Originally posted by Bardock42
No, see you misunderstood again. i said that not Religion was the reason why he was a good scientist. And that Religion did not encourage it.
Yes I understood that point, thats why I said this....
Originally posted by Alfheim
Yes I do, that person would be a scientist regardless of wether they are religous or not.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Whether he was better I don't know, I just stated it is very possible, because he wouldn't have had to be afraid what a certain Religion might do to him.
You said this...
Originally posted by Bardock42Isaac Newton was a genius, if he had never had any Religion but access to science, he would have done the same if not more.
Now I understand you where you said he would have done the same, the bit im questioning the bit where you said this...
Originally posted by Bardock42
he would have done the same if not more.
The fact that you think he would have done more is purely subjective. There are plenty of reasons of why he could have done better with religon or without.
Originally posted by Bardock42
You mistake a side effect for a reason.
I dont know wether Isaac would have done better without religon. All I know is that it helped him alot. I focus on what I know not on what I dont know. I understand you I dont agree with you.
Side effect or no side effect. People are motivated by different things some people are atheist, some people are religous. I dont see how this viewpoint is stupid or ignorant, in fact it seems quite reasonable to me.
I also understand your example about scientists and coffe, I just again think that example is subjective. Obvoulsy if you think we are better off without religon you would use that as an example. Somebody who is really religous may compare a scientist as somebody travelling through the desert and religon as water, because to him religon is essential. Its subjective.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Which is why I didn't do that. Also, never claimed atheism is better generally. Just that I think people would get along much better if there were no religions nowadays.
Well isnt it logical to think the opposite of religon is atheism, or at any rate an example of something non-religous would be an atheistic belief system such as Communism.
Originally posted by Bardock42You just brought it up for some weird misunderstanding reason....that's where it came from, totally beside the point.
Forget it.
Originally posted by Bardock42
And do we find Communism and the Nazis awesome and do we not think we'd be better off without it?I have no clue why you are hating on atheists so much, I didn't mention them, I also didn't claim they are better.
Well if we want examples of how were are going to be better off without religon what examples are we going to use? Hinduism, Buddhism or should I give examples of systems where people dont belive in God.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Still you are severely annoying with your lack of comprehension which will hopefully make me stop replying to your lack of points sometime soon.
Oh no,no,no,no. Now im paying attention. I have misundertsood nothing. Your just trying to use my early misunderstanding to apply to this case and it doesnt.
Originally posted by Alfheim
Yes I understood that point, thats why I said this....
So, why would you bring up Religious scientists in the first place? There are also Religious rapists and I wouldn't bring them up, because Religion has nothing to do with them raping someone. It is not condoned by the major Religions. I don't know why you don't understand it, sure, you will go on to say "I understand...", but then go on to show that you still don't get the difference.
Originally posted by Alfheim
You said this...Now I understand you where you said he would have done the same, the bit im questioning the bit where you said this...
The fact that you think he would have done more is purely subjective. There are plenty of reasons of why he could have done better with religon or without.
T-that's why I said "if"...you know what "if" means, right? Probably not. Anyways, yes, it is purely subjective, though it is evident that the Religion throughout history stood in the way of free Scientific progress.
Originally posted by Alfheim
I dont know wether Isaac would have done better without religon. All I know is that it helped him alot. I focus on what I know not on what I dont know. I understand you I dont agree with you.
No, the second part is subjective as well. You don'T know if it helped him or hindered him in his progress. You don't understand me, but yes, you don't agree with me.
Originally posted by Alfheim
Side effect or no side effect. People are motivated by different things some people are atheist, some people are religous. I dont see how this viewpoint is stupid or ignorant, in fact it seems quite reasonable to me.
This is not your viewpoint though. Your viewpoint was Religion is also good because some smart people were Religious. Which is an idiot's viewpoint.
If it is just, "some people are Religious others aren't" then we agree...but that wasn't what you argued at all, now was it?
Originally posted by Alfheim
I also understand your example about scientists and coffe, I just again think that example is subjective. Obvoulsy if you think we are better off without religon you would use that as an example. Somebody who is really religous may compare a scientist as somebody travelling through the desert and religon as water, because to him religon is essential. Its subjective.
They might do that, just that the many people that can go on just as well without Religion show that it is not the case. In fact, coffee has probably done more for science than Religion.
Originally posted by Alfheim
Well isnt it logical to think the opposite of religon is atheism, or at any rate an example of something non-religous would be an atheistic belief system such as Communism.
What communism has to do with anything I am not quite sure, but I would say atheism is the opposite of theism and in that case I suppose you could say I prefer atheism, because it doesn't have a harmful belief system as default like many of the major religions.
Originally posted by Alfheim
Forget it.
k
Originally posted by Alfheim
Well if we want examples of how were are going to be better off without religon what examples are we going to use? Hinduism, Buddhism or should I give examples of systems where people dont belive in God.
B-but, you see the faulty logic, right? I am arguing that we would be better off with Religion, you give examples of things where most people agree we would be better off without and compare them to Religion....that's all in all an excellent argument for my side. Are you sure you believe what you pretend to believe?
Originally posted by Alfheim
Oh no,no,no,no. Now im paying attention. I have misundertsood nothing. Your just trying to use my early misunderstanding to apply to this case and it doesnt.
You have misunderstood a lot. And continue to do so.
Originally posted by TRH
To bad in most Muslim countries they are so poor and under developed there are hardly no books at all
Well, I guess it was fortunate that they were pretty much the most educated nations around when it really mattered - after the West Roman Empire disintegrated up until the rest of the world started catching up with things like the Renaissance.
Originally posted by TRH
Islamic extremists assassinated heir to the throne of Austria-Hungry,Franz Fredidnad Which started world war 1 the peace treaty of World War 1 caused World War 2 which lead to the cold war at its end
none the less they prayed to allah and said he blessed their noble undertaking
Um... what? The Black Hand being declared Islamic extremists with religion at their core is about as accurate as declaring travesties in the USSR the result of Atheist extremists.
The Black Hand was the terrorist child of a group whose goal was the liberation of Serbia from Austria, not a bunch of proto-Bin Ladin's seeking to create some Islamic paradise on earth. The Black Hand was ideological in nature, not religious. It was Nationalist extremists, not Islamic extremists. They chose to further their nationalist aspirations through terrorism. Their nationalist motivations.
As to such a simple ABC description of history - the assassination was merely the spark in a pile of kindling starting a massive fire. Chances are it might have happened even if the assassination hadn't taken place. Remember that after the assassination Austria made demands of Serbia which many a historian will have noted are so unreasonable they could only be seen as inciting escalation.
History is rarely a dry, straight line. Events, especially large ones, can have hundreds of contributing factors, even if there is only one catalyst (in this case the death of the Duke.) That is why "Rome fell because of barbarians" is wrong. Or "WWI can be attributed to the assassination." These thing undoubtedly played a part, maybe even a catalytic part, but are still none the less merely the tip of icebergs of other factors, stresses and influences.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Well, I guess it was fortunate that they were pretty much the most educated nations around when it really mattered - after the West Roman Empire disintegrated up until the rest of the world started catching up with things like the Renaissance.
Uum, what?
It wasn't Islam that brought about education, NOR did it encourage development.
Arabs, brought NOTHING to their expantion. All accumilated ancient knowledge of Persia, Babylon, Egypt and India fell into their hands when they invaded.
Middle East and Asia were always ahead of times then the West.
There was no love for the knowledge or the truth within Islamic invadors.
For example, In attacking Iran, one of the most infamous acts of the Arab invaders was to burn Iranian libraries full of centuries of collected knowledge. The Islamic logic to justify this vandalism was that if this Iranian knowledge agreed with the Qur'an, then it was superfluous and if it contradicted the Qur'an, then such books should be destroyed. An unbeatable argument!
At the end of 10th century, famous theologian and a perfect Muslim al-Ghazali brought back the madness of Islam, the real Islam that was practiced by the founder of the religion. In his book, “The destruction of philosophy” – al-Ghazali challenged the process of reasoning because it cannot prove the reality of Allah.
Middle East, North Africa, India..etc. were not ''educated when it really mattered'', they were ALWAYS educated at a standard rarely riveled by the West.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Why do you hate Gay people ?Is it cuz they get more cock than you do ? 😬
Maybe I shouldn't say hate😕 but Homosexuality consider worse than rape ..very bad sin .. I heard that its shake the throne of God when man **** with man . cant imagine what kind of torture god prepares for them ..
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Uum, what?It wasn't Islam that brought about education, NOR did it encourage development.
Arabs, brought NOTHING to their expantion. All accumilated ancient knowledge of Persia, Babylon, Egypt and India fell into their hands when they invaded.Middle East and Asia were always ahead of times then the West.
There was no love for the knowledge or the truth within Islamic invadors.
For example, In attacking Iran, one of the most infamous acts of the Arab invaders was to burn Iranian libraries full of centuries of collected knowledge. The Islamic logic to justify this vandalism was that if this Iranian knowledge agreed with the Qur'an, then it was superfluous and if it contradicted the Qur'an, then such books should be destroyed. An unbeatable argument!At the end of 10th century, famous theologian and a perfect Muslim al-Ghazali brought back the madness of Islam, the real Islam that was practiced by the founder of the religion. In his book, “The destruction of philosophy” – al-Ghazali challenged the process of reasoning because it cannot prove the reality of Allah.
Middle East, North Africa, India..etc. were not ''educated when it really mattered'', they were ALWAYS educated at a standard rarely riveled by the West.
In Andalus muslims has very powerful Civilization in all areas ..Why you cant admit that muslims effect positively in the west ?
Originally posted by Fatima
Maybe I shouldn't say hate😕 but Homosexuality consider worse than rape ..very bad sin .. I heard that its shake the throne of God when man **** with man . cant imagine what kind of torture god prepares for them ..
Baggy T-shirts and absolutley NO Madonna
Homosexuality worse than rape????
this is why im atheist
Originally posted by vintageSW77
nope
but i get the feeling im about to
Oh, I am sure you heard the story of Lot.
Originally posted by Fatima
Maybe I shouldn't say hate😕 but Homosexuality consider worse than rape ..very bad sin .. I heard that its shake the throne of God when man **** with man . cant imagine what kind of torture god prepares for them ..
Your God is an ******* ****. Believing in him is the biggest sin in my Religion. And people like you (believers in Yahweh or Allah) are sinners and should surely be put to death. You are not human like us, you are lower. And my Religion is right about it. And in our hell the worst sin is to believe in your God, you will be tortured in the most cruel ways and I am happy that my God does that, because you are below animals.
Originally posted by Bardock42
So, why would you bring up Religious scientists in the first place? There are also Religious rapists and I wouldn't bring them up, because Religion has nothing to do with them raping someone. It is not condoned by the major Religions. I don't know why you don't understand it, sure, you will go on to say "I understand...", but then go on to show that you still don't get the difference.
Thats were your wrong actually, theres a book called Women In Islam where the author claims that Mohammed allowed his men to rape women. I thought this was BS then an Islamic scholar verified it. I was given the name of the hadith and told what happened.
There are also passages in the Bible were propehts do all sorts of atrocious things. Since they are prophets their actions could be used to justify evil actions.
Originally posted by Bardock42
T-that's why I said "if"...you know what "if" means, right? Probably not.
Of course I know what if means. If means if A happens then B will happen. "If not more". The question is what is A and what is B? A is being without religon. B is he would have done more, therefore if A happens (he was without religon) B would happen (he would have done more).
Originally posted by Bardock42
Anyways, yes, it is purely subjective,
Whats subjective is wether he would have done better without religon because you have no evidence.
Originally posted by Bardock42
though it is evident that the Religion throughout history stood in the way of free Scientific progress.
Again you are just using negative examples, there are plenty of examples where they did not. You used a quote from the Bible to show how bad religon was because it says homosexuality is evil, but there are probably plenty of passages in the Bible to encourage scientfic progress and I know some hadiths as well.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, the second part is subjective as well. You don'T know if it helped him or hindered him in his progress.
Thats a complete load of crap.
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/sci_rel/040811newton.html
Newton's Religion
Newton was a devout Christian. He hoped that his entire work in physics would inspire men to believe in God. He stated that:
"When I wrote my treastise about our System I had an eye upon such Principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a Deity and nothing can rejoice me more than to find it useful for that purpose."[4]
Do the math! Wether he would have done better without religon we dont know, but we do know that religon was a powerful force that motivated him to learn.. Get it? Therefore you cannot say that religon hinders the progress of science
Originally posted by Bardock42
You don't understand me, but yes, you don't agree with me.
BS.
Originally posted by Bardock42
This is not your viewpoint though. Your viewpoint was Religion is also good because some smart people were Religious. Which is an idiot's viewpoint.
No your an idiot thats not what I said.
Originally posted by Alfheim
All im saying is that religon can be a powerful motivating force to pursue science.
My main point is MOTIVATION. It could be argued that really the reason why Newton did so well is not because he was a genuis but because he worked so hard. They guy almost had a nervous breakdown! We know from the above quote that religon was his motivator.
Originally posted by Bardock42
If it is just, "some people are Religious others aren't" then we agree...but that wasn't what you argued at all, now was it?
No it wasn't.
Originally posted by Bardock42
In fact, coffee has probably done more for science than Religion.
Thats just a pig-headed arrogant statement to make, that sounds very moral authortarian to me.
Originally posted by Bardock42
What communism has to do with anything I am not quite sure, but I would say atheism is the opposite of theism and in that case I suppose you could say I prefer atheism, because it doesn't have a harmful belief system as default like many of the major religions.
Ok now your being an idiot. You said that we are better off without religon. What example am I supposed to give? Is not Communism an example of a non-religous system?
Originally posted by Bardock42
B-but, you see the faulty logic, right? I am arguing that we would be better off with Religion, you give examples of things where most people agree we would be better off without and compare them to Religion....that's all in all an excellent argument for my side. Are you sure you believe what you pretend to believe?
Ok I tell you what, answer the question.
Originally posted by Alfheim
Well if we want examples of how were are going to be better off without religon what examples are we going to use? Hinduism, Buddhism or should I give examples of systems where people dont belive in God.
Originally posted by Alfheim
Thats were your wrong actually, theres a book called Women In Islam where the author claims that Mohammed allowed his men to rape women. I thought this was BS then an Islamic scholar verified it. I was given the name of the hadith and told what happened.There are also passages in the Bible were propehts do all sorts of atrocious things. Since they are prophets their actions could be used to justify evil actions.
Of course I know what if means. If means if A happens then B will happen. "If not more". The question is what is A and what is B? A is being without religon. B is he would have done more, therefore if A happens (he was without religon) B would happen (he would have done more).
Whats subjective is wether he would have done better without religon because you have no evidence.
Again you are just using negative examples, there are plenty of examples where they did not. You used a quote from the Bible to show how bad religon was because it says homosexuality is evil, but there are probably plenty of passages in the Bible to encourage scientfic progress and I know some hadiths as well.
Thats a complete load of crap.
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/sci_rel/040811newton.html
Newton's Religion
Newton was a devout Christian. He hoped that his entire work in physics would inspire men to believe in God. He stated that:"When I wrote my treastise about our System I had an eye upon such Principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a Deity and nothing can rejoice me more than to find it useful for that purpose."[4]
Do the math! Wether he would have done better without religon we dont know, [B]but we do know that religon was a powerful force that motivated him to learn.
. Get it? Therefore you cannot say that religon hinders the progress of scienceBS.
No your an idiot thats not what I said.
My main point is MOTIVATION. It could be argued that really the reason why Newton did so well is not because he was a genuis but because he worked so hard. They guy almost had a nervous breakdown! We know from the above quote that religon was his motivator.
No it wasn't.
Thats just a pig-headed arrogant statement to make, that sounds very moral authortarian to me.
Ok now your being an idiot. You said that we are better off without religon. What example am I supposed to give? Is not Communism an example of a non-religous system?
Ok I tell you what, answer the question. [/B]
Bullshit.
Originally posted by Alfheim
Why is it bullshit? The statement you made about Communism itself was stupid. You say we are better off without it religon then , question me why am I using Communism. Not interested in what anybody else has to say unless they agree with you.
You did not counter my arguments in the least and everyone that reads it will see it, I have no need to again show that you don't understand the simplest concepts. I feel I wasted too much time already, if you had brought up something new I might reply to it, but you are just repeating the bullshit I showed to be bullshit, so, I am done with this conversation. For answers to your bullshit you can look through my previous posts.
Originally posted by Bardock42
You did not counter my arguments in the least and everyone that reads it will see it, I have no need to again show that you don't understand the simplest concepts. I feel I wasted too much time already, if you had brought up something new I might reply to it, but you are just repeating the bullshit I showed to be bullshit, so, I am done with this conversation. For answers to your bullshit you can look through my previous posts.
Stop making excuses.