NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently this book and now film is causing quite a bit of controversy with organized religion, particularly the Catholic Church...

Link1 (http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071207/LIFE/712070349/1005)
Some have called "The Golden Compass" movie "the anti-Narnia."

The film, in theaters today, is based on British atheist Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy, a fantasy book series about a young orphan girl drawn into an alternate universe. Some religious leaders worry it will prompt youths to read the books, which they say take not-so-playful jabs at God and organized religion.

OH NOES!!! KIDS READING!!! :rolleyes:

The Catholic League's Bill Donahue sent out news releases calling the books "anti-Catholic" and "anti-God." He urges the faithful to boycott the film because he believes Pullman wrote the books to draw youths to atheism.

"Atheism for kids. That is what Philip Pullman sells. It is his hope that 'The Golden Compass' ... will entice parents to buy his trilogy as a Christmas gift," Donahue wrote. "It is our hope that the film fails to meet box-office expectations and that his books attract few buyers."

The Rev. Rick Stansberry at Christ the King Catholic Church in Oklahoma City said "Compass" appears to encourage young people to flout authority. He said a boycott may backfire. "All the controversy just makes people want to go more," he said.

Link2 (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071205/golden_compass_071205/20071205?hub=CTVNewsAt11)

Calgary's Catholic School Board is pulling "The Golden Compass" from school shelves -- a children's fantasy novel that criticizes strict religious dogma and encourages readers to keep an open mind.

Keeping an open mind!! How terrible!

A board spokesperson said the book has not been banned, but will be placed under review after the Christmas break.

"At this point, as a precaution, we've removed it from the shelves out of respect for the parents who have expressed concern," Judy MacKay told CTV Calgary.

The book's author, Philip Pullman, is an atheist.

The award-winning book was first published in 1995 and is part of a trilogy, but a movie version starring Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig is opening this Friday.

"The Golden Compass" had apparently been available at the board's school libraries for several years, but no parents had complained until recently.

Ontario's Halton Catholic District School Board yanked the novel from its library shelves about two weeks ago.

However, Halton students can still obtain the book by request.

At least the Canadian Catholics don't seem to be going as crazy as our neighbours to the South...

If they get to indoctrinate children into religion (and, boy, do they!), we get to free their minds.

If they get to indoctrinate children into religion (and, boy, do they!), we get to free their minds.

Detox for the mind?

Apparently this book and now film is causing quite a bit of controversy with organized religion, particularly the Catholic Church...

Link1 (http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071207/LIFE/712070349/1005)


OH NOES!!! KIDS READING!!! :rolleyes:



Link2 (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071205/golden_compass_071205/20071205?hub=CTVNewsAt11)



Keeping an open mind!! How terrible!



At least the Canadian Catholics don't seem to be going as crazy as our neighbours to the South...

The books (written by an atheist who hated the Narnia books) were literally about killing God who is the main villain. The movies are a little more muddled to make it "acceptable" to families.

Detox for the mind?

Sure, but the best thing is of course to prevent the children from ever becoming faith-heads.

How silly. Their faith is incredibly weak if they feel it is threatened by a few novels.

I thought that the His Dark Materials trilogy was quite good. The three books are actually some of my sister's favorites, too, and she's a Catholic herself.

I guess some people will get offended by anything.

Wiki: Pullman has accused C. S. Lewis of being "blatantly racist", "monumentally disparaging of women", "immoral", and "evil" in his novels.

Sure, but the best thing is of course to prevent the children from ever becoming faith-heads.Or sentient.

How silly. Their faith is incredibly weak if they feel it is threatened by a few novels.

I thought that the His Dark Materials trilogy was quite good. The three books are actually some of my sister's favorites, too, and she's a Catholic herself.

I guess some people will get offended by anything.

I wouldn't be offended by the books, but I'm surprised a Catholic isn't.

Wiki: One of the most controversial elements of the story is the demise of the Authority, who meant to portray God as worshiped in today's dominant monotheistic religions.

I wouldn't be offended by the books, but I'm surprised a Catholic isn't.

me too, considering the apparent catholic propensity at getting all bent out of shape by works of fiction (except, of course, their own large work of fiction)

well Harry Potter has finished now, what else is there to do?

I wouldn't be offended by the books, but I'm surprised a Catholic isn't.

Wiki: One of the most controversial elements of the story is the demise of the Authority, who meant to portray God as worshiped in today's dominant monotheistic religions.

She knows it's a book. She doesn't have to think it's reality or agree with the author to think it's a good story. I guess her faith just isn't threatened by a novel.

I'm not Catholic or even Christian, but I'm still religious, and I loved reading it.

Why is it that whenever any movie or book comes out that has any sort of nonreligious implications, Christians come out in droves to complain about how horrible it all is? God forbid that children be exposed to new ideas! They must be indoctrinated, or the faith might die out, and we all know how horrible that would be!

Such hypocrisy! You didn't see a mass atheist boycott of Narnia. The very idea would be ridiculous.

Also, a facebook group protesting this spoiled the ending, undoubtedly in an attempt to make it not worth seeing for people that they couldn't convince with their religious rhetoric. So now certainly going to see it, despite the ruined ending, just to spite those assholes.

She knows it's a book. She doesn't have to think it's reality or agree with the author to think it's a good story. I guess her faith just isn't threatened by a novel.

I'm not Catholic or even Christian, but I'm still religious, and I loved reading it.

Then you're both...no, you can't be! You're both r-r-r-reasonable!!! :eek:

Wiki: Pullman has accused C. S. Lewis of being "blatantly racist", "monumentally disparaging of women", "immoral", and "evil" in his novels.

I'm not so sure about the "monumentally disparaging of women," but he was pretty racist; I also heard an interview of him, and he sounded pretty interesting. I found his immoral and evil claims rather silly though (you see, everybody gets killed, and Susan is, so to speak, condenmed to hell)...what's all the big deal if him being an atheist again?

That aside, I read His Dark Materials a while back and liked it quite a bit. It had many interesting ideas and concepts. I certainly wouldn't call it a fantasy book though; it's science fiction.

Detox for the mind?

Detox would include "The God Delusion". *nods*

Also:

http://photos-317.ll.facebook.com/photos-ll-sctm/v158/106/80/513099317/n513099317_190101_9006.jpg

Detox would include "The God Delusion". *nods*

I think Dawkin's writing is linguistically too advanced for children. For many of these adults, too, really...

*sigh*

I would like to apologize to the rational world for Catholics who apparently have their heads up their asses. Our bad, trust me if I could re-animate Pope John Paul the II and put an end to this, I would. John Paul II seems to be the most sane Pope I ever met.

*goes back into his Laboratory*

I think Dawkin's writing is linguistically too advanced for children. For many of these adults, too, really...

Only if you don't expose children to literature early on. Only of children are given tripe that is years below their expected literacy level.

*sigh*

I would like to apologize to the rational world for Catholics who apparently have their heads up their asses. Our bad, trust me if I could re-animate Pope John Paul the II and put an end to this, I would. John Paul II seems to be the most sane Pope I ever met.

*goes back into his Laboratory*

Do you know Alexander VI, the greatest Pope who ever lived?

Do you know Alexander VI, the greatest Pope who ever lived?

I almost re-animated him but I accidentally fried his remains. My bad.

I put it in a nice urn though. I should return it to the Vatican soon though. They're probably looking for it.

Only if you don't expose children to literature early on. Only of children are given tripe that is years below their expected literacy level.

Well, this is seemingly a story about the USA, so...

I almost re-animated him but I accidentally fried his remains. My bad.

Fill your hands, you son-of-a-bitch!

Fill your hands, you son-of-a-bitch!

*gives urn*

Well, this is seemingly a story about the USA, so...

the second one is Canadian...

... when will people learn. the best way to make something popular is to ban it.

Satanic Verses would've died in obscurity
Last Temptation of Christ would've not lasted as long
Passion of the Christ would've lasted as long as The Omega Code

yep.. so ban it. ban it to be the #1 box office in America...

*shakes head*

Truly, it should be banned because it glorifies polar bears and they are the most imminent threat after meteors but before terrorism.

But, in all seriousness, to paraphrase (and I mean really paraphrase as I don't have the exact quote on hand) Oscar Wilde, there is no such thing as a moral or immoral book; it is either well written or it isn't.

Well, this is seemingly a story about the USA, so...

Unfortunatly:
Calgary's Catholic School Board is pulling "The Golden Compass" from school shelves -- a children's fantasy novel that criticizes strict religious dogma and encourages readers to keep an open mind.

Canada is going down the drain now too.:(

the second one is Canadian...

... Christians, so basically the same.

the second one is Canadian...

As is the third.

The book isn't that subtle. The main characters fight against an institution called "the Church" and then kill God. I can understand why it would cause offense.
That being said, I really don't understand the constant drive to "protect" children from different ideas, even if those ideas are wrong. Young children, of course, shouldn't watch films that their parents don't want them to. But if a kid is old enough to read something as long as His Dark Materials, or Harry Potter, or the Narnia books, for that matter, he is probably old enough to take them for what they are: fiction. And if the kid is actually influenced by the author's message and becomes a religion-hating atheist, well, there's a lot more than a single book to blame.

... Christians, so basically the same.

Despite your wrong belief, there is actually a difference being American and Christian.

Well shoot!

I will have to see the movie and read the books now!

Anything the Christians are pissed about must be good.

As is the third.

I only posted 2 links...what are you talking about?

Unfortunatly:


Canada is going down the drain now too.:(

not really, It's Calgary's CATHOLIC school board not the Public School board...and Alberta's always been the more religious area of Canada

I only posted 2 links...what are you talking about?

Sorry, I thought the last two were different links.

not really, It's Calgary's CATHOLIC school board not the Public School board
It still recieves public funding.
...and Alberta's always been the more religious area of Canada
still makes it Canadian.

What, so the Christians can have twenty bajillion movies that basically say "Hey, we're the best, if you're not one of us you're screwed," and it's good cinema.


But the moment, the MOMENT something the least bit critical of the church comes out, it's a sin against morality.

Heil Vatican?

I totally want to see that and buy the books now. Anti-Narnia FTW! Anti-Christianity/Religion FTW!

This will hopefully educate kids to seek the truth and abandon the lies and deceit of religion.

The books (written by an atheist who hated the Narnia books) were literally about killing God who is the main villain. The movies are a little more muddled to make it "acceptable" to families.

The book isn't that subtle. The main characters fight against an institution called "the Church" and then kill God. I can understand why it would cause offense.

Incidentally, Will doesn't kill God, he kills an extremely old megalomaniac angel who told everyone that he was God and that he created the universe, lying git that he was. Which I think is a nice poke at the whole 'God said it, therefore it's true' silliness

1. I would like to start off by saying that the movie was way overdone and did not live up to the book in any way. In fact, the ending was so horrifically butchered that I left the theater in anger.
2. The book is a work of art and one of my favourite childhood reads.
3. Where were the religious fanatics when the books came out? They destroyed god in the last book, and I have never heard the religious fanatics rant about that. You know what, I would like the second and third books made into movies, just to piss of the religious right.

You know what, I would like the second and third books made into movies, just to piss of the religious right.

If I didn't so vociferously despise movie adaptations of novels... fuck yeah. :)

3. Where were the religious fanatics when the books came out?

How often do fanatics of any kind read more than a choice few books?

How often do fanatics of any kind read more than a choice one (holy) book?

Fixed. :p

Fixed. :p

Well, to be fair, you have fanatics of all kind. Randians to Christians to...I don't know, labrador-lovers or something. A holy book isn't always necessary.

How silly. Their faith is incredibly weak if they feel it is threatened by a few novels.

I guess some people will get offended by anything.

Don't forget. The mouth foaming Christian demographic also declared Harry Potter and D&D to lead children into witchcraft, demon worship and the usual junk.

I'm not familiar with The Golden Compass, but considering the fuss they made about Harry Potter, they don't have much credibility with me.

Then you're both...no, you can't be! You're both r-r-r-reasonable!!! :eek:

Well, I don't know about that... but we're at least mature enough not to think that a novel is the end of the world.

I actually found Pullman's alternate world to be quite interesting when I read the books. I also liked is stylistoc approach in writing. I didn't even know about the whole Pullman-is-an-Atheist thing until after I had read the book.(I only read the first one, so I didn't get to the killing God part).

Nonetheless, as I read through, I thought that he had quite shallow characters, and was little more of an action novel being used to cirticise religion. Then again, I only read Book 1.

I agree with anti-dogmatism, religious apoliticalism, and such ideas that are expressed in the series. They are why I left the Catholic Church. But putting all of this in a children's book? I'm not concerned with exposing kids to atheism in the least, but I think that his point would be better expressed in an essay or a philosophical book.

Don't forget. The mouth foaming Christian demographic also declared Harry Potter and D&D to lead children into witchcraft, demon worship and the usual junk.

Yes, I think this is a problem more with foam-at-the-mouth-over-little-stuff idiots than with Christianity as a whole. The only Christians I even know who are like that are people I've met on internet forums, cause it seems they're pretty scarce around here (where I live, not NS).

Yes, I think this is a problem more with foam-at-the-mouth-over-little-stuff idiots than with Christianity as a whole. The only Christians I even know who are like that are people I've met on internet forums, cause it seems they're pretty scarce around here (where I live, not NS).

Figures. Society gets mroe secular the farther West you go. Washington is 27% irreligious, Oregon is something close to that, British Colombia is ~30%.
The only thing stopping Cali from the same demographic transformation is the daily influx of Catholics.

*gives urn*

How could you?!?!

Figures. Society gets mroe secular the farther West you go. Washington is 27% irreligious, Oregon is something close to that, British Colombia is ~30%.
The only thing stopping Cali from the same demographic transformation is the daily influx of Catholics.

California (I hate the internet and valleygirl term "Cali") has actually been somewhat Catholic for a long time. Historically, in San Francisco and the bay area in general there have been a lot of Italians and Irish.

It's just that even the Christians here tend to be liberal. The foam-at-the-mouth-over-novels variety aren't encountered very frequently. I don't think I've ever met a Christian fanatical enough to protest a fantasy movie (like the ones mentioned by the OP) in person.

What I think is hysterical is all the backpatting about how crazy Christians are going over this movie, and all the lovely things you all have been saying about how mouthfoamingly irrational their hatred of it is...

and yet have any of the forum's Christians said the least thing about it?

No?

:D Well don't YOU look silly.

And the part about calling all Christians Americans, and saying Canadians were the same as US Americans, well, that was just comedy gold too.

Ooooo! Another thread in which I may draw attention to my shiny new sig!
/points

:D Well don't YOU look silly.


I don't think the premise of this thread was based on NSG Christians flipping out but rather the groups of Christians documented in the OP flipping out, in which case the assessments would be correct and doesn't make anyone look silly. It's common in NSG when a groups organizational body does something for people to refer to the group as reacting. Muslims get the brunt of this, Christians just get to share in that.

I'm too lazy to do the comparison between the reaction to this movie and to Narnia. I remember there being concern that atheists etc. might care, but I don't remember any actual atheists actually caring.

Well, here's the most important question: is the series good or not? If the books suck, who cares what the author's trying to get across?

Well, here's the most important question: is the series good or not?

It's wonderful, despite the predictability of much of the plot and the ending.

Wiki: Pullman has accused C. S. Lewis of being "blatantly racist", "monumentally disparaging of women", "immoral", and "evil" in his novels.
So he forgot "boring".

I'm not familiar with The Golden Compass, but considering the fuss they made about Harry Potter, they don't have much credibility with me.I just saw the movie and I really wonder how Pullman has the nerve to call Tolkien trivial...

It's wonderful, despite the predictability of much of the plot and the ending.

I'll have to take a look at it. Regardless of its underlying themes, a good fantasy story is a good fantasy story.

Why the Catholic Church even trying to stop a box office hit that is mainly being shown in Protestant countries is what I want to know. Really, the church is mainly a figurehead rather than a major power during its reign in the Holy Roman Empire. All it can do now-a-days is a slap on the rist and say "no no no, that defies god." :p

From the point of the movie makers, I found the movie kind of choppy...with major details that could have been added. Now with the atheist and the attacking God standpoint, it actually represents what started to happen in the late Middle Ages. (Different religions/ideas trying to branch out, major church/government tries to put them down....free thinkers in the universities.....etc.).

I guess we will revert and start accusing people of whitches......*sigh*, get out your pichforks, torches, stones, stocades, and big boiling pots.

Why the Catholic Church even trying to stop a box office hit that is mainly being shown in Protestant countries...what?

I guess we will revert and start accusing people of whitches......*sigh*, get out your pichforks, torches, stones, stocades, and big boiling pots.And then have the Inquisition rescue them from the mob?

I'll have to take a look at it. Regardless of its underlying themes, a good fantasy story is a good fantasy story.

Well, especially in the second two books, it's not "underlying" at all... it's rather blatant.

Well, especially in the second two books, it's not "underlying" at all... it's rather blatant.

Eh, if it's still good, it won't bother me at all.

Well, I have not read His Dark Materials (since none of my friends has it to borrow) as Pullman is a git and I refuse to give him money (same reason I won't buy Therion CDs, instead borrowing from friends, since while they all do practice black magic, they're a bloody awesome band), I have read up about them.

But I saw the movie (by slipping out after watching The Mist into the theatre), and while, being a Christian, I do not like the underlying theme...Iorek knocked Iofur's JAW OFF, which basically made the movie for me.

what?

I must have read it wrong...did they just condem it, or spoke against it?......:confused:.......

But alot of the places of where the movie, the Golden Compass is showing, is dominatly Protestant, which from a bloody and boring past that best not be gone into, ignore the outbursts by the church.



And then have the Inquisition rescue them from the mob?

No...the Goblers :D

Well, I have not read His Dark Materials (since none of my friends has it to borrow) as Pullman is a git and I refuse to give him money (same reason I won't buy Therion CDs, instead borrowing from friends, since while they all do practice black magic, they're a bloody awesome band), I have read up about them...



Would that imply that you believe black magic actually exists?:confused:

You mean Northern Lights?

Very good book, brilliant as part of the His Dark Materials series. Probably my favourite trilogy.

The books (written by an atheist who hated the Narnia books) were literally about killing God who is the main villain. The movies are a little more muddled to make it "acceptable" to families.

Well...actually no. The books were literally about ending an organisation that exploited God and used him for its own means, under the ultimate control of an individual who usurped God's power and used that to try and destroy individual thought. With the unfortunate consequence of "killing" (freeing, really) God, which was largely unintended by the central characters in the books.

That's just my interpretation. Having actually read the series.

I actually found Pullman's alternate world to be quite interesting when I read the books. I also liked is stylistoc approach in writing. I didn't even know about the whole Pullman-is-an-Atheist thing until after I had read the book.(I only read the first one, so I didn't get to the killing God part).

Nonetheless, as I read through, I thought that he had quite shallow characters, and was little more of an action novel being used to cirticise religion. Then again, I only read Book 1.

Well, there's your mistake.

Northern Lights (The Golden Compass :rolleyes:) is pretty good.
The Subtle Knife is very good.
The Amber Spyglass is brilliant.

Well...actually no. The books were literally about ending an organisation that exploited God and used him for its own means, under the ultimate control of an individual who usurped God's power and used that to try and destroy individual thought.

But God is hardly portrayed very nicely nevertheless... it is suggested that he is a power-hungry liar whose reluctance to directly control humanity is more due to age and other interests than any respect for human freedom.

Not to mention the spin put on the Genesis story.

Would that imply that you believe black magic actually exists?:confused:

I neither know nor care. The fact that they at least try to practice it is what matters, not whether they're successful.

And I liked Narnia better. But that may be because I'm a Christian. :p

But God is hardly portrayed very nicely nevertheless... it is suggested that he is a power-hungry liar whose reluctance to directly control humanity is more due to age and other interests than any respect for human freedom.

Not to mention the spin put on the Genesis story.

Well, it seems to me more like he is an individual who took advantage of being the first angel to convince everyone else he was the creator, unable (unintelligent enough?) to hold onto power, and who was then slowly usurped by Metatron. I see it as showing the Authority as someone who claimed power and didn't know what to do with it when he had it, allowing Metatron to come in and slowly take over.

I see it as showing the Authority as someone who claimed power and didn't know what to do with it when he had it, allowing Metatron to come in and slowly take over.

I read it not so much as the Authority not knowing what to do with power as not being able to keep it with age... he did rule for a long time.

Sure, but the best thing is of course to prevent the children from ever becoming faith-heads.


:rolleyes:


I like to avoid posting in political threads here...but your post scares me. OH TEH NOES TEH KIDDIE TEH RELIGIOUS! You have no right to prevent people from getting into religion. Thank GOD you are in Europe and not here.

I'm reading The Golden Compass as we speak (or, actually, type). I really don't see the problem - of course, I'm an agnostic tending to atheist.

I'm reading The Golden Compass as we speak (or, actually, type). I really don't see the problem - of course, I'm an agnostic tending to atheist.

I'm agnostic to, but I respect other peoples rights and don't attack them.

You have no right to prevent people from getting into religion.Of course he does. If churches have a right to indoctrinate kids, everyone else has a right to prevent that.

I'm agnostic to, but I respect other peoples rights and don't attack them.The right to spread misinformation?

Of course he does. If churches have a right to indoctrinate kids, everyone else has a right to prevent that.



No he doesn't. Churches just promote their religion, nobody is making you listen. Don't be scared of the Christian boogeyman. You also have no right to indoctrinate other peoples kids. Let people make up their own minds about religion, either way they go deal with it.

The right to spread misinformation?



:rolleyes:


Of course anything you don;t agree with is misinformation. Moving on.

The right to spread misinformation?

What a very Fundie thing to say.

What a very Fundie thing to say.

Don't like the message don't listen to it.

Don't like the message don't listen to it.

Sure. Or, you can listen to it and trash it as best as you can. You have the right to both. If you present your beliefs publicly, you have no right to expect them not to be challenged.

Of course anything you don;t agree with is misinformation. Moving on.No, everything that has been shown many many times to be misinformation is misinformation. Christianity is misinformation. Grow up.

No he doesn't. Churches just promote their religion, nobody is making you listen. Don't be scared of the Christian boogeyman. You also have no right to indoctrinate other peoples kids. Let people make up their own minds about religion, either way they go deal with it.Then keep religion out of schools.

Sure. Or, you can listen to it and trash it as best as you can. You have the right to both. If you present your beliefs publicly, you have no right to expect them not to be challenged.



Nobody should be discrimminated against over their views, people have a right to believe what they want, religious or atheist. Nobody should attacked over it. You also have no right to try and brainwash other peoples kids into your line of thinking.

No, everything that has been shown many many times to be misinformation is misinformation. Christianity is misinformation. Grow up.

Wow. I was on Catholic.com once, and saw almost the exact same post, just without the Christianity reference.

You're funny, UB, you are exactly the same as the people you condemn.

You are the Fred Phelps of Atheism. Good work.

I'm agnostic to, but I respect other peoples rights and don't attack them.

That goes without saying - as long as no one tries to push their beliefs down my throat, I'm good.

Wow. I was on Catholic.com once, and saw almost the exact same post, just without the Christianity reference.

You're funny, UB, you are exactly the same as the people you condemn.

You are the Fred Phelps of Atheism. Good work.


He is becoming what he hates, two sides to the same coin. He is the one who needs to grow up not me. I'm not blindly attacking anything here just defending peoples rights if I agree with them or not.

Nobody should be discrimminated against over their views, people have a right to believe what they want, religious or atheist.

Well, yes, that's kind of what I'm getting at.

Nobody should attacked over it.

I don't mean physically, I mean argumentatively, which spell check tells me is a word. :D

You also have no right to try and brainwash other peoples kids into your line of thinking.

Sounds nice on paper, doesn't it? But brainwashing is a subjective term.

That goes without saying - as long as no one tries to push their beliefs down my throat, I'm good.



Clear some above don't agree with that. Main reason I oppose religion in schools in any form.. for or against.

Wow. I was on Catholic.com once, and saw almost the exact same post, just without the Christianity reference.

You're funny, UB, you are exactly the same as the people you condemn.

You are the Fred Phelps of Atheism. Good work.I am not an atheist.
And Christianity is misinformation. In fact, any Abrahamic religion is misinformation. The biblical god is a fabrication. Subsequently Jesus is not that god's son/incarnation/self/whatever, and subsequently the whole salvation story is bogus.

Clear some above don't agree with that. Main reason I oppose religion in schools in any form.. for or against.

I don't have a problem with religion in private schools, considering the parents are paying to send their children there and know what to expect.

And religious schools...well, somewhat pointless to keep religion out, no? ;)

Well, yes, that's kind of what I'm getting at.

I hoped so.



I don't mean physically, I mean argumentatively, which spell check tells me is a word. :D

I know what you mean, and lying and teasing count. Respect others views and let them be.



Sounds nice on paper, doesn't it? But brainwashing is a subjective term.


It's pretty obviously really. If you put a pro or anti religious message in schools thats brainwashing...things like that. Secular education is best.

Nobody should be discrimminated against over their views, ..Why not? I also discriminate against NeoNazis. Views are not per se worthy of protection.

I don't have a problem with religion in private schools, considering the parents are paying to send their children there and know what to expect.

And religious schools...well, somewhat pointless to keep religion out, no? ;)

You know I meant public schools.

I don't have a problem with religion in private schools, considering the parents are paying to send their children there and know what to expect.

And religious schools...well, somewhat pointless to keep religion out, no? ;)

See, I'm still somewhat uncomfortable with that. Children should not be indoctrinated, even by their parents. Trying to stop somebody from honest investigation of the evidence is one of the worst things you can do to them.

Why is it that society considers it morally permissible to brainwash somebody because you fucked without birth control?

I am not an atheist.

Oh, you're not? Sorry for the mix-up, then: you seemed too militant and fundamentalist to be an agnostic.

And Christianity is misinformation. In fact, any Abrahamic religion is misinformation. The biblical god is a fabrication. Subsequently Jesus is not that god's son/incarnation/self/whatever, and subsequently the whole salvation story is bogus.

OK.

Oh, you're not? Sorry for the mix-up, then: you seemed too militant and fundamentalist to be an agnostic.



OK.

False dichotomy: there is more than just the Abrahamic religions and atheism.

It's pretty obvious really.

Not nearly as much as you think. You will find many that think that the parents -- who have a moral obligation to make their children decent members of society and not free-loading amoral street-rats -- merely MENTIONING religion to their children is brainwashing. Which it could very well be -- point of view is everything.

See, I'm still somewhat uncomfortable with that. Children should not be indoctrinated, even by their parents. Trying to stop somebody from honest investigation of the evidence is one of the worst things you can do to them.

See, I don't have a problem with investigation -- in fact, I encourage it. However, if the school is religious, then why would you be surprised that religion is taught in a positive light?

Oh, you're not? Sorry for the mix-up, then: you seemed too militant and fundamentalist to be an agnostic.



OK.


The 2nd quote gives a scary other story. Maybe he should keep that to himself. As long as they don't harm anybody whats the problem?


Oh and he can't prove the salvation is false, I have yet to see anybody do that yet. I tend to avoid it.

False dichotomy: there is more than just the Abrahamic religions and atheism.

Yes, thanks, I'm aware, I was just explaining to a monarchist, pre-Vatican II Catholic why Chinese political philosophy can help explain certain aspects of Christianity and Christian politics. :p

However, just knowing UB's....persona, I find it unlikely that he subscribes to any religion at all. Of course, I could be wrong, and am willing to accept that.

See, I don't have a problem with investigation -- in fact, I encourage it. However, if the school is religious, then why would you be surprised that religion is taught in a positive light?

The problem is that the school is religious. Any worthwhile school encourages and teaches rational thought, logic, and investigation-- and knowledge that is attained through these methods. A religious school encourages faith and blind acceptance of its patron religion.

Not nearly as much as you think. You will find many that think that the parents -- who have a moral obligation to make their children decent members of society and not free-loading amoral street-rats -- merely MENTIONING religion to their children is brainwashing. Which it could very well be -- point of view is everything.

To be honest as long as the parents don't teach their kids to be bigots I could care less what they do.

As long as they don't harm anybody whats the problem? Spreading misinformation is harm.

The problem is that the school is religious. Any worthwhile school encourages and teaches rational thought, logic, and investigation-- and knowledge that is attained through these methods. A religious school encourages faith and blind acceptance of its patron religion.

It can -- or it could teach the religion and the defences of it, which is what I found most do.

But there are, naturally, exceptions to all rules.

To be honest as long as the parents don't teach their kids to be bigots I could care less what they do.

I do. If they indoctrinate their children to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, for example, they are teaching them demonstrable lies and depriving them of a truly amazing branch of science.

It can -- or it could teach the religion and the defences of it, which is what I found most do.

But there are, naturally, exceptions to all rules.



Some do that, others don't. If there are attacks against the religion has a right to release a defense of it. Nobody should just shutup when their views are being attacked.

I do. If they indoctrinate their children to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, for example, they are teaching them demonstrable lies and depriving them of a truly amazing branch of science.


Not all christian religions believe that.

I do. If they indoctrinate their children to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, for example, they are teaching them demonstrable lies and depriving them of a truly amazing branch of science.

Well, I may or may not like what parents teach, but I'll live with it, since the only way to change it is regulation via government, which, IMO, is entirely unacceptable.

Completely off-topic: I just saw someone called a "cock-juggling thunder ****." Is this not awesome?

Well, I may or may not like what parents teach, but I'll live with it, since the only way to change it is regulation via government, which, IMO, is entirely unacceptable.

Yes, seperation of church and state.

Completely off-topic: I just saw someone called a "cock-juggling thunder ****." Is this not awesome?


Who was called that and where?

Yes, seperation of church and state.

I wasn't even thinking that. I meant government microregulation period. The government isn't there to be our parents and tell us what to fucking do, we have parents to do that well enough. XD


Who was called that and where?

In a groupconvo. :p

I wasn't even thinking that. I meant government microregulation period. The government isn't there to be our parents and tell us what to fucking do, we have parents to do that well enough. XD


Too bad the state is taking away parents rights and trying to regulate how they raise their kids.

..., we have parents to do that well enough.Obviously not.

Too bad the state is taking away parents rights and trying to regulate how they raise their kids.If you want to give all kids equal chances, that is what you have to do.

Too bad the state is taking away parents rights and trying to regulate how they raise their kids.

The State's natural tendency is to get bigger.

The State's natural tendency is to get bigger.

And I resent that.

The State's natural tendency is to get bigger.The State's natural tendency is to get better.

Obviously not.

What, tell us what to do?

No, I think they do pretty well at that. Only the State does it too. And both fail at realizing that oppression leads to rebellion.

This kind of alarmist behaviour is one of the signs the the Catholic church is slowly descending into obscurity.

Maybe we grow tired of men in robes preaching about morality.

This kind of alarmist behaviour is one of the signs the the Catholic church is slowly descending into obscurity.

Maybe we grow tired of men in robes preaching about morality.



I doubt that, the church is still strong and has a long history of doing what it does now only on a larger scale.

The State's natural tendency is to get better.

....You like being microregulated?

Well, I suppose that's your prerogative.

....You like being microregulated?

Well, I suppose that's your prerogative.

That was your comment..

....You like being microregulated?I like to be educated. And I like other people to be educated. Parents cannot achieve that.

Well shoot!

I will have to see the movie and read the books now!

Anything the Christians are pissed about must be good.

lol then we can go to hell after for doing that

Well, I may or may not like what parents teach, but I'll live with it, since the only way to change it is regulation via government, which, IMO, is entirely unacceptable.

Completely off-topic: I just saw someone called a "cock-juggling thunder ****." Is this not awesome?

Certainly, it is completely unreasonable and for the government to interfere in most cases, but that doesn't mean that the parents who indoctrinate their children or teach them demonstrable lies shouldn't be viewed with disgust by any reasonable person, for they are denying their children freedom of thought and stopping them from learning truly amazing facts about our universe. Knowledge that can invoke an awe that completely dwarfs, in my opinion, any religious feeling.

To quote Douglas Adams (RIP), "I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." And I'd choose that for any other person too, so I truly am distressed when parents try deprive their children of so great a wonder! They do their offspring a most grave disservice, and I refuse to respect any person so malicious as to destroy a child's curiosity and snatch from them the wonders of science and history and other fields of knowledge.

Just imagine, for a moment, how many brilliant scientists and researchers that should have been that never were. How many gifted, intelligent people had their intellect wasted because they had the ill luck to be born into a deeply religious home, and taught that science and rational investigation were bad? What might they have accomplished? A cure for AIDS or cancer or one of many other deadly problems? Who knows?! But to just imagine it... it's tragic.

I know that we really can't have the government do anything without infringing on peoples' rights, but we can, as a society, do a whole lot. We can make it socially unacceptable to indoctrinate and brainwash children. We can make it unacceptable to pressure children into your own religion instead of letting them make up their own minds. We could do all these things, and I'm sure the world would be better for it. I'm ready for a better world, for a better future. But the change must come from the collective whole of society. Government can't do it without violation of rights, and it would be horribly inefficient for such a cause-- indeed, it would cause the fundies to grow stronger when they sink even further into their persecution complex. But if we can change peoples' minds, and ostracize anybody who indoctrinates their children and deprives them of the natural beauty of the universe... who knows what we may achieve?

Ah, but what do I know? As the above post probably shows, I'm not too bright. :p

Certainly, it is completely unreasonable and for the government to interfere in most cases, but that doesn't mean that the parents who indoctrinate their children or teach them demonstrable lies shouldn't be viewed with disgust by any reasonable person, for they are denying their children freedom of thought and stopping them from learning truly amazing facts about our universe. Knowledge that can invoke an awe that completely dwarfs, in my opinion, any religious feeling.

To quote Douglas Adams (RIP), "I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." And I'd choose that for any other person too, so I truly am distressed when parents try deprive their children of so great a wonder! They do their offspring a most grave disservice, and I refuse to respect any person so malicious as to destroy a child's curiosity and snatch from them the wonders of science and history and other fields of knowledge.

Just imagine, for a moment, how many brilliant scientists and researchers that should have been that never were. How many gifted, intelligent people had their intellect wasted because they had the ill luck to be born into a deeply religious home, and taught that science and rational investigation were bad? What might they have accomplished? A cure for AIDS or cancer or one of many other deadly problems? Who knows?! But to just imagine it... it's tragic.

I know that we really can't have the government do anything without infringing on peoples' rights, but we can, as a society, do a whole lot. We can make it socially unacceptable to indoctrinate and brainwash children. We can make it unacceptable to pressure children into your own religion instead of letting them make up their own minds. We could do all these things, and I'm sure the world would be better for it. I'm ready for a better world, for a better future. But the change must come from the collective whole of society. Government can't do it without violation of rights, and it would be horribly inefficient for such a cause-- indeed, it would cause the fundies to grow stronger when they sink even further into their persecution complex. But if we can change peoples' minds, and ostracize anybody who indoctrinates their children and deprives them of the natural beauty of the universe... who knows what we may achieve?

Ah, but what do I know? As the above post probably shows, I'm not too bright. :p

Do you seriously expect me to comprehend multiple paragraphs at 2:30 in the morning? This isn't gonna work. :p

BUT! I'm honestly very pessimistic about society, albeit don't have the mental capacity ATM (as I'm going to sleep right when I hit the submit reply button for this post) to detail it.

But just read Freedom and Democracy by Erich Fromm. Or Wiki it.

Basically, good luck getting it to change.

Any chance me making an on-topic post will move this topic back on topic? (That's a lot of topics!) No? Well, I will make the post anyway!

I love the books. I'm an admin on the fan site hisdarkmaterials.org and they remain my favourite books. Several of the people I have met off the site, whom I like and respect, are Christian (and yes, that does include Catholics), and they all love the books.

What I really like is the Archbishop of Canterbury's response to this. Rather than shout and condemn this books, he has actually read them, and has encouraged others to do the same. He has partaken in several VERY interesting debates with Pullman on religion, and is one of the few religious leaders in the world I have a measure of respect for.

sod polarbears when you can get rhinos and gorillas in massed battle in Narnia

I like to avoid posting in political threads here...but your post scares me. OH TEH NOES TEH KIDDIE TEH RELIGIOUS! You have no right to prevent people from getting into religion.

I have every right to prevent people from getting into religion, just like they have every right seemingly to get people into religion. They aren't the only ones who get to proselytise, kid. Of course, they proselytise religious nonsense and we proselytise against the nonsense, so of course we have a much better standing and are respectable.

Thank GOD you are in Europe and not here.

There is no such thing as god, pixies and gnomes, honey, but I am very glad I am in Europe and not over there. I am very fortunate.

sod polarbears when you can get rhinos and gorillas in massed battle in Narnia

But with rhinos and gorillas you can't have bear calvary.

1) The Catholic League isn't part of the Catholic Church, despite having such close ties with the church.
2) You glazed over the fact the Baptists are pissy about it, though I assume that would be a given as they are Baptists.
3) It is ironic that the Catholic League advocates boycotting the film because the story attacks a fascist organization that tries to destroy any truth but their own.

I'm told that this movie is doing enough to drown itself by just being a non-exciting, nearly unwatchable film that it doesn't matter what the religious undertones of the film are, it just plain out sucks already..

It was pretty dull until the 15 minute battle with the Cossacks. I assume the sequels will have the exciting stuff.

I took one day to read all the Narnia books. I took another day to read Lewis's Perelandra trilogy. I've even read some of his "non-fiction." His writing style ranges from childish to turgid. His ideas - pretty much the same, probably because his books are all pointedly and unsubtly about religion, with absolutely no social or political or even recreational focus outside of religion. Lewis is essentially, a one-trick pony. It's all about religion and that becomes boring.

Rowling has a somewhat better writing style, and it evolves - as Harry matures (and therefore, presumably, the audience matures), her style matures to meet the needs of character and audience. I always thought her themes were social and political, rather then religious. It's rather typical of the extreme religious right to hit on exactly the wrong thing - Potter as a sorcerer and therefore evil, rather than Potter as a commentator on social and political problems like gender discrimination, racial discrimination and the misuse of power.

I'm now reading Pullman. I'm a little more than midway through The Golden Compass. They style is pretty decent and his characters are sympathetic (although I really found myself disliking Oxford - it seemed cold and shabby). As I'm interpreting it now, based on incomplete date, it seems, like the Potter series, to be focused on social and political issues like discrimination and the misuse of power (especially by religion). And, once again, the extreme religious right has gone off on exactly the wrong (predictably) tangent.

I think the religious right's fire needs regular stoking, and if they can't find a legitimate issue (and they seldom can) they'll create one.

I'm now reading Pullman. I'm a little more than midway through The Golden Compass.

Not far enough. The really anti-religious stuff is in the second two books. Though I thought the theme was pretty clear in the first as well.

Not far enough. The really anti-religious stuff is in the second two books. Though I thought the theme was pretty clear in the first as well.
The movie makes it rather obvious when the bear's armor was stored in the magisterium's office, which was gilded and covered in the portraits of saints.

I'm told that this movie is doing enough to drown itself by just being a non-exciting, nearly unwatchable film that it doesn't matter what the religious undertones of the film are, it just plain out sucks already..Yep, and that someone who has been married to Cruise makes it even worse.

Sure, but the best thing is of course to prevent the children from ever becoming faith-heads.

Bigotry at its best.

I don't think it's anything to worry about, I'm sure most of it is allegorical.

Wiki: Pullman has accused C. S. Lewis of being "blatantly racist", "monumentally disparaging of women", "immoral", and "evil" in his novels.

Wow what a moralising idiot.

I saw my grandparents (who have Sky) this weekend and decided to put on Fox News. Their coverage was fair and balanced. A Catholic bishop who thought the Golden Compass should be banned, and a presenter who agreed with him.

:D Well don't YOU look silly.

And the part about calling all Christians Americans, and saying Canadians were the same as US Americans, well, that was just comedy gold too.

It is a little silly. Actually, there is something even funnier here (http://www.usccb.org/movies/g/thegoldencompass.shtml).

This is my favorite part:
Is Pullman trying to undermine anyone's belief in God? Leaving the books aside, and focusing on what has ended up on-screen, the script can reasonably be interpreted in the broadest sense as an appeal against the abuse of political power.

Will seeing this film inspire teens to read the books, which many have found problematic? Rather than banning the movie or books, parents might instead take the opportunity to talk through any thorny philosophical issues with their teens.

The religious themes of the later books may be more prominent in the follow-up films which Weitz has vowed will be less watered down. For now, this film -- altered, as it is, from its source material -- rates as intelligent and well-crafted entertainment.
Oh, the irony.

Evidently people whine a lot.

See, I don't have a problem with investigation -- in fact, I encourage it. However, if the school is religious, then why would you be surprised that religion is taught in a positive light?
I'm not suprised by it. I just think it's wrong, first to discourage reading, to hide other points of view. However, what makes in unacceptable is to do this in a publicly funded school (as the Calgary Catholic School Board is).

Well, I may or may not like what parents teach, but I'll live with it, since the only way to change it is regulation via government, which, IMO, is entirely unacceptable.

But we can control what schools using our money is teaching, if they don't like it they can go private.

However, I discourage watching the movie. I can promise you the book was better and I hope that the movie doesn't turn anyone who has not yet, but might read the books off of them. They're a good read even if they are aimed at 11 year olds.

"It is our hope that the film fails to meet box-office expectations and that his books attract few buyers."

i think its too late for that, at least over here. they were very popular indeed a few years back.

On May 19, 2005, Pullman was invited to the British Library in London to be formally congratulated for his work by culture secretary Tessa Jowell "on behalf of the government"; and shortly afterwards received the Swedish government's Astrid Lindgren Memorial Award for children's and youth literature (sharing it with Japanese illustrator Ryôji Arai). In Sweden, the prize is second only to the Nobel Prize in Literature and is worth 5 million Swedish Kronor or approximately £385,000.

The [His Dark Materials] trilogy came third in the 2003 BBC's Big Read, a national poll of viewers' favourite books, after The Lord of the Rings and Pride and Prejudice. It was one of only two books in the top five not to have had a screen adaptation at that time

If they get to indoctrinate children into religion (and, boy, do they!), we get to free their minds.

hah, i like it. this book encourages kids to be athiest (apparently), and it is banned. surely the bible equally, if not more so, encourages people to be christian. where's the fairness in that? should the bible not also be banned? and that goes for a lot more than just these books, too...

hah, i like it. this book encourages kids to be athiest (apparently), and it is banned. surely the bible equally, if not more so, encourages people to be christian. where's the fairness in that? should the bible not also be banned? :P

Religion encouraging hypocrisy and double standards?! That would never happen!

hah, i like it. this book encourages kids to be athiest (apparently), and it is banned. surely the bible equally, if not more so, encourages people to be christian. where's the fairness in that? should the bible not also be banned? and that goes for a lot more than just these books, too...

Things are only wrong and evil if they speak out against Christianity or for something other than Christianity.

Religion encouraging hypocrisy and double standards?! That would never happen!

who'd have thunk it :eek: :p

Good, go see the movie. Read the books. The movie will surprise you, though...won't say how but suffice it to say, the Catholic League have it *completely* wrong.
Also, a warning: the movie got censored by the studio, chopped up, and you can see where. They're releasing a Director's Cut, though, thank the Gods...

Apparently this book and now film is causing quite a bit of controversy with organized religion, particularly the Catholic Church...

Link1 (http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071207/LIFE/712070349/1005)
OH NOES!!! KIDS READING!!! :rolleyes:

Link2 (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071205/golden_compass_071205/20071205?hub=CTVNewsAt11)

Keeping an open mind!! How terrible!

At least the Canadian Catholics don't seem to be going as crazy as our neighbours to the South...

You want to see conservatives getting their undies in a knot over movies?

Try this site. (http://www.movieguide.org/index.php?s=reviews&id=7623)

Funniest parody of religion in the world, but most of it's humor comes from the fact that it's sincere.

Bigotry at its best.

A little soft don't you think? Couldn't you sense the teh religons teh ebilz muust diez sentiment in this thread?

Religion encouraging hypocrisy and double standards?! That would never happen!

What's hypocritical about banning a book you don't agree with? Stupid, yes, but hypocritical?

What's hypocritical about banning a book you don't agree with? Stupid, yes, but hypocritical?

The hypocrisy is this:

"Children shouldn't be exposed to atheist ideas at such a young age! It's wrong to try to influence them like that, let them make up their own minds!!!!!1111"

But then when it's their own Holy [sic] Books and various other stories that portray them in a positive light, there's nothing wrong with going even further than exposing them to an idea and actually going as far as indoctrinating their children. Indeed, it's viewed as an incredibly moral thing to do.

That's what's hypocritical.

The hypocrisy is this:

"Children shouldn't be exposed to atheist ideas at such a young age! It's wrong to try to influence them like that, let them make up their own minds!!!!!1111"


Oh. I think most people don't say this, though. Instead:
"Children shouldn't be exposed to atheist ideas at such a young age! They should be Christian."
Again, silly, but not hypocritical.

Unless the books and films flat out say: "GOD ISN'T REAL AND YOU ARE A TERRIBLE PERSON TO BELIEVE HIM AND ALL CHRISTIANS ARE EVIL" (which I highly doubt that is the intent even from an atheist author) I don't think it's terrible at all. I don't know if I'll see it, maybe I will maybe I won't. Kids are to young to understand subtext and allegory and other things, they won't understand.

Though I see nothing wrong with indoctrinating, just because you are indoctrinated doesn't mean you will stay faithful. Everyone reaches a mind when they CAN and WILL Make up their own minds. Give me a break let parents teach their kids about God or lack thereof then they can chose for them selves.

... when will people learn. the best way to make something popular is to ban it.

Satanic Verses would've died in obscurity
Last Temptation of Christ would've not lasted as long
Passion of the Christ would've lasted as long as The Omega Code

yep.. so ban it. ban it to be the #1 box office in America...

*shakes head*

SHH! Thats there plan dont you see??

Catholic Bishops and sch are so deeply wolven into financial society that they want the movie to get big. Then they can buy themselves that brand new 2009 Camaro and maybe get there grandkids a picture Bible... :eek:

SHH! Thats there plan dont you see??

Catholic Bishops and sch are so deeply wolven into financial society that they want the movie to get big. Then they can buy themselves that brand new 2009 Camaro and maybe get there grandkids a picture Bible... :eek:

The Bishops actually liked it. See the link in my earlier post.

The books (written by an atheist who hated the Narnia books) were literally about killing God who is the main villain. The movies are a little more muddled to make it "acceptable" to families.

As I understand it, it isn't about killing "God" as in the creator of the universe. It's about overthrowing a tyrannical form of organised religion and an oppressive supernatural heirarchy that the religion represents. The protagonists kill some 'angels,' including the first, original angel, and his 'lieutenant.' But the angels in the book are just very old beings (the most powerful formed before humanity, but later on some humans became angels too) and the most powerful misrepresented themselves in turn as the creator/god of the universe to humanity.

And the rebellion to kill them and overthrow the church that acts as their agent is in order to replace the "kingdom of Heaven" that's used to excuse suffering and injustice in life with a "republic of Heaven" where everyone takes responsibility- like good citizens- for creating the best world possible in the here and now, instead of waiting for its relief in the afterlife.

The movie failed in box office I hear.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

Just imagine, for a moment, how many brilliant scientists and researchers that should have been that never were. How many gifted, intelligent people had their intellect wasted because they had the ill luck to be born into a deeply religious home, and taught that science and rational investigation were bad? What might they have accomplished? A cure for AIDS or cancer or one of many other deadly problems? Who knows?! But to just imagine it... it's tragic.

And just think what Europe would look like right now if the Christian church hadnt preserved some semblance of learning in the Dark Ages. Just think of all the great works of art we wouldnt have. I mean, yeah, you CAN have art without religion, but really, you can only look at a picture of a bowl of fruit so many times before you start to say, "Its the same damn bowl of fruit. I'd much rather look at a bunch of angels smiting sinners for a change." Just think about all the interesting things we wouldnt have to read about in the history books.
Lets also consider the effects of, say, a Mongol invasion without a strong cultural deterrent, the Tuetonic Order, and the various other orders which essentially kept Europe from ending up like Novgorod.

I'm not saying religion, especially Christianity, is perfect, but the alternative is hardly better in every catagory. Unless you care to pay annual tribute to Khan al Khan over in the capitol of whichever faction happend to rule Europe. I doubt science would've made much progress if every European ruler had to pay most of his annual income to a Mongol tax supervisor to avoid getting pillaged.

Yeah down with christianity. Boo bad people, sending so much of our money to the 3rd world, raising the issues of conflict in Africa, crusades, lots of people being crucified.
Of Course atheism is nice and well but if there really is a god they're kind of doomed, mind you if you do believe in a god which one do you choose? Allah? Christian God?

I've got a good question for Christians in moral philosophy
"Is it good because god commands it, or does god command it because it is good?
If the good is only good because god says so, then you could, if you wished, make it so that torturing infants was good. But that would be absurd wouldn't it?
Or God chooses what is good because it is good. But that shows quite clearly that goodness does not depend on god at all. So we don't need to study go to study good.
"even so, spake the Lord,'you've got to admit i've written some pretty good textbooks on the subject." (see the pig that wants to be eaten written by Julian Baggini)
That dates back from Plato.

I also don't approve of one religion being taught in schools, they should teach a mixture and some atheism.

Nobody should be discrimminated against over their views, people have a right to believe what they want, religious or atheist. Nobody should attacked over it. You also have no right to try and brainwash other peoples kids into your line of thinking.


And that's all just great... until some group of yahoos come along and say "my religious beliefs dictate that I proselytise and try to convert non-believers, and that I bring to heel anyone who doesn't submit." Then your feel-good yammering about everyone's almighty freedom falls apart because some of the people whose right you're defending would abuse it to strip that same right from others. So at some point you have to give up the rhetoric that everyone- regardless of their beliefs- can "just get along" and you have to say "okay, opinions A and B are rational and workable in the real world, and therefore legitimate, while opinions X, Y and Z are irrational, absurd, toxic, superstitious nonsense, that are unworkable in the real world and should at the least not be encouraged, and at the most be actively discouraged."

Some belief systems are actively belligerent and not compatible with an open, egalitarian and fair society. It's naive to suggest that your ideal community can include everybody because some people believe- and will continue to believe, and teach their children to believe- that "if you aren't like me and don't accept the same unsubstantiated, illogical things I do, then I don't have to share with you... and I might even be justified in expelling or killing you." Then you have to make a grown-up choice to define some "rights" and some "wrongs," choose what kind of shared beliefs you want to base your community on, and move on without those who would sabotage it from the inside. You don't have to go all jihad on them and try to wipe them out, but you do have to have some conviction and say "in our collective, you don't get to preach (for example) cannibalism, and we won't provide you with a venue to advocate for it. If you want to eat people then get out, go do it somewhere that they allow people-eating, and if you can't find such a place then you'll just have to stop."

And just think what Europe would look like right now if the Christian church hadnt preserved some semblance of learning in the Dark Ages. Just think of all the great works of art we wouldnt have. I mean, yeah, you CAN have art without religion, but really, you can only look at a picture of a bowl of fruit so many times before you start to say, "Its the same damn bowl of fruit. I'd much rather look at a bunch of angels smiting sinners for a change." Just think about all the interesting things we wouldnt have to read about in the history books.
Lets also consider the effects of, say, a Mongol invasion without a strong cultural deterrent, the Tuetonic Order, and the various other orders which essentially kept Europe from ending up like Novgorod.

I'm not saying religion, especially Christianity, is perfect, but the alternative is hardly better in every catagory. Unless you care to pay annual tribute to Khan al Khan over in the capitol of whichever faction happend to rule Europe. I doubt science would've made much progress if every European ruler had to pay most of his annual income to a Mongol tax supervisor to avoid getting pillaged.

And if it hadn't been for the Church, there would have been no need to "preserve some semblance of learning." The Church was instrumental in hiding or destroying most of the knowledge of the ancient world - they began the glorious institution of book burning which has been carried on by such wonderful people as Hitler and Stalin, as well as a number of extreme fundamentalists of all sorts today - Christian, Muslim and Jewish. They were also responsible for suppressing learning and discovery under the pretext of stemming heresy. Civilization, including the arts, would have developed quite well without Christianity, thank you, just in a different direction - and not necessarily Asian.

And if it hadn't been for the Church, there would have been no need to "preserve some semblance of learning." The Church was instrumental in hiding or destroying most of the knowledge of the ancient world - they began the glorious institution of book burning which has been carried on by such wonderful people as Hitler and Stalin, as well as a number of extreme fundamentalists of all sorts today - Christian, Muslim and Jewish. They were also responsible for suppressing learning and discovery under the pretext of stemming heresy. Civilization, including the arts, would have developed quite well without Christianity, thank you, just in a different direction - and not necessarily Asian.

Godwins law!

Anyway...

Like I said, good and bad. History isnt just in shades of grey, its got a whole freakin' rainbow. A n-dimensional rainbow in constant motion. And its got birds in it.
And it may have, it may not have. Can you prove it in a scientific manner? Do you posses some sort of time machine which allows you to travel to the past of some alternate Earth and play with history?
If so, youre a sick person.

And, if you know your history, you'll know that without that awful event which was, of course, far worse than any war prosecuted for money, power, or just because a nations ruler was having a bad day, the Crusades, Europe would have developed, culturally and technologically, MUCH more slowly than it did.
And we wouldnt have such important devices as the common couch for our sitting benifit.
Of course, a lot of people were killed, and the Byzantine Empire fell, but they were on the way out anyway, and it allowed the Seljuk/Ottoman Empire to bring some measure of unity to the Middle East, which gave Europe something to do besides fighting itself...
And it goes on.

And do you REALLY think art would be what it is today without religion? Most INTERSTING art is based in mythology or religion, especially prior to the 18th century. A thousand years of portraits? Do you REALLY want that?

Well, the message of the books is evil, twisted and despicable, but I must admit they were imaginative and very well written. We clearly need to use our scary Christian brainwashing powers to assimilate Pullman into our hive mind.

The movie, on the other hand, utterly sucked. It wasn't even anti-religious. It was just... bad. "Oh look we're trying to escape from this Magisterium thing that is left completely unexplained, and we're not even going to hint at the significance of dust or the point of intercision except in one single line."

The movie failed in box office I hear.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

In what way is being the number 1 movie and a $25 million dollar opening weekend a failure? If you're setting the bar with Narnia (which did $65 million on the same weekend 2 years ago) you're basing it on an outlier. Compass did better than all but two movies on the same weekend from the last seven years, being beat out by a movie based on a book with better recognition (SHOCK!) and Ocean's Eleven, and the latter only barely. And being December, it's not a junk weekend. I think it's a little much to call it a 'failure.' If there is a dramatic drop off next week, then maybe you have something. But as it seems so far, it's doing just fine.

And just think what Europe would look like right now if the Christian church hadnt preserved some semblance of learning in the Dark Ages. Just think of all the great works of art we wouldnt have. I mean, yeah, you CAN have art without religion, but really, you can only look at a picture of a bowl of fruit so many times before you start to say, "Its the same damn bowl of fruit. I'd much rather look at a bunch of angels smiting sinners for a change." Just think about all the interesting things we wouldnt have to read about in the history books.
Lets also consider the effects of, say, a Mongol invasion without a strong cultural deterrent, the Tuetonic Order, and the various other orders which essentially kept Europe from ending up like Novgorod.

I'm not saying religion, especially Christianity, is perfect, but the alternative is hardly better in every catagory. Unless you care to pay annual tribute to Khan al Khan over in the capitol of whichever faction happend to rule Europe. I doubt science would've made much progress if every European ruler had to pay most of his annual income to a Mongol tax supervisor to avoid getting pillaged.
The early Church destroyed and suppressed much knowledge, actually. It is despite the Church's efforts that we still have Aristotle and other Greek philosophers. The Church tried to destroy virtually all pre-Christian philosophy, on the grounds that there could be no good moral philosophy before Jesus. It's only because the (for the time) secular Islamic scholars managed to preserve it that we still have such works. Isn't that frightening? What if we'd lost generations of Greek philosophy, as we surely would have had the Church been more successful?

And if it hadn't been for the Church, there would have been no need to "preserve some semblance of learning." The Church was instrumental in hiding or destroying most of the knowledge of the ancient world - they began the glorious institution of book burning which has been carried on by such wonderful people as Hitler and Stalin, as well as a number of extreme fundamentalists of all sorts today - Christian, Muslim and Jewish. They were also responsible for suppressing learning and discovery under the pretext of stemming heresy. Civilization, including the arts, would have developed quite well without Christianity, thank you, just in a different direction - and not necessarily Asian.
Indeed. And consider-- who hushed up Gallileo? Who tried (and nearly succeeded!) in censoring Spinoza? Again, the culprit is religion!

Godwins law!

Anyway...

Like I said, good and bad. History isnt just in shades of grey, its got a whole freakin' rainbow. A n-dimensional rainbow in constant motion. And its got birds in it.
And it may have, it may not have. Can you prove it in a scientific manner? Do you posses some sort of time machine which allows you to travel to the past of some alternate Earth and play with history?
If so, youre a sick person.

No, but you can assess probability. For example, you can look back to, say, the Punic wars and say that, had Carthage prevailed, Rome would not have become a dominant power. Likewise, had Prryhus of Epeiros chosen to take the offer of the Macedonian throne instead of the Sicilian, it's quite likely, I think, that he would have prevailed against Rome, and our culture would be far more heavily based on Hellenism than on Roman culture. I'd say the same had Megas Alexandros not died young.
We can even look at what happened after the Church lost much of its power, and extrapolate from that! And it was only after the Church weakened that the Enlightenment was able to occur.


And, if you know your history, you'll know that without that awful event which was, of course, far worse than any war prosecuted for money, power, or just because a nations ruler was having a bad day, the Crusades, Europe would have developed, culturally and technologically, MUCH more slowly than it did.
And we wouldnt have such important devices as the common couch for our sitting benifit.
Of course, a lot of people were killed, and the Byzantine Empire fell, but they were on the way out anyway, and it allowed the Seljuk/Ottoman Empire to bring some measure of unity to the Middle East, which gave Europe something to do besides fighting itself...
And it goes on.

Ah, but the only reason we needed the Crusades for those things was because of the Church's earlier actions! It was the Church, again, that nearly destroyed Aristotle. It was the church that discouraged any thought out of line with religious dogma.

And do you REALLY think art would be what it is today without religion? Most INTERSTING art is based in mythology or religion, especially prior to the 18th century. A thousand years of portraits? Do you REALLY want that?

The reason so much art is religious is because, for that amount of time, almost all commissions came from the Church. There is plenty of beauty outside of religion that could be a wonderful source for art. Have you seen photos from the Hubble Space telescope, peering into far-off galaxies and nebulae? Indeed, science in general could be a beautiful subject for art!

Or if that doesn't catch your fancy, what about history? Much art has been based on history, and much of it is sublime! Look at Shakespeare's plays.
Indeed, that makes me have to mention. What if Shakespeare would have had to work only on commissions from the Church? We would be deprived of such masterpieces as Hamlet and Macbeth! Would you want that?

The early Church destroyed and suppressed much knowledge, actually. It is despite the Church's efforts that we still have Aristotle and other Greek philosophers. The Church tried to destroy virtually all pre-Christian philosophy, on the grounds that there could be no good moral philosophy before Jesus. It's only because the (for the time) secular Islamic scholars managed to preserve it that we still have such works. Isn't that frightening? What if we'd lost generations of Greek philosophy, as we surely would have had the Church been more successful?

You know, minus Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, who, basically, retroactively "Christianized" the philosophy of Plato. Plato's and Aristotle's philosophy lived on, it just had a Christian bent to it.

But agreed on the Islam part. Too bad it's not still like that. :(


Indeed. And consider-- who hushed up Gallileo? Who tried (and nearly succeeded!) in censoring Spinoza? Again, the culprit is religion!

Yet ol' Gally was probably one of the most devout Catholics on the continent. Go figure.

Oh, and I disagree, the culprit isn't religion. It's religion with power, and I do believe that distinction must be made.

And it was only after the Church weakened that the Enlightenment was able to occur.

....are you serious?

First off, the Renaissance would not have been possible without the Catholic Church, since the whole purpose for those discoveries were not only to understand the intricate value of Man (the idea of which was taken both from Greek philosophy and the Bible), but to better understand the universe, as to better understand God, and grow closer to him. Granted, it was helped by the Borgia's (God Bless Alex VI :D )

Second, the Reformation and the Protestant ideas were what helped curb the power of the Church, by creating a faction that...well, wasn't focused only on Rome.

And to wrap it up, the Enlightenment was an inevitability. Western philosophy is a pendulum, going back and forth between emotion and reason. Saint Augustine managed to write down a philosophy, in his writings about Christianity, that theoretically balanced the two. That didn't last much, though, since the Church basically controlled the people by developing Dogma to appeal to the emotions of the people. From here, call the Renaissance -- reason and academic learning. Follow, the Reformation. While it started as an academic thing, the people took it up not so much for the ideas it espoused but the fact that, for those people, it felt pretty good that they were guaranteed Salvation without having pesky Rome look after them (minus Geneva. You were fucked).

Introduce: The Enlightenment/Age of Reason. Self-explanitory, yay reason, boo emotion, etc, etc. And from there, Romaniticism/"Sturm und Drang," emotion etc.

Then it all died with Existentialism, which advocated fuck all. And now, we have a little bit of everything, but Rationalism seems to be making a come-back, contemporary art movements notwithstanding.

It's always going back and forth, since no one will ever be satisfied long with the current establishment. Cue Georg Hegel.

Ah, but the only reason we needed the Crusades for those things was because of the Church's earlier actions!

Or, you know, the destruction of the Library of Alexandria and the fall of the Roman Empire due to the invasion of the Ostrogoths.

It was the Church, again, that nearly destroyed Aristotle.

See: Saint Augustine/Thomas Aquinas. They disagree with you.

We would be deprived of such masterpieces as Hamlet and Macbeth! Would you want that?

Well.... ;)

Or if that doesn't catch your fancy, what about history? Much art has been based on history, and much of it is sublime! Look at Shakespeare's plays.
Indeed, that makes me have to mention. What if Shakespeare would have had to work only on commissions from the Church? We would be deprived of such masterpieces as Hamlet and Macbeth! Would you want that?
I don't follow. Why wouldn't the Church commission Shakespeare? It commissioned plenty of other artists.
Now that I think of it, Shakespeare was sometimes commissioned by a religious figure. Queen Elizabeth and King James were both the heads of the Anglican Church, and strong supporters of drama.

Just imagine, for a moment, how many brilliant scientists and researchers that should have been that never were. How many gifted, intelligent people had their intellect wasted because they had the ill luck to be born into a deeply religious home, and taught that science and rational investigation were bad? What might they have accomplished? A cure for AIDS or cancer or one of many other deadly problems? Who knows?! But to just imagine it... it's tragic.

I'm imagining it:
There is no disease. Everyone is nice to one another. What's that? It's...it's a unicorn. There's a rainbow, and a pot of gold at the end of it. Everything is so beautiful.
I won't go back, you can't make me! I'm staying here forever!

You know, minus Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, who, basically, retroactively "Christianized" the philosophy of Plato. Plato's and Aristotle's philosophy lived on, it just had a Christian bent to it.

But agreed on the Islam part. Too bad it's not still like that. :(

Well, the parts that were easily adaptable to Christianity, sure, were, for some time, not censored. But Augustine and Aquinas and others like them were a minority-- remember, we did have to recover greek philosophy from Islamic scholars to have it in Europe again. I don't think the fact that they eventually said "fine, Aristotle is okay after all," absolves them of the earlier guilt of losing much of his work in the first place.

(Incidentally, I do think Aquinas is a little bit overrated, especially his supposedly wonderful proofs for God's existence. Not that he wasn't a good philosopher, but I think he's given way too much credit... I've even heard it said that he's the second greatest philosopher in western history!)


Yet ol' Gally was probably one of the most devout Catholics on the continent. Go figure.


But I don't think his religion can truly get credit for his findings. Were he born into a less religious time, he still probably would have been the sort of investigative mind needed for his work. And he probably would have been able to do more than he did had the Church not threatened him with the Inquisition.


Oh, and I disagree, the culprit isn't religion. It's religion with power, and I do believe that distinction must be made.


But I think that part of judging a belief should include what the belief will do when it has the power to do so. I could, using the same logic, say that Stalinism isn't bad, only Stalinism with power.


....are you serious?

First off, the Renaissance would not have been possible without the Catholic Church, since the whole purpose for those discoveries were not only to understand the intricate value of Man (the idea of which was taken both from Greek philosophy and the Bible), but to better understand the universe, as to better understand God, and grow closer to him. Granted, it was helped by the Borgia's (God Bless Alex VI :D )

Don't be silly; of course the Renaissance, or a similar event, could have happened without the Church. People did science and philosophy before the Church, and they will continue to do so after Christianity has died and been replaced by some other faith. But the Church certainly slowed down the sort of thought that became common in the Renaissance, in that they killed people for having heretical thoughts.

Do you really think that we'd still be in the middle ages were it not for the Church?


Second, the Reformation and the Protestant ideas were what helped curb the power of the Church, by creating a faction that...well, wasn't focused only on Rome.


Correct. The power of religion in general was weakened because it was splintered into multiple squabbling factions. In-fighting has a tendency to weaken the whole, plus no one organization quite had the hegemonic power that the Church had previously had. The reformation did weaken the power of religion, which was entirely my point.


And to wrap it up, the Enlightenment was an inevitability. Western philosophy is a pendulum, going back and forth between emotion and reason. Saint Augustine managed to write down a philosophy, in his writings about Christianity, that theoretically balanced the two. That didn't last much, though, since the Church basically controlled the people by developing Dogma to appeal to the emotions of the people. From here, call the Renaissance -- reason and academic learning. Follow, the Reformation. While it started as an academic thing, the people took it up not so much for the ideas it espoused but the fact that, for those people, it felt pretty good that they were guaranteed Salvation without having pesky Rome look after them (minus Geneva. You were fucked).

Certainly, it was inevitable. But, in all probability, if there wasn't a hegemonic power doing everything it could to prevent it, it would have happened sooner. And had the Renaissance happened sooner, how much more advanced would we likely be today? I find it tragic that it didn't happen sooner, because it easily could have, if only the sort of thought that led to it wasn't punishable by the Church.


Introduce: The Enlightenment/Age of Reason. Self-explanitory, yay reason, boo emotion, etc, etc. And from there, Romaniticism/"Sturm und Drang," emotion etc.

Then it all died with Existentialism, which advocated fuck all. And now, we have a little bit of everything, but Rationalism seems to be making a come-back, contemporary art movements notwithstanding.

It's always going back and forth, since no one will ever be satisfied long with the current establishment. Cue Georg Hegel.

Certainly, but during, say, Romanticism, the inquisition wouldn't torture you for using logic. Had Romantics done so, then would it not take far longer for reason to make a comeback?


Or, you know, the destruction of the Library of Alexandria and the fall of the Roman Empire due to the invasion of the Ostrogoths.

Oh, I don't deny that that was an important event. But the Church only made it worse by promoting anti-intellectualism in the aftermath of said events. What if they would have promoted reason and science instead?


See: Saint Augustine/Thomas Aquinas. They disagree with you.

Again, they were exceptions, and even with them, we had to get much of Aristotle back from Muslims, who had preserved it.

I do have to note that you didn't really address Spinoza, who I would argue is one of the better philosophers in history, whose work was very nearly lost in its entirety because of religion. The fact that it very nearly was lost has to make you wonder-- or, it does for me, at least-- how many like him were lost? How many such brilliant men may there have been that we'll never know about because the Church was more successful in censoring them? I don't think we'll ever know, but I think that, in all probability, it is non-zero, though I could be mistaken.

But even if it is zero, the fact that they tried to destroy knowledge is vitally important. The fact that they burned books, tortured scientists and academics is nigh unforgivable to me. I would never try to destroy any book. I would never advocate wiping the Bible or the Qu'ran from existence. It's unthinkable. Knowledge should be something to spread and cherished, not destroyed!


Well.... ;)
:eek:

I don't follow. Why wouldn't the Church commission Shakespeare? It commissioned plenty of other artists.
Now that I think of it, Shakespeare was sometimes commissioned by a religious figure. Queen Elizabeth and King James were both the heads of the Anglican Church, and strong supporters of drama.

Right. But his commissions weren't entirely from the religious establishment, which, if you read my post, you'd have seen I said in the first place. What if, instead of writing Macbeth, he would have had to written a play about religion? What if all his sublime sonnets would have had to be religious?
My point, with that part, was to refute the claim that all interesting art is religious in nature. I would certainly call Shakespeare brilliant, would you not? And his plays and his sonnets were most often not religious in nature.

I'm imagining it:
There is no disease. Everyone is nice to one another. What's that? It's...it's a unicorn. There's a rainbow, and a pot of gold at the end of it. Everything is so beautiful.
I won't go back, you can't make me! I'm staying here forever!

I didn't say that we'd have cured every disease or have solved every problem, but I think it's obvious that if we had had more scientists and researches, we'd have made more scientific advancement.

I didn't say that we'd have cured every disease or have solved every problem, but I think it's obvious that if we had had more scientists and researches, we'd have made more scientific advancement.

I know, I was kidding. At the same time, it is a bit of a stretch to say religion is a malign influence because the real world with religion is not as good as the imaginary world without it.

Right. But his commissions weren't entirely from the religious establishment, which, if you read my post, you'd have seen I said in the first place. What if, instead of writing Macbeth, he would have had to written a play about religion? What if all his sublime sonnets would have had to be religious?
My point, with that part, was to refute the claim that all interesting art is religious in nature. I would certainly call Shakespeare brilliant, would you not? And his plays and his sonnets were most often not religious in nature.
But no one's commissions were entirely from the religious establishment, unless you count people like Aquinas who were employees of the Church. And I don't think a play has to be about Jesus or something that obvious to be about religion. For example, when I listen to Bach's music, I don't think of his Lutheran faith, even though it played a large part in his life and almost certainly influenced his music. Similarly, when I read a poem by Eliot, I don't think of his Anglo-Catholicism. If Bach were not Lutheran, St. Matthew's Passion would probably be different, and if Eliot were Jewish I doubt he would have written "Ash Wednesday" the way he did. Same with Shakespeare.

I know, I was kidding. At the same time, it is a bit of a stretch to say religion is a malign influence because the real world with religion is not as good as the imaginary world without it.
What? It's a stretch to say that religion is a malign influence because the world would be better without it? :confused:

But no one's commissions were entirely from the religious establishment, unless you count people like Aquinas who were employees of the Church. And I don't think a play has to be about Jesus or something that obvious to be about religion. For example, when I listen to Bach's music, I don't think of his Lutheran faith, even though it played a large part in his life and almost certainly influenced his music. Similarly, when I read a poem by Eliot, I don't think of his Anglo-Catholicism. If Bach were not Lutheran, St. Matthew's Passion would probably be different, and if Eliot were Jewish I doubt he would have written "Ash Wednesday" the way he did. Same with Shakespeare.

Ah, but you must consider the bit I was replying to. His claim is that all interesting art is about religion(not just by religious people, but about religion), and that you cannot have interesting art without it.

Well, the parts that were easily adaptable to Christianity, sure, were, for some time, not censored. But Augustine and Aquinas and others like them were a minority-- remember, we did have to recover greek philosophy from Islamic scholars to have it in Europe again. I don't think the fact that they eventually said "fine, Aristotle is okay after all," absolves them of the earlier guilt of losing much of his work in the first place.

They may have been a minority, but being Doctors of the Church, they damn well were an influential minority.

And they took almost all of their philosophical structures. It was just the specific-application stuff they didn't take because it would have been stupid to, just like trying to, oh, I don't know, apply Western style governments to Eastern cultures.

(Incidentally, I do think Aquinas is a little bit overrated, especially his supposedly wonderful proofs for God's existence. Not that he wasn't a good philosopher, but I think he's given way too much credit... I've even heard it said that he's the second greatest philosopher in western history!)

Well, I'm not much of a fan of him either, not being particularly happy about Catholicism. So we agree here. :D



But I don't think his religion can truly get credit for his findings. Were he born into a less religious time, he still probably would have been the sort of investigative mind needed for his work. And he probably would have been able to do more than he did had the Church not threatened him with the Inquisition.

I agree with the latter part -- I can't stand religion with power, because that's what happens. Nor do I say that religion gets all the credit. But you cannot deny that it played at least a relatively significant part.

But I think that part of judging a belief should include what the belief will do when it has the power to do so. I could, using the same logic, say that Stalinism isn't bad, only Stalinism with power.

And I disagree, because when a belief system is implemented into governmental practice, nine times out of ten that's not actually what the belief system is saying -- the belief system is being exploited by dickheads in power. The Catholic Church in that time is very far from what Jesus ever preached about.

Don't be silly; of course the Renaissance, or a similar event, could have happened without the Church. People did science and philosophy before the Church, and they will continue to do so after Christianity has died and been replaced by some other faith.

Christianity will never die. :p

And could it have happened? In a completely different way, sure. But for it to happen the way it did, the Church was vitally necessary. Everything is intertwined in history, remove one part, and everything crashes down.

But the Church certainly slowed down the sort of thought that became common in the Renaissance, in that they killed people for having heretical thoughts.

I agree, the Church was a nasty little bugger. But slowed? I don't think slowed is an appropriate word.

Philosophy stems from the times. The Church established that kind of dogma with the fall of the Roman Empire -- humanity was, really, worthless at the time, and because of the pillaging and looting of the Germanic tribes, the writings of the Antiquity philosophers were mostly destroyed. All the Church did was take what was left and throw it into Catholicism.

At the time, man truly was worthless -- there was nothing during that time period that would have made people think there might have been worth to man.

Do you really think that we'd still be in the middle ages were it not for the Church?

Damn right I do, 'cause the Germanic tribes weren't about to incorporate anything from Antiquity, or hold off the Mongols, or the Muslims.

Certainly, it was inevitable. But, in all probability, if there wasn't a hegemonic power doing everything it could to prevent it, it would have happened sooner. And had the Renaissance happened sooner, how much more advanced would we likely be today? I find it tragic that it didn't happen sooner, because it easily could have, if only the sort of thought that led to it wasn't punishable by the Church.

See, I disagree, I don't think it could have happened sooner. The whole idea of "appreciating what we have here on Earth" actually started to come about in force with the end of the Plague. After witnessing 1/3 of Europe's population die, people started thinking, "Well, hey, let's enjoy life."

Cue worth of man.

Certainly, but during, say, Romanticism, the inquisition wouldn't torture you for using logic.

OR would they? XD

Had Romantics done so, then would it not take far longer for reason to make a comeback?

No, probably not. Of course, the Romantics wouldn't have done so, since that'd be quite against their philosophy.

Oh, I don't deny that that was an important event. But the Church only made it worse by promoting anti-intellectualism in the aftermath of said events. What if they would have promoted reason and science instead?

What if the Flying Spaghetti Monster revealed His Noodly Appendages to us so we may believe?

Even if the Church wanted to, they couldn't have -- they had nothing to go off of.


Again, they were exceptions, and even with them, we had to get much of Aristotle back from Muslims, who had preserved it.

I do have to note that you didn't really address Spinoza,

You talked about Spinoza? Whoops. XD Well, that's what I get for skimming.

who I would argue is one of the better philosophers in history, whose work was very nearly lost in its entirety because of religion.

Oh sure, his Jewish neighbourhood didn't take too kindly to him, but lost because of the Church? Please. He was doing fine.

The fact that it very nearly was lost has to make you wonder-- or, it does for me, at least-- how many like him were lost? How many such brilliant men may there have been that we'll never know about because the Church was more successful in censoring them? I don't think we'll ever know, but I think that, in all probability, it is non-zero, though I could be mistaken.

Frankly, that's a stupid reason to hate the church, since you can say that about every culture and institution.

But even if it is zero, the fact that they tried to destroy knowledge is vitally important. The fact that they burned books, tortured scientists and academics is nigh unforgivable to me.

I as well. Religion + power = bad

I would never try to destroy any book. I would never advocate wiping the Bible or the Qu'ran from existence. It's unthinkable. Knowledge should be something to spread and cherished, not destroyed!

Tell that to Faust. XD


:eek:

Shakespeare was dull. Same shit, different covers. :p "Everybody dies" is a great way to sum up just about every single one of his tragedies.

In other news, bed time.

What? It's a stretch to say that religion is a malign influence because the world would be better without it? :confused:
Now who's skimming? ;)
You proposed a scenario that, while ideal, does not exist. It makes sense to say "religion is bad because it's done this, this, and this." What makes less sense is saying "religion is bad because it kept hypothetical people from reaching their hypothetical potential." Stick with the concrete, leave the theoretical and abstract to the faiths you are decrying.



Ah, but you must consider the bit I was replying to. His claim is that all interesting art is about religion(not just by religious people, but about religion), and that you cannot have interesting art without it.
Oh, okay. I don't agree with that at all, I'll side with you on this one.

All I care about is that Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig are in it. Both are eye-candy.

Well, the parts that were easily adaptable to Christianity, sure, were, for some time, not censored. But Augustine and Aquinas and others like them were a minority-- remember, we did have to recover greek philosophy from Islamic scholars to have it in Europe again. I don't think the fact that they eventually said "fine, Aristotle is okay after all," absolves them of the earlier guilt of losing much of his work in the first place.

(Incidentally, I do think Aquinas is a little bit overrated, especially his supposedly wonderful proofs for God's existence. Not that he wasn't a good philosopher, but I think he's given way too much credit... I've even heard it said that he's the second greatest philosopher in western history!)

I was recently reading Aquinas. Something interesting I noticed that when he stuck with Aristotle's method (logic and observation), everything he said made sense, or was at least pretty well supported. It was only when he cited Aristotle directly that he started going in the deep end, which I thought was pretty ironic.

As for his God proofs, I found them interesting, if not horribly convincing. They seemed more like evidence you would use in a criminal investigation than a mathematical proof.

"Atheism for kids. That is what Philip Pullman sells. It is his hope that 'The Golden Compass' ... will entice parents to buy his trilogy as a Christmas gift," Donahue wrote. "It is our hope that the film fails to meet box-office expectations and that his books attract few buyers."

Lol. Atheism is a choice only adults can make? But hellfire and original sin is fine and healthy for the kiddies?

Babies are born believers, you see. It's something that happens in the womb.

EDIT: Whoa, how long has this thread been going? You guys are onto Aquinas?

Now who's skimming? ;)
You proposed a scenario that, while ideal, does not exist. It makes sense to say "religion is bad because it's done this, this, and this." What makes less sense is saying "religion is bad because it kept hypothetical people from reaching their hypothetical potential." Stick with the concrete, leave the theoretical and abstract to the faiths you are decrying.


There is nothing wrong with the hypothetical, as long as you derive it through reasonable conclusions.

For example, if I say, "Had UGA not lost to Tennessee in football, we would have done better in the BCS rankings, and would probably be in the championship instead of the Sugar Bowl."

Yes, this is a hypothetical, but it's a perfectly reasonable claim.

Now, because the religious institutions slowed down scientific progress, and stopped people from practicing any heretical science, I would argue that 'tis perfectly rational to say that fewer people ended up practicing said forms of science than otherwise would have. Indeed, that was the whole purpose of persecuting said people, no?

Therefore, it can be concluded that there were fewer scientific advancements in that time period than there would have otherwise been, and since our scientific knowledge has a tendency to explode exponentially...
Well, you get the idea.

Oh, and if I forget, remind me to get back to Derscon's previous post. I have a final tomorrow morning, so I need my sleep and can't tackle such a long one, and I want to try to get my closing argument (http://www.debate.com/debates/America-is-a-Christian-Nation/1/) nearly done before I go to bed. (Pssssst! Register there and vote for me so I can win my first debate!) :p

*snip*

The link to your closing argument doesn't work. *cough*

If Philip Pulmann is an atheist, isn't there something contradictory about him having God as a character in one of his books? :)

All insightful observations aside, I enjoyed the books, as did my daughter who introduced me to them. I will be seeing the film soon. Hopefully, they didn't butcher up the books too much.

The link to your closing argument doesn't work. *cough*

D'oh! Fixed.

If Philip Pulmann is an atheist, isn't there something contradictory about him having God as a character in one of his books? :)

All insightful observations aside, I enjoyed the books, as did my daughter who introduced me to them. I will be seeing the film soon. Hopefully, they didn't butcher up the books too much.

I hereby award you Noob of the Week award!

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc215/Nobel_Hobos/Bah_noobs.gif

What a ripper first post!

EDIT: The pic was sincerely meant as a Token-Internet-Goodie, and it's not a pic of me, it's hit #1 of Google:Images:"Tramp" (http://svenschindler.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/07/tramp_master_361x470.gif), with text from the Gimp.

I hereby award you Noob of the Week award!

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc215/Nobel_Hobos/Bah_noobs.gif

What a ripper first post!

EDIT: The pic was sincerely meant as a Token-Internet-Goodie, and it's not a pic of me, it's hit #1 of Google:Images:"Tramp" (http://svenschindler.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/07/tramp_master_361x470.gif), with text from the Gimp.

....awesome pic XD

http://cectic.com/comics/078.png

If Philip Pulmann is an atheist, isn't there something contradictory about him having God as a character in one of his books? :)
Do you think that Tolkien really believed in hobbits and orcs? Did Lewis really believe in talking lions and magic wardrobes? Does Prattchett really believe that Discworld is a real place?
http://cectic.com/comics/078.png

Winnar!

Sure, but the best thing is of course to prevent the children from ever becoming faith-heads.

Boo-hoo! People disagreeing with my world-view! OH THE HUMANITY!

They may have been a minority, but being Doctors of the Church, they damn well were an influential minority.

And they took almost all of their philosophical structures. It was just the specific-application stuff they didn't take because it would have been stupid to, just like trying to, oh, I don't know, apply Western style governments to Eastern cultures.

The fact that they found certain applications inconvenient is no excuse to silence them, however. Again, I think applying a biblical government would be just about one of the stupidest things imaginable, but I would never attempt to destroy all copies of the Bible like that.



I agree with the latter part -- I can't stand religion with power, because that's what happens. Nor do I say that religion gets all the credit. But you cannot deny that it played at least a relatively significant part.

Possibly it did, but it seems to me that those with the mindset for science who live in a religious society would have that mindset in a secular society, too, and would therefore do their science anyway.

But, ultimately, you have to look at net effect. Even conceding that some people who did science in the religious society may not have done so without religious inspiration, you have to consider the many more who did not do science because it was heretical. Did the religious ideas do more to slow down science or more to speed it up? And I'd certainly say they slowed it down. And, in return, did we get anything comparable to all that knowledge that we could have had? I think not.


And I disagree, because when a belief system is implemented into governmental practice, nine times out of ten that's not actually what the belief system is saying -- the belief system is being exploited by dickheads in power. The Catholic Church in that time is very far from what Jesus ever preached about.

Ah, but religion-- as a whole-- attempts to get itself into government by its very nature. Sure, there are exceptions, but they are just that: exceptions. Generally, religion wants to regulate peoples' lives, and the easiest way to do that is to hijack the government.


Christianity will never die. :p

:rolleyes:

And could it have happened? In a completely different way, sure. But for it to happen the way it did, the Church was vitally necessary. Everything is intertwined in history, remove one part, and everything crashes down.

Sure, it would have happened differently. But different doesn't mean bad, and the essential part of it, knowledge and reason's great leap forward would still have happened.


I agree, the Church was a nasty little bugger. But slowed? I don't think slowed is an appropriate word.

How so? Science would have advanced faster were it not for the Church; ergo, the Church slowed science.


Philosophy stems from the times. The Church established that kind of dogma with the fall of the Roman Empire -- humanity was, really, worthless at the time, and because of the pillaging and looting of the Germanic tribes, the writings of the Antiquity philosophers were mostly destroyed. All the Church did was take what was left and throw it into Catholicism.

At the time, man truly was worthless -- there was nothing during that time period that would have made people think there might have been worth to man.



Damn right I do, 'cause the Germanic tribes weren't about to incorporate anything from Antiquity, or hold off the Mongols, or the Muslims.

I disagree. I don't think their hold would have been nearly as strong as that of the Church. Maybe in the short term, the Church did help. But in the long run, the Germanic tribes would have grown complacent-- and without the hegemony or the religious zeal of the Church, it likely would have been rather faster.


See, I disagree, I don't think it could have happened sooner. The whole idea of "appreciating what we have here on Earth" actually started to come about in force with the end of the Plague. After witnessing 1/3 of Europe's population die, people started thinking, "Well, hey, let's enjoy life."

Cue worth of man.

Ah, but that returns to my underlying premise, that the Church slowing science was a bad thing. What if they wouldn't have done so? It seems probable that better containment/disease prevention policies could have been implemented if they had a better understanding of disease than just "goddidit to smite the sinners."


No, probably not. Of course, the Romantics wouldn't have done so, since that'd be quite against their philosophy.

Why would it not have? If people will be tortured for doing something, they will be less likely to do it. People generally want to avoid pain. And yeah, they wouldn't have done it, but that wasn't the point. :p


What if the Flying Spaghetti Monster revealed His Noodly Appendages to us so we may believe?

Even if the Church wanted to, they couldn't have -- they had nothing to go off of.

Certainly they could have. "Remember back in the day, when Rome did all sorts of neat stuff for us? They built aqueducts and roads and stuff? Well, that sort of thing is ultimately a boon from science. Let's do that."

I think people would have accepted that.


You talked about Spinoza? Whoops. XD Well, that's what I get for skimming.



Oh sure, his Jewish neighbourhood didn't take too kindly to him, but lost because of the Church? Please. He was doing fine.

The Jewish community was siding with the church when they did so, though. The Church attempted to destroy much of his work. He wasn't very popular with them because of his pantheism.


Frankly, that's a stupid reason to hate the church, since you can say that about every culture and institution.

Well, for one, I don't hate the Catholic church or religion. I just think it's unfortunate that they've fucked humanity over so many times and wish that they hadn't done so.
But, to better address your point, sure, every society may do it to some extent. But you have to look at how much, as a matter of policy, the Church did this. And it was rather a lot. That was the whole point of the Inquisitions, you know. To hush up heretics. And destroying so many brilliant people should be abhorred.


I as well. Religion + power = bad

But most religions actively seek power, and thus seek to be, as you put it, "bad." An institution should seek to better itself, not worsen itself.



Shakespeare was dull. Same shit, different covers. :p "Everybody dies" is a great way to sum up just about every single one of his tragedies.

Heretic! Persecute! Kill the unbeliever!

The early Church destroyed and suppressed much knowledge, actually. It is despite the Church's efforts that we still have Aristotle and other Greek philosophers. The Church tried to destroy virtually all pre-Christian philosophy, on the grounds that there could be no good moral philosophy before Jesus. It's only because the (for the time) secular Islamic scholars managed to preserve it that we still have such works. Isn't that frightening? What if we'd lost generations of Greek philosophy, as we surely would have had the Church been more successful?
And yet, without the Church, Europe wouldnt've had anything at all, considering the state of society after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Unless you think the Eastern Romans would've been generous enough to share with everybody.
Consider, most of the literate population of Europe was contained within the Church. Without that, how long do you think it would've taken Europe to get out of the Dark Ages? With no religious motivation, I dont see that region being nearly as successful as it was, and, I imagine, progress would be set back several hundred years at least, considering the tendancy of those nations outside of Europe to reach a certain point and say, "Righty-ho, we're happy here, no more science for us." With a few exceptions, of course. But relying on China to spread the good word of, say, gravity to Europe wouldnt be too wise, in my opinion.

And, if you'll consider a little bit of spin, the destruction of Greek and other ancient texts might well be considered a boost to scientific progress, considering the Greek approach to that sort of thing was basically, "A smart guy said it, so it must be true!" Which is hardly any better than "God said it, so it must be true!"
I've seen a few other discussions on the forum argueing whether or not the Church was responsible for the development of the scientific method. Most of them seem unresolved as yet.

But I wont argue that the Church didnt hinder progress as well, however, I think the overall effect was a positive one when a wider view is considered.


Indeed. And consider-- who hushed up Gallileo? Who tried (and nearly succeeded!) in censoring Spinoza? Again, the culprit is religion!
You mean the church. Religion more often than not has little to do with religious government.


No, but you can assess probability. For example, you can look back to, say, the Punic wars and say that, had Carthage prevailed, Rome would not have become a dominant power. Likewise, had Prryhus of Epeiros chosen to take the offer of the Macedonian throne instead of the Sicilian, it's quite likely, I think, that he would have prevailed against Rome, and our culture would be far more heavily based on Hellenism than on Roman culture. I'd say the same had Megas Alexandros not died young.
Or maybe the Gauls would've taken over the world and we'd all be speaking some sort of strange proto-French and drinking boar blood.

We can even look at what happened after the Church lost much of its power, and extrapolate from that! And it was only after the Church weakened that the Enlightenment was able to occur.
Long after the Church lost all its practical power. France was able to make the Vatican its bitch quite a long time before the Middle Ages ended. The Avignon Papacy?
Yeah, the Pope did have some power after that, but mostly it was the power to suggest things and, if a leader liked them, get people to say, "Deus Vult!"
Hell, even before then nobody really cared when Rome was sacked by the Normans back in the 11th century.

Ah, but the only reason we needed the Crusades for those things was because of the Church's earlier actions! It was the Church, again, that nearly destroyed Aristotle. It was the church that discouraged any thought out of line with religious dogma.
You mean Europeans would've invented the couch on their own? And established trade routes with China? Would they have sacked Constantinople without the, and I use the term loosely, organization brought on by the Crusades? Could a SINGLE European nation have taken on Eastern Rome without first being invited into the capital to fight off Teh Ebil Muslimz?


The reason so much art is religious is because, for that amount of time, almost all commissions came from the Church. There is plenty of beauty outside of religion that could be a wonderful source for art. Have you seen photos from the Hubble Space telescope, peering into far-off galaxies and nebulae? Indeed, science in general could be a beautiful subject for art!
I have indeed, however, I dont think any medieval or rennesiance arists had access to them.
Aside from that, nature is nice, but it gets rather boring after a while. Ever been to Switzerland? Its pretty much all mountains and lakes and trees as far as I could tell while I was there. The first few hours were breathtaking, but past a certain point it starts to wear a bit.

Or if that doesn't catch your fancy, what about history? Much art has been based on history, and much of it is sublime! Look at Shakespeare's plays.
And most of the interesting bits of history (prior to and during the Rennesiance, anyway) are the result of...the actions of the Church, or 'religious' people.

Indeed, that makes me have to mention. What if Shakespeare would have had to work only on commissions from the Church? We would be deprived of such masterpieces as Hamlet and Macbeth! Would you want that?
Shakespear isnt really my thing. But I'm sure that somebody with his intelligence could've come up with something interesting.
Besides, the English have always been a bunch of heretics. The only reason the Church didnt wipe them out was the silly channel they've got.
And wouldnt the world be so much better off without England? No America, no shepherds pie, no Middle East/Africa/etc. Crisis. Why, without England we'd have no troubles at all!

Seriously though, we ARE at least partially in agreement. I do agree, as stated before, that the Church and religion have had negative effects, but they've also had very positive effects on humanity as well. They've driven progress as well as hindered it, created great works of art, as well as destroyed them, killed millions and saved millions.
Its almost like the Church and religion are some sort of metaphore for human nature! ;)

The fact that they found certain applications inconvenient is no excuse to silence them, however. Again, I think applying a biblical government would be just about one of the stupidest things imaginable, but I would never attempt to destroy all copies of the Bible like that.

It's not a matter of inconvenience, it's that the points weren't relevant at the time.

And again, I agree, I don't want to silence anyone, and I think the Church shouldn't have.

In fact, I'm somewhat surprised I'm defending the Catholic Church. Cue End Times. :D

Possibly it did, but it seems to me that those with the mindset for science who live in a religious society would have that mindset in a secular society, too, and would therefore do their science anyway.

Perhaps, perhaps not. It's not really an arguable or defendable point, it's purely hypothetical. Which is why most of what we're arguing is stupid, since we can't know. :p

But, ultimately, you have to look at net effect. Even conceding that some people who did science in the religious society may not have done so without religious inspiration, you have to consider the many more who did not do science because it was heretical.

My guess? Considering the time period, not too many. Remember, these people were used to being told what to do -- Rome was Caesaropapist, remember, pretty much since the time of...well, Caesar. :p I'd be willing to make a bet that if the Church wasn't around, there'd be less people doing science.

Did the religious ideas do more to slow down science or more to speed it up? And I'd certainly say they slowed it down. And, in return, did we get anything comparable to all that knowledge that we could have had? I think not.

Had Saint George not killed that fucking dragon, we could be using a perfectly good, clean, method of transportation.

I say that the Church helped scientific progress, because had the Church not sustained learning and the sciences, it would have died entirely.

Ah, but religion-- as a whole-- attempts to get itself into government by its very nature.

I bet you a lot of Buddhists, Taoists, Jews, and even Christians would disagree with you there. And I'm willing to take their word over yours.

Sure, there are exceptions, but they are just that: exceptions. Generally, religion wants to regulate peoples' lives, and the easiest way to do that is to hijack the government.

Um, no. "Religion" isn't a conscious entity. Would you say socialism is made of epic fail because OMG LOOK AT MAO AND STALIN? No, you wouldn't -- it's the same thing. It's the people hijacking the ideology that are the problem, not the ideology itself. Separate it, it's good for you.

Sure, it would have happened differently. But different doesn't mean bad, and the essential part of it, knowledge and reason's great leap forward would still have happened.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But if it would have done it itself, I bet you it would have done it later, not sooner, since without the Church, ALL of the knowledge would have been destroyed.

I disagree. I don't think their hold would have been nearly as strong as that of the Church. Maybe in the short term, the Church did help. But in the long run, the Germanic tribes would have grown complacent-- and without the hegemony or the religious zeal of the Church, it likely would have been rather faster.[/color]

Complacent? Like hell. They only grew complacent to begin with because of the Church.

[quote]Ah, but that returns to my underlying premise, that the Church slowing science was a bad thing. What if they wouldn't have done so? It seems probable that better containment/disease prevention policies could have been implemented if they had a better understanding of disease than just "goddidit to smite the sinners."

Sorry, honey, but that don't cut it.

"goddidit to smite the sinners" has been around for ages, and wasn't about to go away until the 1800's where atheism was actually beginning to be commonplace.

Frankly, your Midas Church theory is utter crap. "better containment/disease prevention policies" wouldn't have existed, because no one would have any fucking idea to begin with. The reason the people were happy with the "goddidit to smite the sinners" is because there WERE no other explanations. I'm not sure what you're thinking, but I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, so I refuse to accept that you think people in the 1300s would even have the knowledge base to pull something off that we here in 2008 still can't do very well. You can't be that stupid.

Why would it not have? If people will be tortured for doing something, they will be less likely to do it. People generally want to avoid pain.

Or, because it's forbidden, more likely.

Certainly they could have. "Remember back in the day, when Rome did all sorts of neat stuff for us? They built aqueducts and roads and stuff? Well, that sort of thing is ultimately a boon from science. Let's do that."

I think people would have accepted that.

Perhaps. Or, they'd just stare in wonder and have no idea what the fuck just happened, because we still don't get how they managed to do half the crap they did.

The Jewish community was siding with the church when they did so, though. The Church attempted to destroy much of his work. He wasn't very popular with them because of his pantheism.

Well, really, that's more of a government than a Church thing.

Well, for one, I don't hate the Catholic church or religion.

You fooled me.

I just think it's unfortunate that they've fucked humanity over so many times and wish that they hadn't done so.

...lol

But, to better address your point, sure, every society may do it to some extent. But you have to look at how much, as a matter of policy, the Church did this. And it was rather a lot./quote]

Really, no more than anyone else. If anything, even less than most.

[quote]That was the whole point of the Inquisitions, you know. To hush up heretics. And destroying so many brilliant people should be abhorred.

How do you know they were brilliant? Because they disagreed? Please.

Also, the "OMG INQUISITION" thing is kinda silly -- the Inquisition had the fairest judicial system in Europe at the time. In fact, people would rather fall under the Inquisition's jurisdiction rather than the state jurisdiction.

But most religions actively seek power, and thus seek to be, as you put it, "bad."

No?

Heretic! Persecute! Kill the unbeliever!

I see your attempt at humour and raise you a Spark Notes.

It's not a matter of inconvenience, it's that the points weren't relevant at the time.

And again, I agree, I don't want to silence anyone, and I think the Church shouldn't have.

In fact, I'm somewhat surprised I'm defending the Catholic Church. Cue End Times. :D

And the reason they did do it was because of their faith, and anything that contradicted it had to go.


Perhaps, perhaps not. It's not really an arguable or defendable point, it's purely hypothetical. Which is why most of what we're arguing is stupid, since we can't know. :p

No, we can't know for sure, but that doesn't mean we can't comment on it at all. Scientifically-minded people tend to want to do science, whether they believe in a god or not, even though external factors will sometimes make them afraid to do so. That seems reasonable, does it not?


My guess? Considering the time period, not too many. Remember, these people were used to being told what to do -- Rome was Caesaropapist, remember, pretty much since the time of...well, Caesar. :p I'd be willing to make a bet that if the Church wasn't around, there'd be less people doing science.

And Caesaropapism is a fairy religious idea, no? Remember, my post that spawned this thread-jack was about religion in general.


Had Saint George not killed that fucking dragon, we could be using a perfectly good, clean, method of transportation.

I say that the Church helped scientific progress, because had the Church not sustained learning and the sciences, it would have died entirely.

Yeah, sustained it by killing anybody who did any science that could have vaguely heretical implications. That's a great way to encourage people to do science. :p


I bet you a lot of Buddhists, Taoists, Jews, and even Christians would disagree with you there. And I'm willing to take their word over yours.

Because qualifiers, such as "generally" and "as a whole" have no meaning in the English language.;)


Um, no. "Religion" isn't a conscious entity. Would you say socialism is made of epic fail because OMG LOOK AT MAO AND STALIN? No, you wouldn't -- it's the same thing. It's the people hijacking the ideology that are the problem, not the ideology itself. Separate it, it's good for you.

If most socialists were Maoists and Stalinists, then I would say that socialism had had an overall negative impact, even if it has the potential to do well.

It's the same with religion. Sure, religion can do well, but, throughout history, it's done more bad than it has done good.

Remember, when judging an ideology's effect on history, you have to consider it as it has actually been practiced. How it ideally would have been practiced doesn't matter. And my point was that religion, as it has been practiced, has had a net negative effect. I mean, ideally, a dictatorship is a wonderful thing, because ideally, you have a benevolent, intelligent dictator who always chooses a benevolent, intelligent man for his successor. But it doesn't end up working that way, so we say that dictatorship, overall, tends to be a negative, because a malevolent or stupid person gets in there and takes away rights or fucks up the country.


Perhaps, perhaps not. But if it would have done it itself, I bet you it would have done it later, not sooner, since without the Church, ALL of the knowledge would have been destroyed.

The Church itself did a fair amount of the destroying!


Complacent? Like hell. They only grew complacent to begin with because of the Church.

You really think the Germanic tribes could have held hegemony nearly as long as the Church did? I doubt it. At the very least, in-fighting would have prevented it.


Sorry, honey, but that don't cut it.

"goddidit to smite the sinners" has been around for ages, and wasn't about to go away until the 1800's where atheism was actually beginning to be commonplace.

Ah, but at various other times, they didn't just stop at "goddidit" with no further questioning. They still were willing to try, as much as possible, to prevent it. Throughout much of the plague's peak, there was this idea of "it's God's will, so we might as well not try too hard to stop it." Indeed, this was partially encouraged by the Church's promise "don't worry about this life, it's not important, except to get you a cool next life."

Frankly, your Midas Church theory is utter crap. "better containment/disease prevention policies" wouldn't have existed, because no one would have any fucking idea to begin with. The reason the people were happy with the "goddidit to smite the sinners" is because there WERE no other explanations. I'm not sure what you're thinking, but I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, so I refuse to accept that you think people in the 1300s would even have the knowledge base to pull something off that we here in 2008 still can't do very well. You can't be that stupid.

Several societies in antiquity did a less bad job than the medieval societies at containing plagues, because they didn't accept the fatalistic "It's the will of (the) God(s), so let's not really try too hard."


Or, because it's forbidden, more likely.

Yes, and if you break the rule, then the punishment applies. That's how forbidding something works.


Perhaps. Or, they'd just stare in wonder and have no idea what the fuck just happened, because we still don't get how they managed to do half the crap they did.

Yeah. You know when a lot of that knowledge was lost?
Anyway, even if they couldn't recreate all of it, they could have done something, and probably would have done if their religious worldview was pro-science instead of anti-science.


Well, really, that's more of a government than a Church thing.

Governments acting on behalf of the church.


You fooled me.



...lol

Right, because you have to hate something to think it's been an overall negative.


Really, no more than anyone else. If anything, even less than most.

Less? Look at a parallel society in that time-- look at the Islamic part of the world! They didn't seek to destroy scientific knowledge! They treasured it! The fact that they were rather more secular than the Christian west rather supports my claim, that religion tends to slow down progress. Indeed, almost wherever you look at history, you see that same pattern. A society's religiosity tends to have a negative correlation with its scientific progress. I recognize that correlation does not always imply causation, but the connection between the two seems reasonable to me, though I am open to alternate explanations for the correlation, and would certainly accept them if they were more reasonable.


How do you know they were brilliant? Because they disagreed? Please.

Certainly, not all people before the Inquisition were brilliant, but because people who don't blindly accept the beliefs of the time tend to be more intelligent than people who follow them no matter what, I would argue that the average intelligence of somebody brought before the Inquisition was higher than that of your average peasant.

Also, the "OMG INQUISITION" thing is kinda silly -- the Inquisition had the fairest judicial system in Europe at the time. In fact, people would rather fall under the Inquisition's jurisdiction rather than the state jurisdiction.

Guess what held up that state's power? The divine right of kings. At that time, you were told that if you rebelled against your government, you were rebelling against God's representative and would go straight to hell.


No?

Sure they do. Most ideologies, even religious ones, seek power-- their followers seek to have their ideologies enforced. Now, some ideas are certainly good to have in power. The idea that we shouldn't murder people is a good one to have enforced, for example. But by your own words, religions are typically not good examples of what we want to give power to.

And the reason they did do it was because of their faith, and anything that contradicted it had to go.

Faith/ideals/philosophy of life. What you're arguing is that government should have no ideology behind it. This is impossible.

No, we can't know for sure, but that doesn't mean we can't comment on it at all. Scientifically-minded people tend to want to do science, whether they believe in a god or not, even though external factors will sometimes make them afraid to do so. That seems reasonable, does it not?

Yes, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. You say that because of the Church, science was halted. This is false, I'm saying it sustained itself because of the Church.

Yes, they would likely still want to practice, but they would not have had the means were it not for the Church. So they're screwed regardless.


And Caesaropapism is a fairy religious idea, no? Remember, my post that spawned this thread-jack was about religion in general.

....really? Whoops. XD

But, and I need this clarification to you to effectively answer anything else you present:

Do you see a difference between Faith and Religion? Rather, do you see a difference between people who have similar ideas on the supernatural and the natural getting together, synthesizing their ideas, and publishing them different from a large group actually organizing and preaching them?

Yeah, sustained it by killing anybody who did any science that could have vaguely heretical implications. That's a great way to encourage people to do science. :p

Sorry, that's not what happened.

Heresy was not typically a charge that was thrown around 4 t3h lulz. They actually had a pretty fair judicial system to decide that crap.

And really, that's no different than what modern science people do today. Just, minus the whole "killing" thing.

Because qualifiers, such as "generally" and "as a whole" have no meaning in the English language.;)

Of course not.

But seriously, no, you're wrong. As I said, "religion" doesn't do jack -- it's the people who exploit it for their own power. And people do that with all philosophical thoughts and systems. It's not a plague known only to religion, it's a pandemic covering all systems of thought. If you believe something is right, well, then try to make the world better by implementing it.

If most socialists were Maoists and Stalinists, then I would say that socialism had had an overall negative impact, even if it has the potential to do well.

And if more religious people were like Maoists or Stalinists, then I would say that religion had an overall negative impact, even if it has the potential to do well.

But guess what? Most people AREN'T like the people who get power and exploit ideology.

It's the same with religion. Sure, religion can do well, but, throughout history, it's done more bad than it has done good.

It's the same with all ideologies. Sure, all ideologies can do well, but, throughout history, they've done more bad than they have done good.

Remember, when judging an ideology's effect on history, you have to consider it as it has actually been practiced. How it ideally would have been practiced doesn't matter. And my point was that religion, as it has been practiced, has had a net negative effect.

And I disagree with you, but we're getting nowhere, because we're looking at the same stuff with different viewpoints, and we're not gonna convince each other, so at this point, I'm wondering if this argument is getting futile.

Then I remembered this is NS General, and the internet. Of course it's futile. XD


The Church itself did a fair amount of the destroying!

No, it was the collapse of Western Civilization that it was lost. The Church didn't get a power-base until well after that problem.

You really think the Germanic tribes could have held hegemony nearly as long as the Church did? I doubt it. At the very least, in-fighting would have prevented it.

And in your disgust for religion and your refusal to acknowledge it can do any good, you fail to realize that it was the very institution you condemn that manage to sustain western thought and science, even if it was coloured with religion.

In fact, the in-fighting between the tribes would have further stopped the advance of philosophical thought, since everyone would be too busy beating the crap out of each other to sit down and think.

Ah, but at various other times, they didn't just stop at "goddidit" with no further questioning. They still were willing to try, as much as possible, to prevent it. Throughout much of the plague's peak, there was this idea of "it's God's will, so we might as well not try too hard to stop it." Indeed, this was partially encouraged by the Church's promise "don't worry about this life, it's not important, except to get you a cool next life."

Actually, while the peasants did that, the guys with the capability to do something didn't. They just didn't have the resources to do it. That wouldn't come along until the 19-20th century.

Several societies in antiquity did a less bad job than the medieval societies at containing plagues, because they didn't accept the fatalistic "It's the will of (the) God(s), so let's not really try too hard."

Again, the Peasants took that mentality, but not the higher-ups and the scientists. And the Peasants couldn't have done shit anyway.

Yes, and if you break the rule, then the punishment applies. That's how forbidding something works.

And I'm saying that, because it's forbidden, more people would be drawn to it, by the mere fact it's forbidden. In fact, that's often how philosophical "progress" works. Again, cue Hegel.


Yeah. You know when a lot of that knowledge was lost?

Yes, when Western Civilization collapsed.

Anyway, even if they couldn't recreate all of it, they could have done something, and probably would have done if their religious worldview was pro-science instead of anti-science.

....it wasn't antiscience. It just felt that science, in order to be correct, should be in line with the Church, which, considering everybody's mentality from that time to the dawn of man, wasn't that radical of an idea. In fact, it always had been the general idea, that if it goes against the divine, it's probably wrong, so try again.

Governments acting on behalf of the church.

Sometimes, sometimes not. The papacy became corrupt because it had to play politics, since the Kings weren't about to blindly follow the Pope.

Right, because you have to hate something to think it's been an overall negative.

Hate usually comes from viewing it totally negative.


Less? Look at a parallel society in that time-- look at the Islamic part of the world! They didn't seek to destroy scientific knowledge! They treasured it! The fact that they were rather more secular than the Christian west rather supports my claim, that religion tends to slow down progress. Indeed, almost wherever you look at history, you see that same pattern. A society's religiosity tends to have a negative correlation with its scientific progress. I recognize that correlation does not always imply causation, but the connection between the two seems reasonable to me, though I am open to alternate explanations for the correlation, and would certainly accept them if they were more reasonable.

IT stems from the people in power and the culture they were used to, not the ideas they followed. Rome has always had this nasty tendency to produce total assholes, no matter what ideology they may or may not have followed.

The Greeks, on the other hand, as long as you weren't going too far, didn't care much for that kind of stuff. And the Greeks, thanks to Alexander the Great, really spread that stuff all the way out to the Middle East, which is where they picked that stuff up.

But the Greeks were still very religious -- I mean, Socrates was executed for corrupting the youth and for being an atheist.

Certainly, not all people before the Inquisition were brilliant, but because people who don't blindly accept the beliefs of the time tend to be more intelligent than people who follow them no matter what, I would argue that the average intelligence of somebody brought before the Inquisition was higher than that of your average peasant.

They only reason they may have been brighter is because they realized it was safer for them to go to the Church rather than the State to be tried, since the Church's courts were much fairer than the State ones.

Guess what held up that state's power? The divine right of kings. At that time, you were told that if you rebelled against your government, you were rebelling against God's representative and would go straight to hell.

The Divine Right of Kings was, once again, religion being exploited by people who weren't all that religious, but saw an ideology being useful to exploit people. Again, this is an ideological plague, not a religious one.

'sides, the Westerners only ever had half of the story when it came to the Mandate of Heaven. ;)


Sure they do. Most ideologies, even religious ones, seek power-- their followers seek to have their ideologies enforced. Now, some ideas are certainly good to have in power. The idea that we shouldn't murder people is a good one to have enforced, for example. But by your own words, religions are typically not good examples of what we want to give power to.

Yes, but you fail to understand why I say I don't want religion in power.

See, unlike regular philosophies and ideologies, religion has one extra tenant -- the divine. The divine, by its nature, is more important, and higher than, the mortal realms. Because of this, you're dealing with something with more chance to be exploited, because you're dealing with God, not man.

The dangers of religion being in power are the same as any ideology being exploited for political gain -- to condemn religion as a whole for the exploits of amoral politicians is the same thing as saying Socialism caused Hitler.

Faith/ideals/philosophy of life. What you're arguing is that government should have no ideology behind it. This is impossible.

No, I'm not. But it certainly should not be based on faith; it should be based on reason.


Yes, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. You say that because of the Church, science was halted. This is false, I'm saying it sustained itself because of the Church.

Yes, they would likely still want to practice, but they would not have had the means were it not for the Church. So they're screwed regardless.

People got along fine before the Church.


....really? Whoops. XD

But, and I need this clarification to you to effectively answer anything else you present:

Do you see a difference between Faith and Religion? Rather, do you see a difference between people who have similar ideas on the supernatural and the natural getting together, synthesizing their ideas, and publishing them different from a large group actually organizing and preaching them?

To an extent, certainly. But I'd argue that even the ones who don't actively do much themselves do help create a culture where faith is seen as an absolute virtue, one that's superior to reason. And I think any society where faith is held as being a better tool than reason for learning things is a dangerous one.

But in general, I have no problem with individual religious people. But that doesn't change the fact that I think their beliefs have been used for harm more than they have for good, and that is largely because of their basis in faith, not reason.


Sorry, that's not what happened.

Heresy was not typically a charge that was thrown around 4 t3h lulz. They actually had a pretty fair judicial system to decide that crap.

Heresy isn't a charge that should be thrown around at all. That's pure thoughtcrime.


And really, that's no different than what modern science people do today. Just, minus the whole "killing" thing.

Modern science simply says "the evidence does not support that view. If you wish for your view to be accepted, gather evidence, then come back and we will consider it."

And I happen to think the whole "killing" thing is a slightly important detail. I'd rather be told my idea lacks evidence than be put on the rack or broken on the wheel. ;)


Of course not.

But seriously, no, you're wrong. As I said, "religion" doesn't do jack -- it's the people who exploit it for their own power. And people do that with all philosophical thoughts and systems. It's not a plague known only to religion, it's a pandemic covering all systems of thought. If you believe something is right, well, then try to make the world better by implementing it.

But religion is especially prone to this, because the whole idea is that you accept it on faith instead of questioning and finding evidence to support your claims.


And if more religious people were like Maoists or Stalinists, then I would say that religion had an overall negative impact, even if it has the potential to do well.

But guess what? Most people AREN'T like the people who get power and exploit ideology.


It's the same with all ideologies. Sure, all ideologies can do well, but, throughout history, they've done more bad than they have done good.

But again, some ideas are more prone to exploitation than others. Ideologies which value rational thought and empirical evidence are much harder to exploit in that manner, because people can refute your claims with logic. Ideologies that rely on faith, however, don't have this self-correcting tendency.

Let me be clear, though. I don't support some sort of cult of science and reason, either. People shouldn't just blindly accept it if somebody says "it's been scientifically proven," they should demand to see the evidence! I decry all faith-based reasoning; it just so happens that religion is the most popular type of faith, and the one of relevance to this topic.



And I disagree with you, but we're getting nowhere, because we're looking at the same stuff with different viewpoints, and we're not gonna convince each other, so at this point, I'm wondering if this argument is getting futile.

Then I remembered this is NS General, and the internet. Of course it's futile. XD

See, I don't see any rational reason why that shouldn't be the case in the context of this debate. "Religion has done more harm than good," which was, essentially, my original claim, means "religion, as it has been practiced, has done more harm than good." Yeah, I may have dressed it up more, but that's because I have an annoying tendency for the dramatic in some cases. :D



No, it was the collapse of Western Civilization that it was lost. The Church didn't get a power-base until well after that problem.

Yeah, being the official state religion of the Roman Empire, that's absolutely no power at all.


And in your disgust for religion and your refusal to acknowledge it can do any good, you fail to realize that it was the very institution you condemn that manage to sustain western thought and science, even if it was coloured with religion.

Strawman. I never claimed it can't do any good, only that it has done more harm than good.


In fact, the in-fighting between the tribes would have further stopped the advance of philosophical thought, since everyone would be too busy beating the crap out of each other to sit down and think.

In the short run, perhaps, but the fact that they would not have their hegemony would allow for more heretical and radical ideas, and allow rebellion against it, causing the equivalent of the Reformation to be more easy to bring about, allowing it to happen earlier.


Actually, while the peasants did that, the guys with the capability to do something didn't. They just didn't have the resources to do it. That wouldn't come along until the 19-20th century.



Again, the Peasants took that mentality, but not the higher-ups and the scientists. And the Peasants couldn't have done shit anyway.

But religion aided in the perpetuation of that mentality among the peasants, some of whom, I'm sure, must have been intelligent. Remember, those in the ruling classes weren't necessarily smarter, they just had a better education. More people being educated tends to lead to more progress.


And I'm saying that, because it's forbidden, more people would be drawn to it, by the mere fact it's forbidden. In fact, that's often how philosophical "progress" works. Again, cue Hegel.

Depends how severe the punishment is. Most people are cowards; that's why even small acts of bravery are so admired.



....it wasn't antiscience. It just felt that science, in order to be correct, should be in line with the Church, which, considering everybody's mentality from that time to the dawn of man, wasn't that radical of an idea. In fact, it always had been the general idea, that if it goes against the divine, it's probably wrong, so try again.

That is the very definition of anti-science. Seriously. That's like, the textbook example. Saying "this evidence contradicts what we currently believe, so we dismiss it out of hand" is exactly the opposite of how science works. If you get evidence that contradicts your current belief, you should say "hm. Maybe our understanding of the world/universe is incorrect. Maybe we need to change our views, possibly pending further investigation."

I think this image could use posting:
http://aiwor.com/uploads/16411.png


Sometimes, sometimes not. The papacy became corrupt because it had to play politics, since the Kings weren't about to blindly follow the Pope.

They still typically used the Divine Right of Kings. I mean, Anglicanism held (still holds?) that belief for quite some time.


Hate usually comes from viewing it totally negative.

Again, that's a strawman, I simply said that the bad outweighed the good, not that it's entirely bad.
Also:
"It is not necessary to hate George W. Bush to think he’s a bad President, Grownups can do that, you know. You can decide someone’s policies are a miserable failure without lying awake at night consumed with hatred."-- Molly Ivins

Now, this quote is about Bush and not about religion, but I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this?


IT stems from the people in power and the culture they were used to, not the ideas they followed. Rome has always had this nasty tendency to produce total assholes, no matter what ideology they may or may not have followed.

The Greeks, on the other hand, as long as you weren't going too far, didn't care much for that kind of stuff. And the Greeks, thanks to Alexander the Great, really spread that stuff all the way out to the Middle East, which is where they picked that stuff up.

But the Greeks were still very religious -- I mean, Socrates was executed for corrupting the youth and for being an atheist.

Yeah. The fact that they executed him for being an atheist speaks real well about religion. ;)


They only reason they may have been brighter is because they realized it was safer for them to go to the Church rather than the State to be tried, since the Church's courts were much fairer than the State ones.

But again, the fact that heresy was a crime in the first place is utterly unpardonable. And that idea has a very religious basis to it.


The Divine Right of Kings was, once again, religion being exploited by people who weren't all that religious, but saw an ideology being useful to exploit people. Again, this is an ideological plague, not a religious one.

Well, the Divine Right of Kings is actually in the Bible (and quite explicitly so, too), so they did have a point.


'sides, the Westerners only ever had half of the story when it came to the Mandate of Heaven. ;)

... you know that the Mandate of Heaven fits entirely with my claim and not yours, right? :p

Remember, I'm not making a claim about just Christianity, but religion in general. It just so happens that Christianity fits into that category. ;)



Yes, but you fail to understand why I say I don't want religion in power.

See, unlike regular philosophies and ideologies, religion has one extra tenant -- the divine. The divine, by its nature, is more important, and higher than, the mortal realms. Because of this, you're dealing with something with more chance to be exploited, because you're dealing with God, not man.

The dangers of religion being in power are the same as any ideology being exploited for political gain -- to condemn religion as a whole for the exploits of amoral politicians is the same thing as saying Socialism caused Hitler.

You still seem to be under the impression that if somebody is religious, I'll be foaming at the mouth, yelling obscenities at them, wanting to persecute them, and the like. That's not the case at all. Sure, I view their beliefs as irrational and may use words to try to convince them that they base their beliefs on fallacious reasoning, but that's it.

However, when I look at history, I see religion more often being used for people's detriment, and not their benefit.

And I suppose the fact that I think it's entirely made up doesn't help matters. :D

No, I'm not. But it certainly should not be based on faith; it should be based on reason.

And I disagree: I actually view a society based solely on reason to be more dangerous than one based solely on faith. Not much more, but a little more. French Revolution or Prussia?

I'll take Prussia.

People got along fine before the Church.

Yes, but they had a civilization to go off of. Without the Church, they wouldn't have had this. Western civilization COLLAPSED, the Church provided this structure to work in.

To an extent, certainly. But I'd argue that even the ones who don't actively do much themselves do help create a culture where faith is seen as an absolute virtue, one that's superior to reason. And I think any society where faith is held as being a better tool than reason for learning things is a dangerous one.

I'm sorry you think that. Reason can only go so far in understanding the universe, and it's because of our conflicting mindsets -- namely, the fact I think there's more than just the material, and more than just "reason," and you don' -- that we will get nowhere. :p

But in general, I have no problem with individual religious people. But that doesn't change the fact that I think their beliefs have been used for harm more than they have for good, and that is largely because of their basis in faith, not reason.

Well, that's an opinion, and mine is the opposite, and really, we've just been dancing on this point, and aren't really getting anywhere with it.

Heresy isn't a charge that should be thrown around at all. That's pure thoughtcrime.

I agree, but "disagreeing with the philosophy of the establishment," i.e. Heresy, is not a purely religious problem. See: Eastern Bloc, Communism.

Modern science simply says "the evidence does not support that view. If you wish for your view to be accepted, gather evidence, then come back and we will consider it."

That's what happens with Judaism, as well, as well as what happens (theoretically) with Christianity because of the Reformation.

However, Christians feel that what God said is obviously what God said, and God being God isn't about to lie to us. So when we see a scientific explanation that explicitly contradicts what God said, then yeah, we're gonna say "no, that can't be right, there's gotta be a better explanation for this."

Non-religious folk just can't seem to understand the concept of God and why a Christian would reject what seems to be solid evidence based on what they currently believe. It's because that if something contradicts the Word of God, and the contradicting thing means God would stop being God, that means God doesn't exist.

HOWEVER, as Christians, we a priori accept the existence of God as fact, so if something contradicts that, then the contradicting thing must be wrong, and there must be a better explanation for the phenomena.

It's not a matter of rejecting science altogether, it's merely a matter of interpreting evidence differently. However, because we don't interpret the evidence in the way the scientific establishment says to, we're labelled as heretics.

Oh wait...

And I happen to think the whole "killing" thing is a slightly important detail. I'd rather be told my idea lacks evidence than be put on the rack or broken on the wheel. ;)

Well, it's actually not. Execution was about as common as the fine in those days. There weren't really other options. Execution in those days just wasn't viewed as seriously as we do it today. So it's not that important, if you remember the time period.

In fact, you were less likely to get whacked by the Church than the State.

But religion is especially prone to this, because the whole idea is that you accept it on faith instead of questioning and finding evidence to support your claims.

No...the idea is to always reaffirm your beliefs by questioning them, and interpreting the evidences presented in the manner appropriate of the faith. If the evidence CANNOT be interpreted in the manner of Faith at all, this means either the evidence is crap, or something in the belief system needs to be tweaked.

Just because we save the "we might be wrong" option for last doesn't mean we hate questioning.

But again, some ideas are more prone to exploitation than others. Ideologies which value rational thought and empirical evidence are much harder to exploit in that manner, because people can refute your claims with logic. Ideologies that rely on faith, however, don't have this self-correcting tendency.

Right, because the USSR corrected itself. I mean, the state was flawed, but it's okay, after the fall of Stalin, the logic and reason the State was founded on was challenged and corrected and made to be a Paradise.

Let me be clear, though. I don't support some sort of cult of science and reason, either. People shouldn't just blindly accept it if somebody says "it's been scientifically proven," they should demand to see the evidence!

And most theologians will agree with you. Again, we interpret stuff differently, in OUR view, not yours, so we're wrong?

Hmm...


See, I don't see any rational reason why that shouldn't be the case in the context of this debate. "Religion has done more harm than good," which was, essentially, my original claim, means "religion, as it has been practiced, has done more harm than good." Yeah, I may have dressed it up more, but that's because I have an annoying tendency for the dramatic in some cases. :D

Drama permitted XD

Yeah, being the official state religion of the Roman Empire, that's absolutely no power at all.

Correct. The State controlled the Church at this point, not vice versa.

I never claimed it can't do any good, only that it has done more harm than good.

Oh, whoops. :D

In the short run, perhaps, but the fact that they would not have their hegemony would allow for more heretical and radical ideas, and allow rebellion against it, causing the equivalent of the Reformation to be more easy to bring about, allowing it to happen earlier.

False. The Reformation was only possible because of the thought that we should look to Earth that was brought about after the plague, and because of the printing press. It could not have happened any other way, nor could ANY Reformation have happened any other way.

And, also, part of the reason the Church could keep its hegemony was because the States were too busy fighting amongst themselves to actually sit down and think about stuff. So because no one was thinking, the Church did it for them.

Yay war.

So really, nothing would have changed under the Germanic states, except, according to you, there would be just fighting without the church. Which would mean that no one would be doing any thinking at all.

But religion aided in the perpetuation of that mentality among the peasants, some of whom, I'm sure, must have been intelligent. Remember, those in the ruling classes weren't necessarily smarter, they just had a better education. More people being educated tends to lead to more progress.

No, not religion, the lack of education, which wasn't a religion thing. We didn't start educating everyone until into the 1900's. Again, stop trying to think that the people in the Middle Ages would have access to 20th Century thought, with or without the Church.

Depends how severe the punishment is. Most people are cowards; that's why even small acts of bravery are so admired.

Either way.

That is the very definition of anti-science. Seriously. That's like, the textbook example. Saying "this evidence contradicts what we currently believe, so we dismiss it out of hand" is exactly the opposite of how science works. If you get evidence that contradicts your current belief, you should say "hm. Maybe our understanding of the world/universe is incorrect. Maybe we need to change our views, possibly pending further investigation."

It was my fault for not stating things correctly. See above in my post where it addresses this point.

Yeah. The fact that they executed him for being an atheist speaks real well about religion. ;)

Yeah, and people being executed and imprisoned for not believing in the ideas of the French Revolution, or the state of the USSR, or the PRC, speaks well about liberalism. ;)

But again, the fact that heresy was a crime in the first place is utterly unpardonable. And that idea has a very religious basis to it.

I mean in every crime. EVERY crime.

But think of it from the Christian perspective.

Let's assume, for this particular problem, that the people in charge actually believed in Christianity, and weren't just a bunch of power-hungry opportunists.

Now, if this is the case, than this means that they believe -- as do the populace -- that their beliefs are correct.

Their beliefs means that Christ is King and Lord and God. Their beliefs meaning the teachings of the Church.

One of the teachings of the Church is that the failure of belief in the Word of God and what it teaches will mean that, because that person has not chosen to accept Christ as Saviour, that person will be damned to eternal hellfire.

They, operating under the belief that this is in fact true, view hellfire as a bad thing. Therefore, in the interests of humanity, wish to keep people from not believing, in order to save the souls of those people.

Heresy, unlike murder, is a crime of the soul, not the flesh. Murder can kill the body, but not the soul -- the soul may still be unified with Christ in heaven. Heresy, though, leads to eternal damnation. This means that while it doesn't kill the fragile human body, it damns the immortal soul. And Heresy can affect many, many people. It is, in fact, under the belief system, worse than murder, since while a murderer can be stopped, heresy is harder to stop. Heresy is like the plague -- it kills all it touches. Only unlike the plague, those who die by heresy are eternally damned.

Therefore, heresy was a crime because the accepted truth at the time saw heresy as murder. So in fact, the Church would have been morally corrupt NOT to have heresy as a crime.

Well, the Divine Right of Kings is actually in the Bible (and quite explicitly so, too), so they did have a point.

... you know that the Mandate of Heaven fits entirely with my claim and not yours, right? :p

Not really. The Mandate of Heaven negates your point. See the Mandate of Heaven states that the government in power is the one endorsed by God.

So far, so good, yes?

Well, one of the problems with the whole "God allows governments in power to be in power" is the concept of the revolution.

Well, if rebels can overthrow a government endorsed by God, then that means the bible is lying.

As a Christian, one must accept that the Word of God is not false. So that means we're missing something.

Cue Mandate of Heaven. The Mandate of Heaven goes on to explain that, under the cases of Revolution, if the revolution fails, it is clear sign that the heavens are continuing to endorse the government in power, and the Revolution is not morally correct.

If the Revolution succeeds, then it is a sign that the Heavens no longer supported the government that lost power, and instead, through the Divine Hand, inspired the people to Revolution and installed a government sanctioned by the Heavens.

In other words, the divine right of kings is a moot point.

You still seem to be under the impression that if somebody is religious, I'll be foaming at the mouth, yelling obscenities at them, wanting to persecute them, and the like. That's not the case at all. Sure, I view their beliefs as irrational and may use words to try to convince them that they base their beliefs on fallacious reasoning, but that's it.

Good to know. XD

However, when I look at history, I see religion more often being used for people's detriment, and not their benefit.

And I disagree. XD

And I suppose the fact that I think it's entirely made up doesn't help matters. :D

And here's why we will never agree -- I think you're misled and misguided because you do not undersand the Absolute and Divine Truth of God. You think I'm a religious nutjob.

Well, perhaps we're both right. ;)

Ya now what if your cathholic and you hate pullman you can go shoot yourself. The golden compass, subtle knife and the amber spyglass are about a nice little girl who overcomes a religous hierachy wich has nothing to do with catholics. Half the time when religions despise books or people burn them there are major problems with you. Come on really cant a young person overcome a dark matter without the church saying oh thats bad and crap. I mean really half the people who say theese things have never read his dark material or even harry potter. I mean one of my friends for a very long time said that pullman was an athiest and that these books go against religion or church. The magesterium is not the church of today and anyway if you read the book you would now that the authoritys not the one causing problems its his number two and anyways he dies on his own faults not lyra's or wills. I told my friend that she can go think whatever she wants, but she'll never change my mind. Come on if people would just reAD what they want to and stop downing other people for writing something great that has nothing to do with a real church. Finally the catholic church is just plain old stupid i mean really whose going to listen to a church who sexually molests childs then goes back and says that you shouldnt go see a fantastic movie staring great actors and actresses or read a great book wich is written by an athiest so just shut up you stupid church and just let people be themselves and dont but in on things not needing to be butted in on.

And I disagree: I actually view a society based solely on reason to be more dangerous than one based solely on faith. Not much more, but a little more. French Revolution or Prussia?

I'll take Prussia.

Well, I don't actually think the murders of the French Revolution were at all rational. Murdering somebody for believing something that isn't true is a very irrational thing to do; I would have said to leave it for the theocracies. But anyway, I'd actually probably choose French Revolution over, say, Iran or Saudi Arabia, which is much more of a society based entirely on faith than Prussia was.



I'm sorry you think that. Reason can only go so far in understanding the universe, and it's because of our conflicting mindsets -- namely, the fact I think there's more than just the material, and more than just "reason," and you don' -- that we will get nowhere. :p

And I simply don't see how randomly guessing-- which is effectively what faith is, because it doesn't into account evidence-- is a superior method to a self-correcting method that takes evidence into account and changes over time in an attempt to closer approximate the truth.

And if faith is superior to reason, then why has reason produced all sorts of technology and useful ideas, whereas all faith has ever produced is "everybody is going to suffer unimaginable torture forever except for me and people who have access to the same information that I do. Hahaha, isn't this great?!"
Yes, vastly oversimplified, but you get the idea

I agree, but "disagreeing with the philosophy of the establishment," i.e. Heresy, is not a purely religious problem. See: Eastern Bloc, Communism.

Ah, but despite being theologically atheist, the Soviet government demanded a good deal of blind faith, in a manner very similar to religion. I did mention, did I not, that I am against all such faith-based systems, whether they have to do with a God or not?


That's what happens with Judaism, as well, as well as what happens (theoretically) with Christianity because of the Reformation.

However, Christians feel that what God said is obviously what God said, and God being God isn't about to lie to us. So when we see a scientific explanation that explicitly contradicts what God said, then yeah, we're gonna say "no, that can't be right, there's gotta be a better explanation for this."

But what is your evidence that God said it? The Bible? If it's God's word, how can it be wrong about so many things? According to the Bible, bats are birds, the earth is about 6,000 years old, and there was a world-wide flood about 4,000 years ago...

You're not a Young Earth Creationist, are you? :eek:


Non-religious folk just can't seem to understand the concept of God and why a Christian would reject what seems to be solid evidence based on what they currently believe. It's because that if something contradicts the Word of God, and the contradicting thing means God would stop being God, that means God doesn't exist.

HOWEVER, as Christians, we a priori accept the existence of God as fact, so if something contradicts that, then the contradicting thing must be wrong, and there must be a better explanation for the phenomena.

See, making such a huge assumption a priori is exactly the problem! I didn't start out assuming there was no God, as you seem to imply. In fact, if anything, I should have been biased towards religion, because when I really started thinking about it, I was religious. The fact that I started doing so is why I'm not anymore. :p


It's not a matter of rejecting science altogether, it's merely a matter of interpreting evidence differently. However, because we don't interpret the evidence in the way the scientific establishment says to, we're labelled as heretics.

Oh wait...

Oh dear... you really are starting to sound like a YEC. :(
But honestly, science is probably one of the fields of study most open to change. If anything, scientists are biased towards trying to find change, not against; you see, if a scientist were to find a huge change that utterly overthrows some well-established theory, (such as evolution) that would create a vast new field of study, and a whole lot more science to be done. Which is something that scientists generally like to do. ;)

Oh, and all the money from book sales would be nice, too.


Well, it's actually not. Execution was about as common as the fine in those days. There weren't really other options. Execution in those days just wasn't viewed as seriously as we do it today. So it's not that important, if you remember the time period.

But the idea that execution isn't a big deal depends largely on the belief in an afterlife, which is a religious idea. And executing people for thoughtcrime is something that I really can't accept.

In fact, you were less likely to get whacked by the Church than the State.

But again, the State's standards of justice were very much influenced by Christianity. Given that the leaders were all Christians. ;)


No...the idea is to always reaffirm your beliefs by questioning them, and interpreting the evidences presented in the manner appropriate of the faith. If the evidence CANNOT be interpreted in the manner of Faith at all, this means either the evidence is crap, or something in the belief system needs to be tweaked.

Just because we save the "we might be wrong" option for last doesn't mean we hate questioning.

But again, that's the problem! The proper way to question is to adjust the belief to fit the evidence, not the other way around! And if the idea can't fit the evidence at all, then that's particularly exiting, because it's time for an intellectual revolution!


Right, because the USSR corrected itself. I mean, the state was flawed, but it's okay, after the fall of Stalin, the logic and reason the State was founded on was challenged and corrected and made to be a Paradise.

Because the Soviet Union was really what you would call "rational." Executing all your senior military officers when you come into power, with a very possible war on the horizon? Brilliant. Starving your people? Genius.


And most theologians will agree with you. Again, we interpret stuff differently, in OUR view, not yours, so we're wrong?

No, the fact that you apply unnecessary assumptions makes it irrational. ;)
Anyway, you admitted yourself that if the evidence contradicts the faith and cannot be reconciled, it's the evidence that must be thrown out. That implies that God would make a universe with false evidence planted in there, just so he can send rational people like me to Hell to be tormented for all eternity with torture so horrible that it's beyond imagination.


Correct. The State controlled the Church at this point, not vice versa.

Meh, the State and the Church were in a symbiotic relationship. The State gave the Church a bunch of free converts, and in return, the Church stopped the converts from rebelling.


False. The Reformation was only possible because of the thought that we should look to Earth that was brought about after the plague, and because of the printing press. It could not have happened any other way, nor could ANY Reformation have happened any other way.

And the printing press and the end of the plague were both caused by religion?


And, also, part of the reason the Church could keep its hegemony was because the States were too busy fighting amongst themselves to actually sit down and think about stuff. So because no one was thinking, the Church did it for them.

Yay war.

So really, nothing would have changed under the Germanic states, except, according to you, there would be just fighting without the church. Which would mean that no one would be doing any thinking at all.

Not really. The idea that people don't do thinking in turbulent times is false anyway. For example, ancient China has a good bit of philosophy out of the warring states and three kingdoms eras.


No, not religion, the lack of education, which wasn't a religion thing. We didn't start educating everyone until into the 1900's. Again, stop trying to think that the people in the Middle Ages would have access to 20th Century thought, with or without the Church.

To an extent, it was, in part, a church thing, though. Education was discouraged for peasants, because it wasn't their lot in life-- God's plan was for them to work the fields and serve their lords, so to defy that was blasphemy. What I find really interesting, actually, is how several religious leaders during the middle ages to the early Renaissance (both Catholic and Protestant leaders, by the way) explicitly said that reason is a bad thing.


Yeah, and people being executed and imprisoned for not believing in the ideas of the French Revolution, or the state of the USSR, or the PRC, speaks well about liberalism. ;)

Meh, the two axis political scale is made of phail. It says a lot more about authoritarianism in the case of the previous two, and, again the French Revolution was fucked up in general, but at least they can say that they ended up setting up a state based on the Enlightenment instead of on Christianity, which I would argue is a good change. I think the Enlightenment was a good thing.


I mean in every crime. EVERY crime.

But think of it from the Christian perspective.

Let's assume, for this particular problem, that the people in charge actually believed in Christianity, and weren't just a bunch of power-hungry opportunists.

Now, if this is the case, than this means that they believe -- as do the populace -- that their beliefs are correct.

Their beliefs means that Christ is King and Lord and God. Their beliefs meaning the teachings of the Church.

One of the teachings of the Church is that the failure of belief in the Word of God and what it teaches will mean that, because that person has not chosen to accept Christ as Saviour, that person will be damned to eternal hellfire.

They, operating under the belief that this is in fact true, view hellfire as a bad thing. Therefore, in the interests of humanity, wish to keep people from not believing, in order to save the souls of those people.

Heresy, unlike murder, is a crime of the soul, not the flesh. Murder can kill the body, but not the soul -- the soul may still be unified with Christ in heaven. Heresy, though, leads to eternal damnation. This means that while it doesn't kill the fragile human body, it damns the immortal soul. And Heresy can affect many, many people. It is, in fact, under the belief system, worse than murder, since while a murderer can be stopped, heresy is harder to stop. Heresy is like the plague -- it kills all it touches. Only unlike the plague, those who die by heresy are eternally damned.

Therefore, heresy was a crime because the accepted truth at the time saw heresy as murder. So in fact, the Church would have been morally corrupt NOT to have heresy as a crime.

But (geez, I sound like a broken record. :D) that's exactly the problem! The fact that the views of the time resulted in such atrocities, and that they were based entirely on religion! Murdering people for thoughtcrime is horrible, and I do find it vaguely disturbing that you think it was actually a moral thing to do.


Not really. The Mandate of Heaven negates your point. See the Mandate of Heaven states that the government in power is the one endorsed by God.

So far, so good, yes?

Well, one of the problems with the whole "God allows governments in power to be in power" is the concept of the revolution.

Well, if rebels can overthrow a government endorsed by God, then that means the bible is lying.

As a Christian, one must accept that the Word of God is not false. So that means we're missing something.

Cue Mandate of Heaven. The Mandate of Heaven goes on to explain that, under the cases of Revolution, if the revolution fails, it is clear sign that the heavens are continuing to endorse the government in power, and the Revolution is not morally correct.

If the Revolution succeeds, then it is a sign that the Heavens no longer supported the government that lost power, and instead, through the Divine Hand, inspired the people to Revolution and installed a government sanctioned by the Heavens.

In other words, the divine right of kings is a moot point.

Eh, fair enough, but I found that the Mandate seemed slightly self-contradictory. I still said it was inherently wrong to revolt, just that if you won, it was okay after all. Which seems to violate the inherent wrongness of it.

But I have to ask, then. Why mention the divine right at all, and why explicitly forbid revolt in the Bible, if it's irrelevant?


And here's why we will never agree -- I think you're misled and misguided because you do not undersand the Absolute and Divine Truth of God. You think I'm a religious nutjob.

Well, perhaps we're both right. ;)

Yeah, but my view is more rational!