet and reject western influences. Catholicism is more debatable but overall it's undeniable that religion teaches you to reject worldly concepts such as technology to focus more on the spiritual aspect and the afterlife. Spirituality and technology seems incompatible (time consumption wise) in my view. |
DruxZul said: Yep, the Dark Ages is essentially a misnomer that we inherited from the Renaissance thinkers who saw themselves as the 'innovators/revivalists' returning to the brilliance of the 'ancients' - the Romans and Greeks.I was going to say that religion has slowed down science and state that the dark ages held us back, but then i did a little research and found this: Furthermore, David Lindberg says that, contrary to common belief, "the late medieval scholar rarely experienced the coercive power of the church and would have regarded himself as free (particularly in the natural sciences) to follow reason and observation wherever they led" of course this is taken from Wikipedia so who know this might just be completely made up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)#Rational_thought_and_the_study_of_nature Some people need to get out of the mindset that 'religion' is/was some absolute entity that has been in a constant form throughout all time, and the same can be said of 'science'. |
Yakub said: Destructive science wise? Because that's what we're talking about here.Aincrad2013 said: I was talking more about physics and such. Being responsible for the industrial revolution isn't necessarily something to be proud of, especially seeing as how destructive it was early on, but I don't really want to get into that.Yakub said: Protestantism arguably did. Catholicism and Islam were pretty science friendly historically. You should give The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Max Weber a read. It basically explains how Protestantism basically drove the Industrial Revolution and I'm inclined to agree with him. |
Yakub said: Aincrad2013 said: I'm aware that enviromentalism is not what we're talking about. Hence the "I don't really want to get into that." My objections to the industrial revolution are wholly non-scientific. Still, even if something like the Big Bang Theory had less of an impact on the average person's life, I think it was more significant scientifically. "The Spirit of Capitalism" is right btw. Protestants are into science and technology only when there's money in it. It wasn't really about the knowledge for them.Yakub said: Destructive science wise? Because that's what we're talking about here.Aincrad2013 said: I was talking more about physics and such. Being responsible for the industrial revolution isn't necessarily something to be proud of, especially seeing as how destructive it was early on, but I don't really want to get into that.Yakub said: Protestantism arguably did. Catholicism and Islam were pretty science friendly historically. You should give The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Max Weber a read. It basically explains how Protestantism basically drove the Industrial Revolution and I'm inclined to agree with him. Yep but for me the effects of the action is more important than the motivation. Other religions motivations were probably less about knowledge and more about trying to prove how their holy scripture is right about the world. The worst part of religion class for me was how a passage vaguely described a random natural phenomenon. |
lupadim said: StopDropAndBowl said: Finally, that is what I was trying to say all the time. While the church was banning one knowledge, the church was also creating ten other knowledge.No, and anyone who says otherwise has no conception of history. The great Universities were built, and funded, by the Church. StopDropAndBowl said: You have such a patience for answering those people that have no history source and are just spitting their biased logic.moriandrio said: @stopdropandbowl so they could controll what ppl where allowed to teach, that was the best way of censorship. One example is medicine, in the past the church prohibited any surgeries which opend the body. It was forbidden by death. This slowed the developement alot. If the church would still have that much power we would still live in medieval... I think it was more because they wanted to learn more about God's world, but I guess assuming the worst is popular now so... The Church prohibited surgeries which opened the body from being performed by the clergy. And keep in mind that surgeries which open the body were incredibly dangerous and excruciatingly painful. In a time without any true conception of germs or contamination, and without any anesthesia, surgery was probably more likely to kill the patient than help them. You just ignore the truth and deny anything that is against your opinion. |
 |
| Eh another religion thread -.- |
| give me my 1000 years! |
 |
Yakub said: >inb4 "Galileo" He was punished for theological heresy, not for his heliocentric theories. And in a protestant country those scientific theories alone would have been enough for him to have been burned at the stake. Anyway, if Galileo had stuck to science and never mentioned the bible then nothing would have happened. Too late mate. You should read the defense for Galileo persecution by the church. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy Galileo was a good man, a good religious man, and yet the close minded people tried to force him to abandon his quest for truth, in favor of the majority. They prefer to maintain the blindness, and only sees his theories as one of 'scientific possibilities' but not truth. Instead they stopped to facilitate his research, imprison him in house arrest, and banned all of his life works for almost one hundred years. |
| The most important things in life is the people that you care about |
DruxZul said: moriandrio said: lupadim said: StopDropAndBowl said: Finally, that is what I was trying to say all the time. While the church was banning one knowledge, the church was also creating ten other knowledge.No, and anyone who says otherwise has no conception of history. The great Universities were built, and funded, by the Church. StopDropAndBowl said: You have such a patience for answering those people that have no history source and are just spitting their biased logic.moriandrio said: @stopdropandbowl so they could controll what ppl where allowed to teach, that was the best way of censorship. One example is medicine, in the past the church prohibited any surgeries which opend the body. It was forbidden by death. This slowed the developement alot. If the church would still have that much power we would still live in medieval... I think it was more because they wanted to learn more about God's world, but I guess assuming the worst is popular now so... The Church prohibited surgeries which opened the body from being performed by the clergy. And keep in mind that surgeries which open the body were incredibly dangerous and excruciatingly painful. In a time without any true conception of germs or contamination, and without any anesthesia, surgery was probably more likely to kill the patient than help them. You just ignore the truth and deny anything that is against your opinion. No he isn't ignoring the truth, he's asking for factual evidence that supports either side. The way I see it, you gave evidence that seemed right until it was proven wrong. Here is something that further proves you wrong. Other misconceptions such as: "the Church prohibited autopsies and dissections during the Middle Ages", "the rise of Christianity killed off ancient science", and "the medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of natural philosophy", are all cited by Ronald Numbers as examples of widely popular myths that still pass as historical truth, although they are not supported by current historical research. Unlike pagan Rome, Christian Europe did not exercise a universal prohibition of the dissection and autopsy of the human body and such examinations were carried out regularly from at least the 13th century.[51][52][53] It has even been suggested that the Christian theology contributed significantly to the revival of human dissection and autopsy by providing a new socio-religious and cultural context in which the human cadaver was no longer seen as sacrosanct.[51] again wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)#Rational_thought_and_the_study_of_nature During the Dark Ages the church banned any form of dissections which resulted in the loss of alot knowledge of the anatomy which the romans had aquired (like galens books). The Islamic Empire also had banned the dissections of human bodies. In the late middle ages universities were allowed to do 1 dissection per year (this is still a huge hindrance of the development) |
| |
| ] DruxZul said: moriandrio said: During the Dark Ages the church banned any form of dissections which resulted in the loss of alot knowledge of the anatomy which the romans had aquired (like galens books). The Islamic Empire also had banned the dissections of human bodies. In the late middle ages universities were allowed to do 1 dissection per year (this is still a huge hindrance of the development) Ok please cite some kind of source to supplement your statement, otherwise i can only believe that what you are saying is completely made up. Also are we talking about the same religion? I'm talking about Christianity what about you? Edit: I guess you could say I'm being stubborn and not willing to change my view, but before i change my view i want factual evidence cited properly. Well, look, what he is saying MAY be true. There is a chance, I haven't made research to be sure that every part of what he said is true, but yes, the church did ban some knowledges, but what I've been trying to say at the entire thread and people have been ignoring and pretending I never said that is: While the church was banning one knowledge, the church was also responsible for discovering dozens of knowledges, so at the end, the church generated more than destroyed |
 |
lupadim said: ] DruxZul said: moriandrio said: During the Dark Ages the church banned any form of dissections which resulted in the loss of alot knowledge of the anatomy which the romans had aquired (like galens books). The Islamic Empire also had banned the dissections of human bodies. In the late middle ages universities were allowed to do 1 dissection per year (this is still a huge hindrance of the development) Ok please cite some kind of source to supplement your statement, otherwise i can only believe that what you are saying is completely made up. Also are we talking about the same religion? I'm talking about Christianity what about you? Edit: I guess you could say I'm being stubborn and not willing to change my view, but before i change my view i want factual evidence cited properly. Well, look, what he is saying MAY be true. There is a chance, I haven't made research to be sure that every part of what he said is true, but yes, the church did ban some knowledges, but what I've been trying to say at the entire thread and people have been ignoring and pretending I never said that is: While the church was banning one knowledge, the church was also responsible for discovering dozens of knowledges, so at the end, the church generated more than destroyed I never denied that the church was responsible for some good stuff too. But the question of the thread was if the science was slowed or not. And for medicine and astronomy the answer is yes. At least in the far past. I don't know too much about astronomy but medicine was affected till the 14th century. If the discovering of knowledges or the limitation of knowledges have more weight is another question that can't be answered so easily. We can start know in listening every good and bad thing the church and the science is responsible for but I doubt anything good will result in something like that. |
| |
lupadim said: the church was also responsible for discovering dozens of knowledges How? By reading old jewish book? By praying? By burning people? Hey-hey, I didn't know that inquisition was scientific organization. I just can't imagine how much knowledge they discovered with these methods. Especially scientific is that the knowledge thus obtained was forbidden to doubt. It's so scientifically. |
| Titan of 20+ virgins club. |
| This thread is going to be locked and if I suddenly stop posting on MAL, I was permanently banned for "creating threads". There is something very creepy going on, guys. Topic rehabilitation. Xasthur said: By creating universitieslupadim said: the church was also responsible for discovering dozens of knowledges How? By reading old jewish book? By praying? By burning people? Hey-hey, I didn't know that inquisition was scientific organization. I just can't imagine how much knowledge they discovered with these methods. Especially scientific is that the knowledge thus obtained was forbidden to doubt. It's so scientifically. |
lupadimDec 3, 2013 6:34 AM
|
| Both science and religion are incredibly close minded. |
| SCARY MONSTER |
lupadim said: By creating universities For reading/rewriting holy shit bible. Yeah, copy-paste religious texts is discovering knowledge. |
| Titan of 20+ virgins club. |
lupadim said: This thread is going to be locked and if I suddenly stop posting on MAL, I was permanently banned for "creating threads". There is something very creepy going on, guys. Topic rehabilitation. Xasthur said: By creating universitieslupadim said: the church was also responsible for discovering dozens of knowledges How? By reading old jewish book? By praying? By burning people? Hey-hey, I didn't know that inquisition was scientific organization. I just can't imagine how much knowledge they discovered with these methods. Especially scientific is that the knowledge thus obtained was forbidden to doubt. It's so scientifically. You can't say it was the church that was responsible its more that the church helped by creating universities but it was the science who discovered the knowledge in the end. You made it sound like the church did all by themself. And they didn't just do it for charity |
| |
moriandrio said: And they didn't just do it for charity All that now the church has is taken away from people by force. What charity you talking about? |
| Titan of 20+ virgins club. |
Xasthur said: moriandrio said: And they didn't just do it for charity All that now the church has is taken away from people by force. What charity you talking about? I have said they didn't do it for charity. And i wouldn't say all they have is taken away from others there is quite some part they gained legally too in the past. I'm talking about that they created Universities cause they would gain advantage out of it. |
| |
| I think it definitely depends. There have certainly been religious groups which have hindered scientific progress. However, there are situations such during the Victorian Era where the early tablets of The Epic Of Gilgamesh were discovered. At the time the church was convinced that the tablets would guide them to the where Noah and his family gained immortality. While this was of course absurd, the church did provide a massive amount of funding to the archeologists effectively providing the earliest writings of humanity. Of course this can be countered by the fact that many of these tablets were later destroyed in the midst of a religious strife. |
| The problem with this is that everyone that is saying the religion did prejudice science and that without religion we would be way more advanced is that those people are just throwing their biased opinion (they were biased by the media), and that I wish I could give you all historical evidence but I simply don't know where I can find such evidence written in English. I guess the discussion is done. |
|
lupadim said: There never was a discussion in the first place. Everyone who says that religion "slowed down science" is biased according to you. Great thread.I guess the discussion is done. "Do you think religion slowed down science?" "Yes" "That's because you're biased by the media" |
Makomonogatari said: lupadim said: The best part is that you somehow actually exist.And the best part is that no one can prove it wrong |
lupadim said: The problem with this is that everyone that is saying the religion did prejudice science and that without religion we would be way more advanced is that those people are just throwing their biased opinion (they were biased by the media), and that I wish I could give you all historical evidence but I simply don't know where I can find such evidence written in English. I guess the discussion is done. I didn't say that so don't say "everyone" |
| Smiles and laughter are always good, but never forget your Poker Face.~ |
lupadim said: Wow... why you puttin' words in my mouth?The problem with this is that everyone that is saying the religion did prejudice science and that without religion we would be way more advanced All I said was that the Church added to the reluctance people have to accept and involve themselves into scientific research because of the influence it once had and the morals it spread. lupadim said: Sir, I do belive you do not in fact know most of us here personally, so I don't know how you could possibly claim that we were biased by the media.those people are just throwing their biased opinion (they were biased by the media) 'biased opinion' - if there's one thing that is supposed to be biased, it's an opinion. So adding the word in front of it is redundant. lupadim said: I don't care what language it's in, give me it, I'll probably understand it.and that I wish I could give you all historical evidence but I simply don't know where I can find such evidence written in English. lupadim said: You haven't really made an effort to properly discuss anything, so I don't think this was ever a discussion.I guess the discussion is done. |
"Rejoice! We are humans— we are the most talented people! Precisely because we were born without any ability— we can achieve anything— this is the will of the weakest race!" – Sora, ‘No game No life Vol.01’ |
Aloxamax said: http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscience/2011/05/18/science-owes-much-to-both-christianity-and-the-middle-ageslupadim said: Wow... why you puttin' words in my mouth?The problem with this is that everyone that is saying the religion did prejudice science and that without religion we would be way more advanced All I said was that the Church added to the reluctance people have to accept and involve themselves into scientific research because of the influence it once had and the morals it spread. lupadim said: Sir, I do belive you do not in fact know most of us here personally, so I don't know how you could possibly claim that we were biased by the media.those people are just throwing their biased opinion (they were biased by the media) 'biased opinion' - if there's one thing that is supposed to be biased, it's an opinion. So adding the word in front of it is redundant. lupadim said: I don't care what language it's in, give me it, I'll probably understand it.and that I wish I could give you all historical evidence but I simply don't know where I can find such evidence written in English. lupadim said: You haven't really made an effort to properly discuss anything, so I don't think this was ever a discussion.I guess the discussion is done. |
|
| Well if you think about it, religion has been the root cause of many wars over the centuries and science tends to move at it's fastest in times of war. So over the long haul it might have actually sped things up. The worst thing religion probably ever did to science is that it tended to attract allot of the rich and powerful people who could have made worth while contributions to the world if they had pursue technology as their vehicle to power. |
lupadim said: http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscience/2011/05/18/science-owes-much-to-both-christianity-and-the-middle-ages "It’s unfortunate for the author that commenters can so easily refute some of the points laid out above." - this is part of a response to the article. I think the same and it's why I can't accept what the article says. I'll probably buy the book at some point. I do thank you though, because the discussion going on there was very enjoyable to read, it was well developped, with lots of references for the most part and even the author of the book took the time to reply to some of the comments. I'll direct you to this, the beginning of a debate between James Hannam and Charles Freeman over the former's book. This is the last sentence of the third part of the debate between them, by Charles Freeman: "This is a deeply flawed book and the questions that concerns me above all others is why so few critics have failed to spot its inadequacies." I can't take it as evidence when it can be so easily argued. |
"Rejoice! We are humans— we are the most talented people! Precisely because we were born without any ability— we can achieve anything— this is the will of the weakest race!" – Sora, ‘No game No life Vol.01’ |
LostOddity said: Oh boy, here we go...religion has been the root cause of many wars Religion is just an excuse, do you really think there would be no wars and everyone would be happy if there was no religion? It is like saying "Hey, I killed that guy but dont look at me, it was because of religion you know" |
|
lupadim said: LostOddity said: Oh boy, here we go...religion has been the root cause of many wars Religion is just an excuse, do you really think there would be no wars and everyone would be happy if there was no religion? It is like saying "Hey, I killed that guy but dont look at me, it was because of religion you know" Firstly Fights between one guy and another and wars between countries really cant be compared. Secondly throughout history wars have always been fought for 2 main reasons, resources and/or clashes in ideology. |
LostOddity said: You are wrong, wars were and will always be fought for resources, territory and things like that. As I said before, religion is just an EXCUSE. Countries would have war in any way, if there was no religion they would just pull another lame excuse.lupadim said: LostOddity said: Oh boy, here we go...religion has been the root cause of many wars Religion is just an excuse, do you really think there would be no wars and everyone would be happy if there was no religion? It is like saying "Hey, I killed that guy but dont look at me, it was because of religion you know" Firstly Fights between one guy and another and wars between countries really cant be compared. Secondly throughout history wars have always been fought for 2 main reasons, resources and/or clashes in ideology. Also, my example (about a guy killing another one) was a metaphor. I expected more from someone that uses L as avatar. |
|
| I think religion has both benefitted and hindered science at times. |
| Proud founder of the 20+ virgins club. Please visit my manga blog for manga updates and more! Mup da doo didda po mo muhfuggen bix nood ^ Need someone who can translate this. Pm me pls. |
lupadim said: LostOddity said: You are wrong, wars were and will always be fought for resources, territory and things like that. As I said before, religion is just an EXCUSE. Countries would have war in any way, if there was no religion they would just pull another lame excuse.lupadim said: LostOddity said: Oh boy, here we go...religion has been the root cause of many wars Religion is just an excuse, do you really think there would be no wars and everyone would be happy if there was no religion? It is like saying "Hey, I killed that guy but dont look at me, it was because of religion you know" Firstly Fights between one guy and another and wars between countries really cant be compared. Secondly throughout history wars have always been fought for 2 main reasons, resources and/or clashes in ideology. Also, my example (about a guy killing another one) was a metaphor. I expected more from someone that uses L as avatar. I think religion as an excuse is more true now that it would have been in the past. People now see religion as an important part of life. People back then lived in squealer and died old at 40, what they believed in was the only thing that they had to give comfort. The crusades prove that centuries ago a persons religion was important enough to him for him to abandon his life and travel half way across the world to kill some guys that said he had a better clam to a city. The roman empire as well came into a time of huge upheaval when which ever emperor it was at the changed to Christianity. Religion has always been a point of friction. This forum is as good an example of that as any. PS. Kudos on the L dig, that was a good one :) |
LostOddity said: When someone gives the crusades as an example of religious conflict, you get to be 100% sure that person has no clue what he/she is talking about.lupadim said: LostOddity said: You are wrong, wars were and will always be fought for resources, territory and things like that. As I said before, religion is just an EXCUSE. Countries would have war in any way, if there was no religion they would just pull another lame excuse.lupadim said: LostOddity said: Oh boy, here we go...religion has been the root cause of many wars Religion is just an excuse, do you really think there would be no wars and everyone would be happy if there was no religion? It is like saying "Hey, I killed that guy but dont look at me, it was because of religion you know" Firstly Fights between one guy and another and wars between countries really cant be compared. Secondly throughout history wars have always been fought for 2 main reasons, resources and/or clashes in ideology. Also, my example (about a guy killing another one) was a metaphor. I expected more from someone that uses L as avatar. I think religion as an excuse is more true now that it would have been in the past. People now see religion as an important part of life. People back then lived in squealer and died old at 40, what they believed in was the only thing that they had to give comfort. The crusades prove that centuries ago a persons religion was important enough to him for him to abandon his life and travel half way across the world to kill some guys that said he had a better clam to a city. The roman empire as well came into a time of huge upheaval when which ever emperor it was at the changed to Christianity. Religion has always been a point of friction. This forum is as good an example of that as any. PS. Kudos on the L dig, that was a good one :) Let me ask you only ONE thing: Do you really believe that if there was no religion, there would be no conflicts? That the crusades would never have happened and any kind of religious conflict that happened would NEVER take place? |
|
lupadim said: LostOddity said: When someone gives the crusades as an example of religious conflict, you get to be 100% sure that person has no clue what he/she is talking about.lupadim said: LostOddity said: You are wrong, wars were and will always be fought for resources, territory and things like that. As I said before, religion is just an EXCUSE. Countries would have war in any way, if there was no religion they would just pull another lame excuse.lupadim said: LostOddity said: Oh boy, here we go...religion has been the root cause of many wars Religion is just an excuse, do you really think there would be no wars and everyone would be happy if there was no religion? It is like saying "Hey, I killed that guy but dont look at me, it was because of religion you know" Firstly Fights between one guy and another and wars between countries really cant be compared. Secondly throughout history wars have always been fought for 2 main reasons, resources and/or clashes in ideology. Also, my example (about a guy killing another one) was a metaphor. I expected more from someone that uses L as avatar. I think religion as an excuse is more true now that it would have been in the past. People now see religion as an important part of life. People back then lived in squealer and died old at 40, what they believed in was the only thing that they had to give comfort. The crusades prove that centuries ago a persons religion was important enough to him for him to abandon his life and travel half way across the world to kill some guys that said he had a better clam to a city. The roman empire as well came into a time of huge upheaval when which ever emperor it was at the changed to Christianity. Religion has always been a point of friction. This forum is as good an example of that as any. PS. Kudos on the L dig, that was a good one :) Let me ask you only ONE thing: Do you really believe that if there was no religion, there would be no conflicts? That the crusades would never have happened and any kind of religious conflict that happened would NEVER take place? No of course not like i already said wars are largely fraught over resources and/or ideology. Removing just one wouldnt solve things but it would mean that people have one less reason to hate one another. Northern Ireland would be a much nicer place if people didn't care whether or not you liked the pope. |
LostOddity said: Now think about the millions of lives that were saved by religion. Many people won't go out there on a killing spree or doing bad things in general because of religion, and yet, you claim that religion is the thing that is rotting this world and killing everyone.lupadim said: LostOddity said: When someone gives the crusades as an example of religious conflict, you get to be 100% sure that person has no clue what he/she is talking about.lupadim said: LostOddity said: You are wrong, wars were and will always be fought for resources, territory and things like that. As I said before, religion is just an EXCUSE. Countries would have war in any way, if there was no religion they would just pull another lame excuse.lupadim said: LostOddity said: Oh boy, here we go...religion has been the root cause of many wars Religion is just an excuse, do you really think there would be no wars and everyone would be happy if there was no religion? It is like saying "Hey, I killed that guy but dont look at me, it was because of religion you know" Firstly Fights between one guy and another and wars between countries really cant be compared. Secondly throughout history wars have always been fought for 2 main reasons, resources and/or clashes in ideology. Also, my example (about a guy killing another one) was a metaphor. I expected more from someone that uses L as avatar. I think religion as an excuse is more true now that it would have been in the past. People now see religion as an important part of life. People back then lived in squealer and died old at 40, what they believed in was the only thing that they had to give comfort. The crusades prove that centuries ago a persons religion was important enough to him for him to abandon his life and travel half way across the world to kill some guys that said he had a better clam to a city. The roman empire as well came into a time of huge upheaval when which ever emperor it was at the changed to Christianity. Religion has always been a point of friction. This forum is as good an example of that as any. PS. Kudos on the L dig, that was a good one :) Let me ask you only ONE thing: Do you really believe that if there was no religion, there would be no conflicts? That the crusades would never have happened and any kind of religious conflict that happened would NEVER take place? No of course not like i already said wars are largely fraught over resources and/or ideology. Removing just one wouldnt solve things but it would mean that people have one less reason to hate one another. Northern Ireland would be a much nicer place if people didn't care whether or not you liked the pope. |
|
lupadim said: LostOddity said: Now think about the millions of lives that were saved by religion. Many people won't go out there on a killing spree or doing bad things in general because of religion, and yet, you claim that religion is the thing that is rotting this world and killing everyone.lupadim said: LostOddity said: When someone gives the crusades as an example of religious conflict, you get to be 100% sure that person has no clue what he/she is talking about.lupadim said: LostOddity said: You are wrong, wars were and will always be fought for resources, territory and things like that. As I said before, religion is just an EXCUSE. Countries would have war in any way, if there was no religion they would just pull another lame excuse.lupadim said: LostOddity said: Oh boy, here we go...religion has been the root cause of many wars Religion is just an excuse, do you really think there would be no wars and everyone would be happy if there was no religion? It is like saying "Hey, I killed that guy but dont look at me, it was because of religion you know" Firstly Fights between one guy and another and wars between countries really cant be compared. Secondly throughout history wars have always been fought for 2 main reasons, resources and/or clashes in ideology. Also, my example (about a guy killing another one) was a metaphor. I expected more from someone that uses L as avatar. I think religion as an excuse is more true now that it would have been in the past. People now see religion as an important part of life. People back then lived in squealer and died old at 40, what they believed in was the only thing that they had to give comfort. The crusades prove that centuries ago a persons religion was important enough to him for him to abandon his life and travel half way across the world to kill some guys that said he had a better clam to a city. The roman empire as well came into a time of huge upheaval when which ever emperor it was at the changed to Christianity. Religion has always been a point of friction. This forum is as good an example of that as any. PS. Kudos on the L dig, that was a good one :) Let me ask you only ONE thing: Do you really believe that if there was no religion, there would be no conflicts? That the crusades would never have happened and any kind of religious conflict that happened would NEVER take place? No of course not like i already said wars are largely fraught over resources and/or ideology. Removing just one wouldnt solve things but it would mean that people have one less reason to hate one another. Northern Ireland would be a much nicer place if people didn't care whether or not you liked the pope. OK a few things here. Firstly morality does not come from religion it comes from the person themselves i am atheist and have never hurt anyone that did not give me cause believing otherwise is pretty shitty of you. Secondly! When the hell did i clam that!? All i have been saying all along is that religion is something that is very important to people. The more important something is to you the more you are willing to fight if you feel that that thing is threatened. Religion causes friction between people. Friction leads to anger, anger to hate, hate to violence. |
LostOddity said: Religion does not cause friction between people, that is like saying food causes friction between people. You like X, I like Y, we will discuss, is that really friction? Colors cause friction between people if that is so. Religion causes friction between people. Friction leads to anger, anger to hate, hate to violence. Some very extreme cases were originated by saint territory, not exactly religion itself. You must understand what causes violence is not the religion, but rather, the PEOPLE. |
|
lupadim said: But who invented religion?what causes violence is not the religion, but rather, the PEOPLE. But yes, religion can't do violence because it's just an ideology, who can do so are the people under those ideologies. |
lupadim said: LostOddity said: Religion does not cause friction between people, that is like saying food causes friction between people. You like X, I like Y, we will discuss, is that really friction? Colors cause friction between people if that is so. Religion causes friction between people. Friction leads to anger, anger to hate, hate to violence. Some very extreme cases were originated by saint territory, not exactly religion itself. You must understand what causes violence is not the religion, but rather, the PEOPLE. Northern Ireland was all but a war zone in the 80's largely because Protestants and Catholics hated one another. The middle east is a war zone today because Palestinians and Israelis hate one another. Sure people cause violence, but more than a few through history have used religion to insight that violence |
LostOddity said: lupadim said: LostOddity said: Religion does not cause friction between people, that is like saying food causes friction between people. You like X, I like Y, we will discuss, is that really friction? Colors cause friction between people if that is so. Religion causes friction between people. Friction leads to anger, anger to hate, hate to violence. Some very extreme cases were originated by saint territory, not exactly religion itself. You must understand what causes violence is not the religion, but rather, the PEOPLE. Northern Ireland was all but a war zone in the 80's largely because Protestants and Catholics hated one another. The middle east is a war zone today because Palestinians and Israelis hate one another. Sure people cause violence, but more than a few through history have used religion to insight that violence Palestinian and Israeli conflict is not due to religion. |
| Proud founder of the 20+ virgins club. Please visit my manga blog for manga updates and more! Mup da doo didda po mo muhfuggen bix nood ^ Need someone who can translate this. Pm me pls. |
Shiratori99 said: LostOddity said: lupadim said: LostOddity said: Religion does not cause friction between people, that is like saying food causes friction between people. You like X, I like Y, we will discuss, is that really friction? Colors cause friction between people if that is so. Religion causes friction between people. Friction leads to anger, anger to hate, hate to violence. Some very extreme cases were originated by saint territory, not exactly religion itself. You must understand what causes violence is not the religion, but rather, the PEOPLE. Northern Ireland was all but a war zone in the 80's largely because Protestants and Catholics hated one another. The middle east is a war zone today because Palestinians and Israelis hate one another. Sure people cause violence, but more than a few through history have used religion to insight that violence Palestinian and Israeli conflict is not due to religion. Not solely but isn't a big part of it that Temple Mount thing that Jewish people believe is holy for some reason - clearly I'm not well educated on the middle east, But i understand that it is of some religious significance |
Xinisterad said: But who invented religion? They don't like it when you say invented. |
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war But, yeah, one doesn't need to look much further than stem cell research to see religion/religious morals impeding scientific advancement. |
| There's no need for all this tension. |
LostOddity said: Shiratori99 said: LostOddity said: lupadim said: LostOddity said: Religion does not cause friction between people, that is like saying food causes friction between people. You like X, I like Y, we will discuss, is that really friction? Colors cause friction between people if that is so. Religion causes friction between people. Friction leads to anger, anger to hate, hate to violence. Some very extreme cases were originated by saint territory, not exactly religion itself. You must understand what causes violence is not the religion, but rather, the PEOPLE. Northern Ireland was all but a war zone in the 80's largely because Protestants and Catholics hated one another. The middle east is a war zone today because Palestinians and Israelis hate one another. Sure people cause violence, but more than a few through history have used religion to insight that violence Palestinian and Israeli conflict is not due to religion. Not solely but isn't a big part of it that Temple Mount thing that Jewish people believe is holy for some reason - clearly I'm not well educated on the middle east, But i understand that it is of some religious significance It is indeed a holy site in both Judaism and Islam but the zionist movement was a secular one. They didn't have religious goals. |
| Proud founder of the 20+ virgins club. Please visit my manga blog for manga updates and more! Mup da doo didda po mo muhfuggen bix nood ^ Need someone who can translate this. Pm me pls. |
| For the beginning I must say that religion primarily gives justification for vile human actions. None of any god who fought for would be to say that he wanted to kill and have a lot of wealth. Church as the main religious authority approves such justifications encouraging scum on war and violence. These people are nasty themselves. But religion is doubly disgusting, for its hypocrisy and approval. When having such an influence on people instead of doing useful things it only adds fuel to the fire. Church is a bastion of evil in the modern world. They make efforts to ensure people to enmity, so that people have had problems, so that people are stupid and disconnected. When a person has no knowledge, it is very easy to instill ignorance. Religions around the world vie for their ignorance was ingrained in the largest possible number of minds. The truth is always one. Lies can be many. One science vs. hundreds of religions. |
| Titan of 20+ virgins club. |
More topics from this board
» Have you ever given up on major passions in your life?RobertBobert - Yesterday |
45 |
by SmugSatoko
»»
5 minutes ago |
|
» My computer auto turn off due to overheating when playing game, is there a way to reduce the overheating non-physically?aLotQuestion_ - Yesterday |
9 |
by xMizu_
»»
14 minutes ago |
|
» Have you ever been falsely accused of anything?Ejrodiew - Yesterday |
14 |
by xMizu_
»»
17 minutes ago |
|
» Has anyone ever told you in real life that "You are enough"?LenRea - Apr 30 |
28 |
by xMizu_
»»
19 minutes ago |
|
» What are you insecure about the most?Ejrodiew - Apr 30 |
15 |
by Blueberry173
»»
1 hour ago |