Alright, let me start by saying that if this turns into a flame war, or another evolution vs creation (even I admit that's been done to death) then please mods, lock this.

Now, this article talks about something I've tried to express before, but always had trouble articulating to people:

When you hear the word “globalization,” you probably think of Chinese factories or customer service centers in India. What you probably don’t think about is Christianity. Yet globalization and Christianity are linked in ways you may never have imagined.


Globalization is about more than markets and technology. It’s also about the spread across national boundaries of ideas and values — in other words, culture. While the spread and exchange of culture flow in many different directions, the ideas and values most associated with globalization are those of the West.


And this is where Christianity comes in. In his marvelous book, The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success, Rodney Stark writes that “Christianity created Western Civilization.” Without Christianity’s commitment to “reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800.”


This would be a world “with many astrologers and alchemists but no scientists. A world of despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos.” The “modern world,” to which globalization aspires, “arose only in Christian societies. Not in Islam. Not in Asia. Not in a ‘secular’ society—there having been none.”


Needless to say, Stark’s conclusions aren’t popular with academics and other intellectuals and have been savaged by liberal reviewers. These folks are all-too-happy to blame Christianity for some of the darker episodes in Western history, but they’re not about to give the faith credit for the Western success.


No matter. Non-westerners see the connection. For example, Chinese scholars were asked to “look into what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world.” After considering possible military, economic, political and cultural explanations, they concluded that the answer lay in what the Chinese scholars saw as the “heart” of the West’s pre-eminent culture: Christianity.


These non-Christian and non-western scholars had “no doubt” that “the Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and the successful transition to democratic politics.”


Apparently, many of their countrymen agree. Whereas there were approximately 2 million Christians in China when Mao came to power in 1949, today there are upwards of 100 million. What’s more, Christianity is especially popular among the “best-educated” and most modern Chinese.


Why? Because like people everywhere, except, ironically, in the West, they see Christianity as “intrinsic to becoming modern.” For them, Christianity is an alternative to a way of life that bred misery and oppression. They understand Christianity’s role in the rise of the West, even as Western elites deny the connection.


Of course, this isn’t the primary reason that Christianity is “becoming globalized far more rapidly than is democracy, capitalism or modernity.” That is due to the proclamation of the Gospel and the work of the Holy Spirit.


Still, it’s a powerful reminder of how Christianity transforms not only individual lives but entire societies, as well.

Discuss, I'm curious what other opinions are on this.

For my own opinion: I know this flys in the face of many of your beliefs, after all, if you accept this, you have to say that it was christian beliefs, not athiest scientists, responsible for much of our technology. Which if you consider the lives and writings of most famous scientists of the past, you'll see they were devout Christians, so that shouldn't be a surprise. It's just not what most of us were taught to believe.

I believe that it's not because of believing in God that helps society, but just being kind to each other as thought by Christianity.

it was christian beliefs, not athiest scientists, responsible for much of our technology
Ehrmm... And what about the many Jewish scientists?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Scientists_and_Philosophers

you have to say that it was christian beliefs, not athiest scientists, responsible for much of our technology
This would be easier to believe if you proivided an example or two of technologies that were developed by "christian beliefs" and not "atheist scientists".

I think Gallileo would have a word or two to say on this subject.
I know this flys in the face of many of your beliefs
Not mine. I think Christianity is a load of bunk, but that doesn't stop it being a very real force in the world -- whether good or bad.

I agree to some points of that quote, and I disagree to other points. I don't believe it was christianity itsself, but rather a strong belief in something sensible is what led to the success of those scientists. I'm sure you'd find just as many non-christian scientists that did equally important works, and that, I believe, disproves that it's christianity itsself. to me, religion inspires people in many different ways to do many different things. it's not the belief in God or Allah or Buddah or any other specific deity(ies), but rather the having of faith in something of that nature. I'm of the opinion that each religion is right in their beliefs in some ways and wrong in others, and as such I can't accept that it was christianity that made those people prosper, but rather their strong faith. I would accredit the unsuccessfulness of other countries on things outside of their beliefs, but I would also think that some of it WAS in fact because they weren't christian, though not in the ways you're thinking. think back to the days of old in which armies were formed in the name of a specific religion, and countries were built on those same beliefs. christianity was popular, and as such more people went to those countries. third world countries of today were those who, back then, didn't accept christianity out-right and as such were slaughtered for not believing the way others did. I'm not taking a cut at christians, because all religions were the same in their war practices in those days. today, even the lesser-developed countries are beginning to get more modernized, and that doesn't mean they're accepting christianity, just that they're catching up from the set-backs they had in the past. in severe cases like africa, I'd blame the lack of so much of their population due to slave trading. it's sort of like beating a kid when he's little. the wounds soon heal, but the mental scars are there for far longer. as such, the physical wounds (the loss of the population) have healed in those places, but the mental wounds are still there, and as such, those countries tend to be a little skittish around others, which causes them to stick to their ancient ways.

that's my opinion of the matter anyway.

Ugh... when people discover things, it's not because they're christian... it's not like jesus shows up in their dreams and tell them what to do... it's because they're scientists, it's their job...
The only thing about christianity is that it's more open towards progress than other religions, but that doesn't mean it leds to progress.

Most of the great civilisations of the past have never been. I believe that it's not because of believing in God that helps society, but just being kind to each other as thought by Christianity.
Christianity caused several crusades, non-Christians were often executed as heretics, the entire witch hunting thing was done because of the church, Christian societies have committed genocide of non-Christian ones that refused to convert and Christians went all round the world trying to suppress native pagan religions, that doesn't sound very kind to me.

Now, I'm not blaming Christianity for that, because it does teach kindness, but true Christian teachings were never really put into practise in Europe.

I do disagree that western success has been to do with Christianity. Many scientists have been non-Christian, and the Arab and Indian societies had much better and more advanced ideas about science and medicine than Europeans in the Middle age. Most Christian scientists built their work on earlier, pre-Christian scientists, often Greek. Anyway, whether or not these scientists were Christian, they didn't base their ideas on their religion, but came about them scientifically.

I think the reason western society advanced, wasn't to do with Christianity, but with more readily available food and resources than in most places. I'm not having a bash at Christianity in particular, but I think to claim it is the force that led to a developed world is very arrogant.

Ehrmm... And what about the many Jewish scientists?Or Islamic scientists, or Hindi scientists, or Buddhist scientists, or Ancient Greek scientists, or atheist scientists, or... (For the purpose of this list, please take "scientist" as a catch-all term for scientists, mathematicians, engineers, philosophers and everyone of that calibre).

But yeah. It's fair to say that religion has its good points: it gives you a handy ethical code without leaving you the trouble of having to set one up yourself, it can comfort, it can inspire. It's a little like getting solutions to all the difficult bits of life in a flat-pack rather than having to chop down a pine tree and build one yourself. No wonder a lot of people like it. And fair play to them, as long as they aren't doing me any harm. For all I know, they may just be right, although personally I'd say the odds are stacked against them.

The problem (for me) comes when you get religions that like to spread themselves. Christianity and Islam are the two obvious ones. Christianity does it rather cleverly: you have Jesus saying "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", and then from behind him a sales guy in a snazzy suit steps out and says "And the best way to do that is to convert them to NEW Christianity™!". Not that many things **** me off, but the incessant CICCU (Cambridge Inter-Collegiate Christian Union, I think) fly-posters at Churchill do. Most other religions just sit there and if you tell them you've converted to them, they just say "Cool", and get on with what they were doing.

Of course, it's true that these spready religions... well, spread. It's simple mimetics, really. Religions with the "Pass this stuff on to other people, and tell them to pass it on, or you'll ALL BURN!" meme are going to spread faster than the ones with a "Hey man, chill. If people want to join us, good for them, but it's no big deal" meme, regardless of which is more desirable from a "niceness" standpoint (hey, look what I managed to sneak in through the back door). That's why the number of Christians in China is going to increase, not the other way round.

Religion can inspire, it's true. So can many things. For one particular religion to claim a monopoly on it is, well, Wrong, frankly.

You guys raise some interesting points. I agree that scientific breakthroughs can be made by anyone, of course. I'm really trying to point out that Christian, or other religious beliefs, don't necessarily hinder scientific progress. Now both AT and Pilot raised some good points about how the church can hinder progress. But I would like to point out that Galileo was a beleiver in God (and if you want some other examples: Roger Bacon, Otto Brunfels, Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, William Turner, Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Blaise Pascal, Lord Kelvin, among others) and in both the cases of Galileo's persecution, and the crusades, that was the Roman Catholic Church, which was (at least then) more humanistic than deistic. Certainly not Biblical. No offense to Catholics, the church has changed much in the past couple of centuries. That said I don't like agree with the teachings of Catholicism, but that's a whole 'nother topic.

An interesting point is that one of the reasons (in a huge generalisation you understand) that Jews were richer in Europe was that they had the idea of the interest rate. It was condemned by the Catholic church at the time too (although I agree with Horigan that they are were more corrupt than anything). And that in itself has probably had a very very large impact of how today's society and stock market works.

Interesting quotation, but I'm not entirely sure I agree with all of it.

I suppose the ultimate example is that today most scientists are atheist, and yet science is advancing faster than ever before. I think it's less to do with religion and more to do with the culture and prosperity of the environment in which they live.

Now I wouldn't deny though that Christianity has had a direct influence on our culture, but you can't really say whether it would have been better or worse if it had never come, which really is where I think that quote falls down. Most religions hold roughly the same values, they just have different ideas about God and the world, how they came about, etc.

I don't think human society could have got so far without a religion.

I don't mean that the religion helps at all, although maybe it did; just that it's so ubiquitous and permeating that if Christianity hadn't been there then Islam or Judaism or Hindu or something would have. And we'd have had a radically different culture, which would have either been more or less conducive to scientific endeavour. Perhaps Christian culture was a good one for science. But these days we can have the culture without the religion, and I for one would be very wary about trusting anyone who claims to be a scientist and also claims to be utterly convinced of the existence of an all-powerful but oddly silent deity. Seems to me that they're not a terribly good scientist if they leap to that kind of conclusion.

I suppose the ultimate example is that today most scientists are atheist
Yep, seems so.

Check out Greg "Bad Religion" Graffin's dissertation about religion and evolution:
http://www.cornellevolutionproject.org

Well it seems to me that the reason the vast majority of scientists these days don't claim to be Christian isn't entirely because they don't believe in a god, but because of people who think like AT. Either they aren't considered scientists because they believe in God, or they believe in God but don't admit it because they will lose their status and position as scientists. I have heard of many stories of college professors and researchers who were fired, or had their funding cut, because they admitted to believing in God. If you consider not beleiving in God a prerequisite for being a scientist, then of course you'll have pre-dominantly atheist scientists. Of course I can't prove that, but that is what I personally think is going on these days.

I don't think most of you grasped the main point of the article that Horigan posted, including maybe Horigan. It's not claiming that our modern technologies and scientific descoveries were specifically made by Christians. It's saying that Christianity, with its morals, beliefs and social structure, created a society which then went on to do these things, whether still Christian or not.

There's no denying that Christianity has played a major role in the history of the western world and subsequently defined how we live today, whether we still individually follow the religion or not.

Personally, i hold a lot of the values that Christianity promotes (or claims to) quite highly myself, but not for any personal religious reason. I just also happen to believe, for example, that murder is wrong (I realise that my own definition of murder may be different to that of various Christian religions). I hold these values important because i was raised on them and the society i have lived my whole life in enforces them, as was the case for my parents, grandparents, etc, etc. Right back to the time when Christianity taught them to a society where, for example, if you wanted to sleep with your neighbours woman, you killed him and raped her.

Now, those who know me know that i am about as anti-religious as it gets. Not that i mind other people believing whatever they want to - i realise that some people don't have the mental ability to accept the multiverse has no meaning and is largely unexplainable, and need threats of eternal fire and damnation to stop them becoming murderers and rapists (or at least in the past they did, and the solution outlived the problem on the whole) - my main reason is the evil it causes today, where it is still being used as a tool of power and control as it always has been, but by people with their own selfish agendas or by people only using it to try and prove it still needs to be used.

My general view, in conclusion is this:

Many of you have misunderstood the article.
I agree with the article, ie. our western society only exists in its current state and with its modern cultural and technological advances due to its Christian roots.
Those Christian roots are no longer needed. They have served their evolutionary purpose and whereas they were progressive to the society they started with, they are detrimental to the society they have created. Irony at its best.


What do you do with the hammer once all the nails are in place, and you have no more wood? Stop creating wood and buying more nails please, Christianity.

Has anyone noticed here that if a Christian is abused, nothing is made of it, but if someone says the SLIGHTEST thing about a Bhuddist or Muslim then they get totally flamed for it.

They have special praying rooms in some buildings for Hindu's, but there are none for Christians. I wonder why, though. Any ideas.

They have special praying rooms in some buildings for Hindu's, but there are none for Christians. I wonder why, though. Any ideas.You've not heard of 24/7 prayer then. But that's mainly because the bible said you don't need anything/anywhere special to pray.

I thinkI get you M3ntal, I didn't entirely get what it was trying to say. Do you mean things like work and shopping on Sundays for example? a few decades ago it would have been unheard of for shops to open on a Sunday, yet now the majority do although there are still laws in place to reduce opening hours on a Sunday. Even the language I suppose, holiday was devireved from "Holy Day" if I remember correctly.

Well it seems to me that the reason the vast majority of scientists these days don't claim to be Christian isn't entirely because they don't believe in a god, but because of people who think like AT. Either they aren't considered scientists because they believe in God, or they believe in God but don't admit it because they will lose their status and position as scientists. I have heard of many stories of college professors and researchers who were fired, or had their funding cut, because they admitted to believing in God. If you consider not beleiving in God a prerequisite for being a scientist, then of course you'll have pre-dominantly atheist scientists. Of course I can't prove that, but that is what I personally think is going on these days.
Well that's true, but perhaps inevitable and perhaps no bad thing -- believing in God is not something like being gay or coming from Pakistan that's just an intrinsic property of a person. It's something that person does. I wouldn't trust a scientist who believed in fairies, or astrology, or lucky clover, or who thought the world would end if he didn't flick the lightswitch fifteen times upon entering a room. Scientists are supposed to think logically, and if they are happy to accept that there's an almighty being watching over us all the time and not even question it then they're clearly not thinking logically. Now, a scientist who says "I don't know, but I think, on balance, there probably is a God, and even if I'm wrong, who cares? I feel I get something out of attending church so I shall continue" -- that's logical. That I can respect.

It's saying that Christianity, with its morals, beliefs and social structure, created a society which then went on to do these things, whether still Christian or not.
Of course, progress in science can only be made in the proper society.
But that hasn't anything to do with a particular religion.
In ancient times Greece was leading in science.
In the middle ages, Islam science was leading, while Europe was still burning witches.

In the case of current western society, it does. This doesn't mean it is the only way to create a society that can progress scientifically.

In the middle ages, Islam science was leading, while Europe was still burning witches.
not christianity, that was the catholic church... the bible says people should stay far from wizards and stuff. it says no where people should burn them or punish them in any way.

the catholic church did and does many things the bible doesn't tell them to do. catholics (used to or still do, i'm not sure) pray to maria and worship almost every person in the bible or saint who said he saw an angel or something (espacially in france, they have a saint for every day). the bible doesn't tell them to do that.

there are many kinds of churches, every church is a bit or a lot different from an other church, but they all follow the same thing. the bible.

there also is a big difference between christianity and some other religions, the islam for instance, koran tells you (as far as i understood from other people) to some day, start a huge holy war and kill all those other religions. the bible tells people to love eachother and even your enemies, even to turn the other cheek if someone hits you. (this is also a big difference in the bible it self, old testament: an eye for an eye. new testament: turn the other cheek)

and yet science is advancing faster than ever before.
wich isn't because those scientist are atheist but because people in old times had to walk for weeks to tell something, nowadays people click, publish and presto, it's on the web for everyone or someone to read. or they press a couple of buttons on a phone to call some other scientist

Those Christian roots are no longer needed. They have served their evolutionary purpose and whereas they were progressive to the society they started with, they are detrimental to the society they have created. Irony at its best.
i highly doubt that those roots are no longer needed. time will proberly make it vanish away, if you take a look at the behaviour a 1000 years ago and the behaviour from now, what would it be like in an other 1000 years if people would no longer hold onto those christian roots?

not christianity, that was the catholic church... the bible says people should stay far from wizards and stuff. it says no where people should burn them or punish them in any way.

the catholic church did and does many things the bible doesn't tell them to do. catholics (used to or still do, i'm not sure) pray to maria and worship almost every person in the bible or saint who said he saw an angel or something (espacially in france, they have a saint for every day). the bible doesn't tell them to do that.

there are many kinds of churches, every church is a bit or a lot different from an other church, but they all follow the same thing. the bible. regardless of who carried out the deed, the christian community COMPLETELY supported it. I'm sure there were those against it, but the vast majority agreed with the church. whether the church was in the wrong for starting it is irrelevant, the fact remains that christians supported the idea and even joyfully watched others get burned for their beliefs, and from what I know of the people in those times, it was actually a public spectacle people would drop everything to go enjoy.

there also is a big difference between christianity and some other religions, the islam for instance, koran tells you (as far as i understood from other people) to some day, start a huge holy war and kill all those other religions. the bible tells people to love eachother and even your enemies, even to turn the other cheek if someone hits you. (this is also a big difference in the bible it self, old testament: an eye for an eye. new testament: turn the other cheek)spoken like someone who has NO idea what they're talking about. the Koran says no such thing. while I've not actually read the book, I'm somewhat familiar with its teachings. Islamic people are taught to die for their beliefs. the radicals who started these Jihads are the same kind of people who took christianity and turned it into a witch-burning society. the people who started the holy wars are those who took statements made in the teachings of their faith and made them into something far worse than they actually are. for instance: if the original teaching was to eat a muffin for breakfast, those guys bought a muffin factory and made the world's largest muffins in it which they began to worship and sing songs about while dining on it as their only source of nutrition. NO religion (to my knowledge, though there may be some smaller ones that do) teaches people to be violent and cruel to others. religion was made by man and was based off of man's beliefs of what makes a good person. no sane person thinks that people SHOULD kill everyone else, and those who are insane don't typically get a large following for an extended amount of time.

highly doubt that those roots are no longer needed. time will proberly make it vanish away, if you take a look at the behaviour a 1000 years ago and the behaviour from now, what would it be like in an other 1000 years if people would no longer hold onto those christian roots?you fail to notice the fact that people are becoming less and less devout in their beliefs. as I said before, religion was made by men who didn't understand how things worked. whether they were guided by divine hands is up for debate, but the truth remains that religion came from scared people looking for answers. people are becoming more and more knowledgable about things in the universe and as such we no longer need to believe that something we don't understand is responsible for things we can't explain. well, some people still do, others do to some extent, others do not. it's a personal preference, but that's another subject. 1000 years ago, people were EXTREMELY religious and based their daily lives on the things that priests told them and they didn't ask questions because they knew no better. these days people understand more and don't rely on priests to guide them in any way except for spiritual guidance that they believe will help them after death. by this trend, 1000 years from now, people will no longer rely on priests for anything at all, and will simply take it upon themselves to discover the truths behind things they don't understand; which means that religion, at that point, will cease to exist. I'm not saying that's what will happen, and I don't believe that WILL be the case, honestly, but rather I'm just pointing out that your argument was, in fact, an argument to be used by someone who disagrees with you.

i highly doubt that those roots are no longer needed. time will proberly make it vanish away, if you take a look at the behaviour a 1000 years ago and the behaviour from now, what would it be like in an other 1000 years if people would no longer hold onto those christian roots?
Well, it's swings and roundabouts. If we could somehow do away with religion, science would be imporved by the end of lunatic Creationism. Many wars and deaths would be averted. Many oppressed people would shed their ridiculous bin-bag overalls and start living sensibly. Many, many great things would happen.

At the same time, we'd lose a lot of culture and a lot of people would lose a vital support structure -- although in theory all of those things could happen purely for their own sakes without having to be based on religion. I personally think that would be better; I would much rather live in a society where people get together to help each other and make beautiful things for no reason other than because they want to than one in which they do it because they want to appease some almighty being they're convinced is watching them. But we'd certainly lose a large number of things if religion was abolished.

Would it be worth it? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Would society come grinding to a halt? No. No, it would not.


Edit:
we no longer need to believe that something we don't understand is responsible for things we can't explain
Something we don't understand is by definition responsible for things we can't explain.

regardless of who carried out the deed, the christian community COMPLETELY supported it. I'm sure there were those against it, but the vast majority agreed with the church. whether the church was in the wrong for starting it is irrelevant, the fact remains that christians supported the idea and even joyfully watched others get burned for their beliefs, and from what I know of the people in those times, it was actually a public spectacle people would drop everything to go enjoy.
as far as i know they supported it because the cotholic church said it was the good thing to do.


spoken like someone who has NO idea what they're talking about. the Koran says no such thing. while I've not actually read the book, I'm somewhat familiar with its teachings. Islamic people are taught to die for their beliefs. the radicals who started these Jihads are the same kind of people who took christianity and turned it into a witch-burning society. the people who started the holy wars are those who took statements made in the teachings of their faith and made them into something far worse than they actually are. for instance: if the original teaching was to eat a muffin for breakfast, those guys bought a muffin factory and made the world's largest muffins in it which they began to worship and sing songs about while dining on it as their only source of nutrition. NO religion (to my knowledge, though there may be some smaller ones that do) teaches people to be violent and cruel to others. religion was made by man and was based off of man's beliefs of what makes a good person. no sane person thinks that people SHOULD kill everyone else, and those who are insane don't typically get a large following for an extended amount of time.

like i said "(as far as i understood from other people)" i haven't read the koran itself.

you fail to notice the fact that people are becoming less and less devout in their beliefs. as I said before, religion was made by men who didn't understand how things worked. whether they were guided by divine hands is up for debate, but the truth remains that religion came from scared people looking for answers. people are becoming more and more knowledgable about things in the universe and as such we no longer need to believe that something we don't understand is responsible for things we can't explain. well, some people still do, others do to some extent, others do not. it's a personal preference, but that's another subject. 1000 years ago, people were EXTREMELY religious and based their daily lives on the things that priests told them and they didn't ask questions because they knew no better. these days people understand more and don't rely on priests to guide them in any way except for spiritual guidance that they believe will help them after death. by this trend, 1000 years from now, people will no longer rely on priests for anything at all, and will simply take it upon themselves to discover the truths behind things they don't understand; which means that religion, at that point, will cease to exist. I'm not saying that's what will happen, and I don't believe that WILL be the case, honestly, but rather I'm just pointing out that your argument was, in fact, an argument to be used by someone who disagrees with you.
I ment that if it will go one like that and people will drift off from the christian roots, people will also forget about things like "do not kill".

catholics (used to or still do, i'm not sure) pray to maria and worship almost every person in the bible or saint who said he saw an angel or something

As far as I'm aware, that's a common mis-conception of the catholic church. They don't pray to the saints (i.e, worship them), but catholics believe they must pray 'through' these people to get to Jesus, as opposed to going 'straight there' as protestants do. (I might be wrong, being a protestant, but meh. :p )

Hmm... I'm not too sure about the argument. So it was (according to the article) Christians that have influenced the modern western cultures and science - it doesn't really matter that much, from my decidedly Christian point of view. See, one of the fundamental Christian beliefs is that God has a big ol' plan for this world, so we tend to believe that more or less everything that has and is happening has happened for a reason - his will. It sort boils down to "maybe that was what he wanted", if you know what I mean.

...well that was a bit of stumbling in the dark. If I'm wrong with my facts, correct me please.

EDIT: And a note on the spreading thing - although all religions are trying to 'recruit' more followers, I think that the Christian way of doing it - as in, however you so wish, abiding within the Bible's law, obviously - tends to be more effective. Also, many may join because they think "it's the worlds most popular religion, so I'll go with it". It is, simply, power of number. I mean, if everyone from every religion 'recruited' just 1 other person, in the end, Christianity would win out.

(Unless I've got my facts wrong again. Bah :p)

As far as I'm aware, that's a common mis-conception of the catholic church. They don't pray to the saints (i.e, worship them), but catholics believe they must pray 'through' these people to get to Jesus, as opposed to going 'straight there' as protestants do. (I might be wrong, being a protestant, but meh. :p )

Hmm... I'm not too sure about the argument. So it was (according to the article) Christians that have influenced the modern western cultures and science - it doesn't really matter that much, from my decidedly Christian point of view.
could also be true, i dont know for sure since im a protestant too :P

See, one of the fundamental Christian beliefs is that God has a big ol' plan for this world, so we tend to believe that more or less everything that has and is happening has happened for a reason - his will. It sort boils down to "maybe that was what he wanted", if you know what I mean.

true, but it is kinda tricky, even though it's all going to one thing doesn't mean people aren't responsible for what they do. you can't just kill someone and then say "maybe that was what He wanted".
it's a bit weird and difficult to explain, He has a plan and gave people the free will to do with their lives whatever they want too. people can ignore the plan or even God and the whole religion, they can do that. then why doesn't God force all people to be good? because He loves us and wants us to choose for Him out of free will.

many may join because they think "it's the worlds most popular religion, so I'll go with it"
i wonder if those people are just 'followers' or actually believe too :-\

true, but it is kinda tricky, even though it's all going to one thing doesn't mean people aren't responsible for what they do. you can't just kill someone and then say "maybe that was what He wanted".
it's a bit weird and difficult to explain, He has a plan and gave people the free will to do with their lives whatever they want too. people can ignore the plan or even God and the whole religion, they can do that. then why doesn't God force all people to be good? because He loves us and wants us to choose for Him out of free will.
Much more likely that we're just God's guinea pigs in an experiment he's doing.

true, but it is kinda tricky, even though it's all going to one thing doesn't mean people aren't responsible for what they do. you can't just kill someone and then say "maybe that was what He wanted".
it's a bit weird and difficult to explain, He has a plan and gave people the free will to do with their lives whatever they want too. people can ignore the plan or even God and the whole religion, they can do that. then why doesn't God force all people to be good? because He loves us and wants us to choose for Him out of free will.

So that when we choose not, he can throw us in hell and laugh at us.:D
Damn that God, such a funny guy.

Much more likely that we're just God's guinea pigs in an experiment he's doing.
nah, the point is that He loves us, it's not like an experiment who will survive and who won't. he cares about us.

There have been a lot of interesting points raised here, and I'll need a lot of time to go through it before I can contribute to this properly.

Although I do need to say this.

Religions were created in a time when there was no explination for many things. People had no idea how the Universe or the Earth was created, so a being (or beings) that created it all seemed to be a very plausable theory. Then along with that came a lot of advice on how to lead your lives and advice on many moral issues. Then these all got compiled into a religion. Gradually over time, people came to believe this is how you should lead your life. Different religions may conflict with each other (leading to wars and battles and such). But while religions may have led to the world we live in now and may still give advice and such, the central idea religions are based on are pretty much out of date. While some relgious people who believe it all do accept science and the theories on how the universe was created and evolution, there are those who do still take the stories in the Bibal and such to be completely true (eg: the Earth and everything was created in 6 (24 hour) days and that the Earth is only 10 000 years old) despite much more concrete evidence telling us otherwise.

This may have already been mentioned but I have only really been skim reading. I still need to go through this thread.

nah, the point is that He loves us, it's not like an experiment who will survive and who won't. he cares about us.
Yeah, yeah.
Tell that the people who die in natural disasters or die from diseases and plagues.

I don't think most of you grasped the main point of the article that Horigan posted, including maybe Horigan. It's not claiming that our modern technologies and scientific descoveries were specifically made by Christians. It's saying that Christianity, with its morals, beliefs and social structure, created a society which then went on to do these things, whether still Christian or not.

There's no denying that Christianity has played a major role in the history of the western world and subsequently defined how we live today, whether we still individually follow the religion or not. I think a lot of people assume Christianity had more of an effect of our culture than it did. When for instance England was converted, almost nothing changed at first, bar the fact they now worshiped a new God, they built churches and didn't go to work on sunday. Most of the aspects of culture remained unchanged. They still believed the same old wives tales and superstitions they had before, they still had the same laws and customs, the daily running of the country was much the same as it had ever been and they even still celebrated the same religions festivals (with the meanings altered). Tradition has a strong place in a mans heart and trying to erradicate the old culture would never have succeded, all they actualy did was changed the god the worshipped. The old festivals like Yule and Easter had religious meaning aplied to them, but they still kept the same dates and traditions.

Over time I think Christianity's effect has grown, but I still think our culture today would have turned out more or less the same without it.

Personally, i hold a lot of the values that Christianity promotes (or claims to) quite highly myself, but not for any personal religious reason. I just also happen to believe, for example, that murder is wrong (I realise that my own definition of murder may be different to that of various Christian religions). I hold these values important because i was raised on them and the society i have lived my whole life in enforces them, as was the case for my parents, grandparents, etc, etc. Right back to the time when Christianity taught them to a society where, for example, if you wanted to sleep with your neighbours woman, you killed him and raped her.

But no society like that could have survived. They're not purely Christian values but perfectly sensible ones all major cultures have had (to a point).

not christianity, that was the catholic church... the bible says people should stay far from wizards and stuff. it says no where people should burn them or punish them in any way.

the catholic church did and does many things the bible doesn't tell them to do. catholics (used to or still do, i'm not sure) pray to maria and worship almost every person in the bible or saint who said he saw an angel or something (espacially in france, they have a saint for every day). the bible doesn't tell them to do that.At the time Catholisism was the only major form of Christianity in Europe, so it was Christianity as a whole that did it, as protestants didn't exist then.

wich isn't because those scientist are atheist but because people in old times had to walk for weeks to tell something, nowadays people click, publish and presto, it's on the web for everyone or someone to read. or they press a couple of buttons on a phone to call some other scientistYou completely missed my point. I didn't mean that because most scientists are atheist now being atheist must further scientific success, I just said being Christian didn't either.

EDIT: And a note on the spreading thing - although all religions are trying to 'recruit' more followers, I think that the Christian way of doing it - as in, however you so wish, abiding within the Bible's law, obviously - tends to be more effective. Also, many may join because they think "it's the worlds most popular religion, so I'll go with it". It is, simply, power of number. I mean, if everyone from every religion 'recruited' just 1 other person, in the end, Christianity would win out.Well, Jews believe that they are Gods chosen people, so converting to them doesn't really work if your not of Jewish decent. (I suppose allowences must be maade for marraige)

true, but it is kinda tricky, even though it's all going to one thing doesn't mean people aren't responsible for what they do. you can't just kill someone and then say "maybe that was what He wanted".
it's a bit weird and difficult to explain, He has a plan and gave people the free will to do with their lives whatever they want too. people can ignore the plan or even God and the whole religion, they can do that. then why doesn't God force all people to be good? because He loves us and wants us to choose for Him out of free will.Ah, but that's the beauty of fate. Are you in controll of your life? Or is freewill an illusion and fate decides your life for you? You never can tell.

Religions once served an important service: they provided answers for the world; they made people do as they were told; people were more likely to obey laws if they believed an omnipotent god would damn them if they didn't, and they provided security and comfort.

Karl Marx said, 'Religion is the opium of the people', but I think in this enlightened day an age religion is no longer needed.

nah, the point is that He loves us, it's not like an experiment who will survive and who won't. he cares about us.

This is where I'm a little bit less optimistic.

Even if there was a god, then I don't see why He (or possibly She if they had to have a gender) would care over us. I mean, if you were to create a whole new existance filled with life, wouldn't you be far more interested in what they would do under particular conditions?

Ok, a god may not see things the way we do, but the Bible does say Man was created in His own image.

So God created man
in his own image

Oh and what about the Great Flood?
Ok, so it was because God saw them as evil. But were they any more evil than the people around today?

Even if there was a god, then I don't see why He (or possibly She if they had to have a gender) would care over us. I mean, if you were to create a whole new existance filled with life, wouldn't you be far more interested in what they would do under particular conditions?
He created the earth, sun the whole universe. and as a crown to His creation He created the man, and after each day the bible says: "and He saw it was good"
well the bible does also say god sacrificed his only son to save humanity... i think it would be pretty sick and useless to kill your son for fun if people are only part of an experiment...
in His own image
it does, but it doesn't have mean God thinks like us, or looks like us, feels like us... there are people who believe that God has every talent, he gives a (or more) talent to a person. like some people have visions while they're praying, they're eyes. other people like to spread the word and talk, they're mouths. other people are good listners and help people deal with their problems, they're ears. other people go to africa for instance and spread the word there, they're feet. and together they form the body of christ :)
please not this is an example, it's not like jesus is some kind of transformer...:p

please not this is an example, it's not like jesus is some kind of transformer...:p
Thankyou for that mental image.

Love! Forgiveness! Beard! COMBINE!

Sorry. I, er...



Giant robot Jesuzord will save us!

Sorry.

Thankyou for that mental image.

Love! Forgiveness! Beard! COMBINE!

Sorry. I, er...



Giant robot Jesuzord will save us!

Sorry.
rofl :p .

I ment that if it will go one like that and people will drift off from the christian roots, people will also forget about things like "do not kill".ok, just because people wouldn't have religion doesn't mean they would lack morals. religion set the stage for a moral guidance for people in the ancient days when most would easily kill, rape, pillage, etc. since then people have been raised thinking that such things are evil and cruel and that people should treat others as humans instead of just animals. while religion IS responsible for that change in behavior, the lack of religion will not cause us to backtrack to that point. people will never again have no moral issues with the murder and torment of other people. people today are raised to think that those things are wrong whether they are religious or not. take me, for instance. I'm not a practicing christian, I don't go to church or any other rituals, and I don't preach my religion to others, but when I become a father I'll be damned if I don't teach my kid that those sins are wrong, regardless of the fact that I won't be teaching him to practice a certain religion.

Love! Forgiveness! Beard! COMBINE!

It certeinly isn't the image painted in the Old Testament. From the handful of passages I've had to read for RE, it seems to be more:

Vengeful, Tired, Vain and Weird.

I miss Captain Planet :(

I miss Captain Planet :(well, it's good to know the show has ONE fan left :p

I miss Captain Planet :(
Me too.
That show convinced me to not dump my biohazardous and radioactive waste in the woods and lakes anymore.

Thankyou for that mental image.

Love! Forgiveness! Beard! COMBINE!

Sorry. I, er...



Giant robot Jesuzord will save us!

Sorry.http://www.digitalpimponline.com/strips.php?start=12&title=movie
http://www.digitalpimponline.com/strips.php?title=movie&start=8

Disciplicons LOL.

i think it would be pretty sick and useless to kill your son for fun if people are only part of an experiment...
I really don't get this, and it's one of the first things that got me off Christianity in the first place. If God is an omniscient benevolent being, then why would he want send his son to earth, watch him get crucified and tortured to death in order to 'save' humanity (...), when he could just fix things on his own? And in what way would Jesus getting crucified help "save" anyone?

Jesus Saves!

I really don't get this, and it's one of the first things that got me off Christianity in the first place. If God is an omniscient benevolent being, then why would he want send his son to earth, watch him get crucified and tortured to death in order to 'save' humanity (...), when he could just fix things on his own? And in what way would Jesus getting crucified help "save" anyone?
Yep.
If God is so omnipotent, then he would have foreseen that it is totally useless to sacrifice Jesus.

If God is omnnipotent, we have no free will

And in what way would Jesus getting crucified help "save" anyone?

I think it had something to do with saving us from Original Sin (the fruit from the tree thing) by having our massiah crucified (or something). He was supposed to be saving us from Original Sin. I think...

Either way, I still think it was a little bit pointless. Although it did give him a good image.

If God is omnnipotent, we have no free will
Well, even if he is all powerful, he doesn't have to use all that power.

Anyway, I don't think Jesus had much say in the matter.

Well, even if he is all powerful, he doesn't have to use all that power.

Anyway, I don't think Jesus had much say in the matter.
Wait, wrong word :p What's the word for knowing everything that's happened and will happen?

Wait, wrong word :p What's the word for knowing everything that's happened and will happen?
Omniscient.

This is one of the problems I have with most religions: the idea of a massively powerful and really pretty clever and fairly benevolent being I could quite happily accept, but the idea of an all-powerfulk, all-knowing and perfectly benevolent and loving God? That's stupid. I'm sorry, but it is.

Old Testament God was much more believable. Flawed God. The kind of God who would make mistakes, apologise, and move on. Who could be suprised by human behaviour. Who could get angry and abuse His power. That makes sense. That I'll accept. But the world's too crappy to be being watched over by New Testament God. It just doesn't make any sense.

god isn't different i the new testament then he was in the old testament, Jesus said that God is still the same he was before. he's pretty clear about that.

god isn't different i the new testament then he was in the old testament, Jesus said that God is still the same he was before. he's pretty clear about that.yes, and everyone knows that everything stated in the bible is 100% true... :rolleyes:

If God is omniscient, we have no free willuntrue. just because god knows the possibilities that exist doesn't mean he knows which you'll take. think of it like this: there is a hallway with 30 doors. god knows that there are 30 doors and that it's equally likely that you can go through any one of those doors, and he knows what's behind each one, he just doesn't know which you'll go through. now, the way I explained it is too simple to explain it well enough to be sensible considering the whole "knows everything" thing, but I think I got my point across.

god isn't different i the new testament then he was in the old testament, Jesus said that God is still the same he was before. he's pretty clear about that.

Erm... no.

Infact, the Old Testament gives a much more real impression of a God than the New Testament. How much of the Bible have you actually read? Because you don't need to read much to get see the two different impressions.

Jesus preaches about a much more benevolent god than the god depicted in the Old Testament.

god isn't different i the new testament then he was in the old testament, Jesus said that God is still the same he was before. he's pretty clear about that.
He changed when he married Mary. Women change people. Jesus clearly didn't knew how his father was before.

He changed when he married Mary.
Since when did God marry Mary?

There's a lot of contradiction in the bible, about most things.

Lets get me old bible out. Oh look, a great flood killing everyone apart from a couple of people; he mixed up their languages so they couldn't work together; destroyed the city of Sodom; sent all those plagues to the Egyptians, he was going to kill all the Israelites until Moses persuaded him not to; Moses had everyone who had turned to idol worshipped killed (not exactly God's doing, but oh well); he made the Israelites wander the dessert for 40 years; God pretty much destroyed Canaan for the Israelites.

Now, I'm not saying those were particularly bad things, but they contrast to the benevolent god in the new testament.

There's a lot of contradiction in the bible, about most things.
Probably because all the authors that contributed to that large compendium couldn't be bothered to read what others had written previously. :rolleyes:

sent all those plagues to the Egyptians
You know, in some versions of the Bible God even "hardened the Pharoah's heart" to make sure he wouldn't release the slaves, solely so that He could look tough in front of the Israelites and have a good story to put in His Bible.

You want to worship that guy? That's your call.

Probably because all the authors that contributed to that large compendium couldn't be bothered to read what others had written previously. :rolleyes:
They didn't have any reason to -- have you ever read the thing? Barely any of it was ever supposed to be in a Bible. It was all just letters and records and the equivalent of newspaper articles. Even where it's true you can't reasonably expect it not to contradict itself a little.

Since when did God marry Mary?
Well if God demands people to marry before sex, then he must have done it himself.

Well if God demands people to marry before sex, then he must have done it himself.
OH MY GOD.

That means Marry was a bigamist!

One thing suprised me when I was looking through the bible earlier, Jacob had two wives, and children by both of them AND both their servent girls.

Obviously bigamy was acceptable at one point in jewish history.

Barely any of it was ever supposed to be in a Bible. It was all just letters and records and the equivalent of newspaper articles.
The biggest case of copyright infringement humanity has ever seen?

erm.. i dont want to interrupt all the fun, but isn't this going a little offtopic?
this thread isn't about if God is fake or real(istic) or what parts of the bible seem to collide and do not fit in according to you, this thread is about Christianity's effect on global culture.
thats was all, please continue now :)

Yes, the conversation has moved on, they tend to do that. It'd be a pretty boring conersation if you kept talking about EXACTLY the same subject for hours.

Probably because all the authors that contributed to that large compendium couldn't be bothered to read what others had written previously. :rolleyes:

The Greeks wrote the Old Testament. The New Testament was written by people who couldn't read.

They didn't have any reason to -- have you ever read the thing? Barely any of it was ever supposed to be in a Bible.

What do you mean 'Barely any of it was ever supposed to be in a Bible'. The whole thing was just compiled from stories and stuff.

Also, parts of the Bible can be interesting to read - for enterteinment purposes only of course :D.

What do you mean 'Barely any of it was ever supposed to be in a Bible'.
Well, I mean:
The whole thing was just compiled from stories and stuff.

That's my point -- the reason it's not entirely self-consistent is because none of the authors discussed it or read each other's writings and the reason they didn't is because they thought they were just writing letters and stories and records and things. They had no idea it'd ever be compiled.

isn't this going a little offtopic?
What else do you expect when Horigan starts a thread with a religous topic? :D

Well, I mean:


That's my point -- the reason it's not entirely self-consistent is because none of the authors discussed it or read each other's writings and the reason they didn't is because they thought they were just writing letters and stories and records and things. They had no idea it'd ever be compiled.

My point was really on the fact that you said barely any of it when really none of it was meant to be compiled. But it was a small trivial point.


erm.. i dont want to interrupt all the fun, but isn't this going a little offtopic?
this thread isn't about if God is fake or real(istic) or what parts of the bible seem to collide and do not fit in according to you, this thread is about Christianity's effect on global culture.
thats was all, please continue now

It is essential to get to the root of Christianity and it's teachings before its effects are properly discussed :p.

What else do you expect when Horigan starts a thread with a religous topic? :D
k, good point :p



It is essential to get to the root of Christianity and it's teachings before its effects are properly discussed .
new thread anyone?


[offtopic]

then they brought forth an ill man, lying on a bed and one of the disciples said: " oh lord, this man has become ill and can't get out of bed eversince, what should we do?" and the lord said to them :"well i'd also be pretty sick if i'd stay in bed forever!" and the crowd went bananas. luke said: "oh lord, thy one-liners are as good as thy tricks!"...

...you mean Rowan Atkinson. :p

I scan read the first post as I'm busy and the internet on my computer isn't working. So this post may or may not be relevant.

Religion has helped us to develop ideas for example how to get rid of a disease, like some kind of religious trinket. That developed how humans thought - trying to explain how and why something happens. However, then comes along something due to science like surgery or vaccines etc which can cure the disease. Religion has been extremely important in the development of human history. However it doesn't have any real backing to it and ideas that have branched from it are replaced by more efficient methods made available by science.

Ah, you would think, so.

Did you ever read The Salmon Of Doubt? There's a story therein about an island that grew rice. And very good at it they were too. Then Wensterners arrived and said, "no, look, you're doing it the stupid way. What do temples and festivals have to do with rice? Nothing, that's what. Here's some science. Ten bucks says your yield increases". I'm paraphrasing here. Then the islanders start farming with science, and their yields go up, but they mess up the land and they drop way below the old levels. They go back to the old, religious calendar and it almost instantly goes back to how it was.

Moral of the story? Don't fall prey to the genetic fallacy. (Look that up on wikipedia if you don't know what it is. I'm sure it'll be there.)

genetic fallacy
Is genetically modified rice a fallacy too?

Is genetically modified rice a fallacy too?
I'm confused.

It means that while their system was apparently based on nothing more substantial than the arbitrary whimsy of some dead priests, that doesn't mean it didn't work, and probably that whole religion evolved to be good at rice farming. They don't know why it works, but I doubt they cared much either.

It means that while their system was apparently based on nothing more substantial than the arbitrary whimsy of some dead priests, that doesn't mean it didn't work, and probably that whole religion evolved to be good at rice farming. They don't know why it works, but I doubt they cared much either.

Isn't that how most practices and customs evolved?

Isn't that how most practices and customs evolved?
I have absolutely no idea.

Well if God demands people to marry before sex, then he must have done it himself.

Who says he has to obay the rules of us puny mortals? Thou shall not murder, but god kills loads of people in the bible.

Has anyone noticed here that if a Christian is abused, nothing is made of it, but if someone says the SLIGHTEST thing about a Bhuddist or Muslim then they get totally flamed for it.
That is such a thoroughly untrue statement, I'm not even going to respond to it.
They have special praying rooms in some buildings for Hindu's, but there are none for Christians. I wonder why, though. Any ideas.
How about churches?

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei

Who says he has to obay the rules of us puny mortals?
Everyone knows that God looses his powers if he breaks the rules he himself made.
Thou shall not murder, but god kills loads of people in the bible.
There's obviosuly some fine print under the "thou shall not murder" commandment in the original board that no one bothered reading back in the days.:rolleyes:

There's obviosuly some fine print under the "thou shall not murder" commandment in the original board that no one bothered reading back in the days.:rolleyes:
That fine print was only added recently, by American presidents.

Everyone knows that God looses his powers if he breaks the rules he himself made.

He tried to keep most of the killing to a time before he made the rules.

He tried to keep most of the killing to a time before he made the rules.you know? that's actually a VERY good point....hmmmm.....*goes off to test this theory*

Did the hebrew word translate properly to english? Murder might have been different to killing... Not that it should give America an excuse though.

Murder is still different to killing.

Who says he has to obay the rules of us puny mortals? Thou shall not murder, but god kills loads of people in the bible.
like who?
you could be right, i just dont remember everything out of that big ol' book


@SB
same thng :p

He destroyed Sodom, that's a whole city.

He also did many other things in the same vein, but I have better things to do than spending half an hour trying to build a decent list.

Also, let's remember that in the bible god only killed sinners (and whoever the Isralites were at war with (and they were at war a lot)). In Isralite culture, people who commited sins were punished, often with their lives, and he same in many other cultures. So basically it was just justice (except the people who the Isralites were at war with, but they were pagans, so that was all right :) ).

except the people who the Isralites were at war with

But they were obviously sinners. Otherwise the Isralites wouldn't be fighting them.

He destroyed Sodom, that's a whole city.

He also did many other things in the same vein, but I have better things to do than spending half an hour trying to build a decent list.

Also, let's remember that in the bible god only killed sinners (and whoever the Isralites were at war with (and they were at war a lot)). In Isralite culture, people who commited sins were punished, often with their lives, and he same in many other cultures. So basically it was just justice (except the people who the Isralites were at war with, but they were pagans, so that was all right :) ).
Let's not forget that one time he drowned everyone except Noah's Circus.

But they were obviously sinners. Otherwise the Isralites wouldn't be fighting them.
That's what's known as a Sweeping Generalisation.

That's what's known as a Sweeping Generalisation.

I would have said it was more a comment that could be completely and safely ignored. But, each to their own.

I believe that it's not because of believing in God that helps society, but just being kind to each other as thought by Christianity.

Did that actually work? I think empathy is a natural human emotion and not something non christians lack =P

Did that actually work? I think empathy is a natural human emotion and not something non christians lack =P
Did you ever read Join Me by Danny Wallace? You should. It's a good book.

But the point about it is that lots of people, it seems, need an excuse to be nice to one another. I mean, look at sponsored charity stunts -- what possible logical reason is there to donate money to charity if someone walks a mile in a rhino suit? There isn't one, apart perhaps from a selfidh desire to see them walking around in a rhino suit, but it's a good excuse to do something nice. Left to their own devices most people probably wouldn't bother.

Religion is a very good excuse.

I had this discussion with my Philosophy teacher; she claimed that the only reason we were nice to each other was because god gave us a conscience. I pointed out that from an evolutionary point of view, what with our being tribal animals, we need to have empathy and to be nice to each other. Otherwise we could not have societies or even small tribal groups, and we wouldn't have the help or the teamwork we'd have needed to survive.

Left to their own devices people would still show empathy and kindness to their friends, family and most people they knew. It's the showing empathy for people they didn't know that might be a bit lacking.

well... eversince he made humanity... without him there would be no human to show empathy or kindness

well... eversince he made humanity... without him there would be no human to show empathy or kindnessthat's an extremely flimsy argument normally thrown in when religious people are on their last points.....throwing it out there makes you look worse than it makes your point look better :-/

well... eversince he made humanity... without him there would be no human to show empathy or kindness

Wasn't this on humans being nice to each other? Without humans, then there would be no need to be nice to each other. Your point is strange.

And that is your own opinion, right?

I think a "Zionism's Threat To Global Culture" thread would be more appropriate with the current world situation.

Wasn't this on humans being nice to each other? Without humans, then there would be no need to be nice to each other. Your point is strange.

And that is your own opinion, right?

pilot said that its thanks to humanity we show kindness and empathy to our freinds, not hanks to god.
but, without god there would be no one to show empathy or kindness to. so thanks to god we can show it to eachother.

that was all. :)
it was more supossed to be a joke then a serious argument

but, without god there would be no one to show empathy or kindness to. so thanks to god we can show it to eachother.
WARNING, FALSE STATEMENT :p

well... eversince he made humanity... without him there would be no human to show empathy or kindness
You got that in the wrong order, humanity created god.

pilot said that its thanks to humanity we show kindness and empathy to our freinds, not hanks to god.
but, without god there would be no one to show empathy or kindness to. so thanks to god we can show it to eachother.

that was all. :)
it was more supossed to be a joke then a serious argument
As a rule of thumb aren't jokes supposed to be at least vaguely amusing?

Because that post of yours was utterly incoherent, and what could be made out was rubbish.

but, without god there would be no one to show empathy or kindness to. so thanks to god we can show it to eachother.It's ignorant statements like these that are extremely annoying. First of all, there's no proof at all there's a god. Secondly there's no proof that "your" god is the "right" one. Thirdly, there's no proof that a god "created" empathy.

It's ignorant statements like these that are extremely annoying. First of all, there's no proof at all there's a god. Secondly there's no proof that "your" god is the "right" one. Thirdly, there's no proof that a god "created" empathy.
Fourthly, we're all gonna die! :eek:

First of all, there's no proof at all there's a god.Well ...

Well ...
Well what?

Well what?
Quite right. You can believe in a God if you must, but I distrust anyone who claims to have proof. That's the sort of gibberish those Scientologists spout.

Generally all "proofs" of God are either patently begging the question ("If there's not a God, who created the heavens and the earth?", "It says so in the Bible!"), emotional appeals ("But look how pretty the world is!", "If there's no God, what's life for?"), lies ("We've found Noah's Ark!") or gibberish ("Without a God there could be no good. Good exists, therefore God does too").

Well ...there isn't now, and never possibly can be proof that there is a god. IF we master dimensional travelling at some point, god is on a completely different plane of existence. the only proof there can be of god is if someone sees him, and as I've just stated, that can't be done. therefore, there is no proof, regardless of what some book says.

there isn't now, and never possibly can be proof that there is a god. IF we master dimensional travelling at some point, god is on a completely different plane of existence. the only proof there can be of god is if someone sees him, and as I've just stated, that can't be done. therefore, there is no proof, regardless of what some book says.Did the bible say god was on a different plane of existence?:p

there isn't now, and never possibly can be proof that there is a god. IF we master dimensional travelling at some point, god is on a completely different plane of existence. the only proof there can be of god is if someone sees him, and as I've just stated, that can't be done. therefore, there is no proof, regardless of what some book says.
God is everywhere. And I can't see Him. Unless He's very translucent and that's what causes fog, but that can't be right because space just looks black, and you can see for billions of light years in space.

space just looks black, and you can see for billions of light years in space.
I think we're living in God's giant, black trash bag which already has a few holes in it.

Generally all "proofs" of God are either patently begging the question ("If there's not a God, who created the heavens and the earth?", "It says so in the Bible!"), emotional appeals ("But look how pretty the world is!", "If there's no God, what's life for?"), lies ("We've found Noah's Ark!") or gibberish ("Without a God there could be no good. Good exists, therefore God does too").I'm not talking about that sort of argument though, they just go round in circles. You'd probably put it down to co-incidence or placebo effect or simply people lieing, but I mean the proof that converts people to christianity, like people being healed, something happenening which simply is not possible, answers to prayers. It's not all true, it didn't all happen, by a long shot, but some of it did. Enough to convince me at any rate.

people being healed
Which diseases got healed there? Smallpox? Ebola? AIDS? Plague? :rolleyes:

Hey!
I just came up with an amazingly convincing idea that God could use to prove his existance:
Immediate ceasefire and peace to the middle east!
Not the healing of some single person somewhere or some madonna figure crying blood.

And scorch a huge brand mark somewhere in the Sinai desert saying "God was here" only viewable by Google Earth's satellite. :p

something happenening which simply is not possible
Anything that happens is by definition possible.

Who was it who said "Nothing goes against science; only against what we know of it"? Some great and wise philosopher. Agent Scully, I think it was. The point being that the simplest explanation is not always the correct one.

Leaping to the conclusion that there must be a God simply because something happens we can't explain (yet) is a very intellectually vacuous exercise.

I'm not talking about that sort of argument though, they just go round in circles. You'd probably put it down to co-incidence or placebo effect or simply people lieing, but I mean the proof that converts people to christianity, like people being healed, something happenening which simply is not possible, answers to prayers. It's not all true, it didn't all happen, by a long shot, but some of it did. Enough to convince me at any rate.I'd say that's down to the fact that people only use a tiny portion of their brains. it's been proven that by will alone people can make things happen. if a woman can lift a bus off her child to save him, I'm sure it's equally possible for someone to will someone else cured if they truly desired it enough. not to say that there isn't a god, just that there are equally plausible arguments against it.

And scorch a huge brand mark somewhere in the Sinai desert saying "God was here" only viewable by Google Earth's satellite. :p
What about: 'Sorry for the inconveneince"?

I think this is also quite telling:

A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession." Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said. He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."http://godisimaginary.com/i39.htm

So if he wouldn't save someone's child because they weren't Israelite, he isn't going to heal our sicknesses is he?

I'd say that's down to the fact that people only use a tiny portion of their brains. it's been proven that by will alone people can make things happen. if a woman can lift a bus off her child to save him, I'm sure it's equally possible for someone to will someone else cured if they truly desired it enough. not to say that there isn't a god, just that there are equally plausible arguments against it.
Yes, I believe that you are right.
The biggest case I ever heard of this is a man being frozen to death at a normal temperature because he thought he was in a freezer.

So if he wouldn't save someone's child because they weren't Israelite, he isn't going to heal our sicknesses is he?
But the child was also not a sheep, regardless of where they came from.
The point of what I'm saying is that you do not take the bible as word by word.

if a woman can lift a bus off her child to save himDo you mean just using the mind or physically lifting it?
The biggest case I ever heard of this is a man being frozen to death at a normal temperature because he thought he was in a freezer.Proof?

Do you mean just using the mind or physically lifting it?
Both, really. I think you know well that a normal person can not lift a bus.

Proof?
I can't. It was about a year ago on the radio (A serious news item, and witnessed by the police)

Do you mean just using the mind or physically lifting it?
One would assume physically lifting it.

The human body has far more strength than the mind will normally allow it to use, in case it damages itself. In situations where that doesn't seem to matter any more compared to getting the hell out of there, it's possible for the subconsious, armed with about a pint and a half of adrenaline) to override that limitation.

It's not really a using-ten-percent-of-your-brain thing, but it's how you can lift a bus.

One would assume physically lifting it.

The human body has far more strength than the mind will normally allow it to use, in case it damages itself. In situations where that doesn't seem to matter any more compared to getting the hell out of there, it's possible for the subconsious, armed with about a pint and a half of adrenaline) to override that limitation.

It's not really a using-ten-percent-of-your-brain thing, but it's how you can lift a bus.kinda what I meant, regardless. my point was that our bodies have far more in them than we actually use. I think my point was conveyed well enough despite the fact that I can't think of any solid proof of mental-super-powers......likely cause most of those are shrugged off as nuts.