Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Mahora Academy. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Dark Side Of Philosophy; ~~Feel the evil~~
Topic Started: Sep 10 2007, 03:39 AM (771 Views)
Alucard
Member Avatar
Konoka-ness Master (army of one XD)
[ *  *  *  * ]
that's what I'm saying - everything was invented by a monk - but if he'd done it earlier than that, he'd have been seen as using witchcraft(besides, now is one of our greatests states of advancement in history)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
frodowise
Uber Soldant
[ *  * ]
Sir Issac Newton discovered gravity and he was a devout Christian. Robert Boyle was also a Christian. They believed that what they discovered glorified God.
I think, Alucard, that you imagine the church of Galileo's day. That church was a backwards institution that refused to accept that what they believe might be incorrect in some areas. And what is worse, instead of simply saying that "well, maybe we could prove you wrong" they simply put him under house arrest.
Greatest state of advancement? In some areas it is but only because of the foundation laid by many a Christian scientist who believed that his work glorified his God. In other areas...well, then we enter the world of global warming, evolution and other hoaxes. Though we have advanced greatly in the past few decades, we have also created lies and trickery disguised as science. Please understand that this is my opinion, not a stated fact. My opinion is based on scientific evidence I have read and so on but what I have seen may not be good enough for others.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gafgar Adolis
Member Avatar
Chaos God of Moderation (and No Pants)
Teachers
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Alucard
Member Avatar
Konoka-ness Master (army of one XD)
[ *  *  *  * ]
mine is statable fact - we've never advanced so far before as we are now

anyway, Belief in itself and it's basic nature involves shuning all other areas that may give it doubt; that's the nature of fanaticism
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
frodowise
Uber Soldant
[ *  * ]
Belief != fanatacism. I think you made that distinction but I wanted to make sure...
As I said, we are advanced in some areas (and are still advancing very rapidly) but in other areas we are either slowing down or even destroying what we already have.
EDIT: I think you forgot to put "and won a prize for it" on that little banner Gafgar.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Alucard
Member Avatar
Konoka-ness Master (army of one XD)
[ *  *  *  * ]
ya know old 8 bit games? to be specific, Legend of Zelda in 2-D(or Pokemon)

you move one space, a row disappears behind you. Of course, a brand new row appears in front of you. Move anywhere and you'll always be centered. It's your own place with a distance to see in and even a map to follow

That's basically life
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lord_lir
Member Avatar
MASTER OF FLAMES AND DARKNESS
[ *  *  *  * ]
Alucard,Nov 15 2007
06:04 PM
ya know old 8 bit games? to be specific, Legend of Zelda in 2-D(or Pokemon)

you move one space, a row disappears behind you. Of course, a brand new row appears in front of you. Move anywhere and you'll always be centered. It's your own place with a distance to see in and even a map to follow

That's basically life

Brilliant analogy!!!!

Life can feel like that tho'... to put a negative spin on your theory, we don't seem to be getting anywhere.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gafgar Adolis
Member Avatar
Chaos God of Moderation (and No Pants)
Teachers
Life for me is about three things: good food, hot women, and big explosions. If you feel like your life is meaningless, then go find some meaning for it or gtfo, you're wasting oxygen.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lord_lir
Member Avatar
MASTER OF FLAMES AND DARKNESS
[ *  *  *  * ]
Life's not meaningless...

Wasting it is meaningless...

or whatever...

I dunno, i never get depressed and I'm certainly not now.

I just like to put a negative spin on things (I'm a pessimist ya see)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dystant
Member Avatar
In a galaxy far far away...
[ *  * ]
Alucard,Nov 15 2007
01:20 PM
mine is statable fact - we've never advanced so far before as we are now

anyway, Belief in itself and it's basic nature involves shuning all other areas that may give it doubt; that's the nature of fanaticism

There's nothing wrong with believing in something. I believe science is the answer to everything. I also believe that our current interpretation of the universe could potentially change dramatically as technology progresses and allows us the fully explore the wonders around us.

I was going to mention the how this differs to religion as a whole, however as Lord_lir has requested we attempt not to offend anyone I'll simply suggest everyone read just about any book by Richard Dawkins...

You know, I only just stumbled upon this topic, it's a shame, cos it's an area I know quite a bit about, being the argumentative Atheist that I am. I which case, I think I'll go back over just about the whole thing and add my bit (which seems to be quite a lot).

However I will point out I am going to be picking holes in religious arguments. I believe religion deserves no more respect than any scientific hypothesis on the origins of life and the universe. I apologise if this causes disharmony in the topic, however these are my beliefs. Any holding of Religion from being somehow exempt from critical evaluation would offend me.

frodowise
 

Also consider that (unlike, for example, the Koran) all of the books of the Bible support each other. Never is a contradiction made despite...probably 30-40 authors?


http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim...radictions.html

This says it all.

frodowise
 

As for Noah's Flood, I heard an evolutionist propose that the world was at one time wiped out by great tsunamies. He explained that he thought the meteorite that struck Earth and wiped out the dinosaurs did so by causing a massive wave (or waves) that covered the entire earth in water. He also showed an island with a collosal crater that was of appropriate size for his killer meteorite. This he used a proof for his hypothesis. Odd, that even an evolusionist would find that the world was at one time wiped out by water.


There have been many mass extinctions in the history of the planet. It is therefore possible that, at one point in time a mass extinction event was caused by a meteor induced tsunami.

Tsunami's are caused my massive water displacement, be it by earthquake or landslide. Landslides cause the largest tsunamis via a mechanism which causes an air pocket to form around the point of initial displacement, increasing the volume of water displaced when compared to the volume of land displaced. Such tsunamis are known as mega tsunamis.

Geologists are also in agreement that Mega Tsunamis could be generated by Bolide (geologist speak for bloody large meteor) impact. This has happened more than once, the best examples being the Chesapeake Bay bolide impact, which created a wave which some theories suggest flowed over the Blue Ridge mountains, and the Chicxulub bolide impact, which was originally believed to be the cause of the mass extinction which killed of the dinosaurs.

However recent core samples from Chicxulub prove the impact occurred about 300,000 years before the extinction of the dinosaurs, and thus could not have been the cause of their demise. Most scientist now disagree with the Bolide Impact hypothesis, at least a bolide impacting at Chicxulub.

Anyway, enough about marine geology, what's any of this go to do with Noah's flood. If anything, I've just mentioned several pieces of evidence which totally invalidates the bible from being any form of scientific reference. For example, according the bible, the earth didn't exist 300,000 years ago. Hell, the bible is totally contradicted by the existence of dinosaurs. Also, there is no scientific evidence of the sea level being anything like as high as the bible suggests for Noah's flood within the time frame of human existence, nor has there been a mass extinction event during the time frame of human existence.

Local flood I can believe, a major flood would have been pretty terminal to small communities if encountered in the time the Pentateuch were written (over the period 950 and 200 bc by best scientific estimates), however this hypothesis again seems to invalidate the point that the bible was supposedly written to be fact, a dictation from a supernatural personal god.

Anyway next point:

Lord_lir
 

I remember reading somewhere about a mistranslation of Red Sea... it meant to be Reed Sea...

Archaeologists used that to try and prove the Parting by Moses... attributing it to a recorded massive volcano eruption.

frodowise
 

I had heard about the mistranslation... No idea if its right or wrong given that I don't translate the Bible :).
But if the person who was recording Exodus (Moses) had seen a volcanic eruption why would he note that a great wind parted the waters?


For the mistranslation the best explanation comes from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Sea

Quote:
 

In the Bible tale of The Exodus the phrase yam suph (or y'am Suf) refers to the body of water that the children of Israel crossed following their exodus from Egypt, and was just recently discovered to be the correct translation of Yam suf, instead of Red Sea, which is very close by. This same phrase is also used to denote the body of water referred to in 1 Kings 9:26: "And King Solomon made a navy of ships in Ezion-Geber, which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Reed Sea, in the land of Edom." Eloth, or Elath, was the name of a seaport on the northern shore of the Red Sea in the Gulf of Aqaba, very close to the Reed Sea. This is correct.


As for the volcanic event, the Santorini eruption (1623bc +-25) which wiped out the Minoans generated a mega tsunami when the caldera collapsed, turning one Island into several smaller ones. What's important to remember is that a tsunami is never one wave, but a series of progressively larger waves (usually 2 or 3) known as a wave train.

Given the location of the reed sea, it's more than possible that the tsunamis flooded the reed sea and then receded, emptying the sea enough for it to be passable before the next wave hit. This is only a hypothesis however, and there is little evidence for it.

Next:

Gafgar Adolis
 

An amazingly large amount of scientific advancement back in ancient times - hell, even a few hundred years ago - was actually furthered by religious leaders. I find it most amusing that most scientists these days dismiss all religion as 'unscientific' when it was Christian monks in Europe and Buddhist priests in China who came up with most of the things they now view as scientific fact.


In periods of time where religion was dominant, this was indeed true, though one of the largest reasons for that in those periods religion usually had control, or at least significant influence, over educational establishments, and also the priesthood was one of the few occupations which gave enough free time to allow for the reading, observing, philosophising, and general experimenting required for the creation of important, ground breaking theories.

However it can also be said that religion stifled scientific development. The catholic church and many Islamic establishments have in their history outlawed many scientific texts as being blasphemous. The catholic church especially went through phases of purposefully curtailing scientific development in areas seen to conflict with sacred dogma.

frodowise
 

Sir Issac Newton discovered gravity and he was a devout Christian.


This is indeed true, Newton was indeed a devout Christian, and wrote several studies of the scriptures. It is said he spent more time studying his faith than he did studying science. However, in Newton's time many of the scientific developments that form arguments against the existence of a supernatural personal god had not been discovered. In the time in which he lived, the church was possibly the largest organisation in the whole of the United Kingdom, and at least dominated the area he was born and raised (and I should know, I was born in the same town!).

However those that have come after him, most notably Einstein and Hawking, two Pillars of Relativity, the scientific theory which superseded Newtonian physics are/were Atheists or at least Pantheists (Pantheists not believe in a supernatural god, instead hold a near religious view of the universe, using the word 'God' as a synonym for nature).

Which pretty much brings me back to where I started.

If anyone reads all of this, I'll give them a cookie. Hell, they'd probably deserve a plate.

And sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you a bit frodowise san, that wasn't my intention. You just happen to be the person who posted the most statements I happened to not agree with I'm afraid.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Alucard
Member Avatar
Konoka-ness Master (army of one XD)
[ *  *  *  * ]
@Lir:I personally think that the "8-bit" theory is objective by nature (no evil or good involved)

it's basically post modernism nicely wrapped up

@Gafgar:that makes you something of a absurdist philosopher then?

@Dystant:I like what you've said. Well put

still, I do have some thoughts on the religious ideals

for one, though it's true that there's almost no real scientific way to prove religion correct, on the flip side, there's no way to properly prove it wrong eithere.

Besides, I may not like religion, but it has done many good things for the world (and bad, but if you follow the 8-bit theory, everything is as bad as good)

it doesn't much matter if a god exists or not, because the simple image of one alone was able to make people in the world do great and benelovent things. It was really the idea that counted

but even for all the good it's done, you're right. Religion does have a good few holes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dystant
Member Avatar
In a galaxy far far away...
[ *  * ]
Alucard,Dec 12 2007
07:23 PM
it doesn't much matter if a god exists or not, because the simple image of one alone was able to make people in the world do great and benelovent things. It was really the idea that counted

I'd argue that Religion has caused just as many if not more acts of evilness than acts of kindness.

For example, how much terrorism would we experience in a world devoid of religion?

If there was no religion, one of the major barriers to the widespread adoption of condoms in various African, Central American, and South American states currently either in the grip of an AIDS pandemic or working towards that state, would possible be devoid of the disease, or at least have infection rates far lower than current levels.

If there was no religion, would certain vaccines for Polio, and other life threatening illnesses which could have been totally eradicated in only a few years time have been declared 'un-Islamic' by North African Imams, thus endangering the lives of thousands, potentially millions, of children.

Do the kind acts of a moral many, many of whom could have been driven by compassion to perform these acts anyway, make up for the negligence, thoughtless cruelty, murder, and genocide all committed under the same guise?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TwilightElegy
Member Avatar
Middle Schooler
[ *  * ]
Religion has caused a lot of harm, yes, but it isnt the *religion* itself that has done this. Organised churches are where we can truly place the blame.

For example: The Crusades of the Middle Ages were officially sanctioned by the Vatican (and the whole Holy See). This is an ancient example of church brutality, as was the Spanish Inquisition and the Witch Hunts of the Medi-eval-Renaissance eras (both of which were organised by the benedictine order).

In the modern era: the Vatican church is highly rich, as are the many branches of Islam and Protestantism, and we only really see facetious efforts at charity being conducted by them.

Why? Because at heart, the Churches have the interests of the church, and not the people of religion at heart.

I am not attacking religion, but am attacking *organised* religion. The church must evolve to stay relevant.

For more on this, I suggest you read the works of Michael Onfray.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Alucard
Member Avatar
Konoka-ness Master (army of one XD)
[ *  *  *  * ]
You know, this sort of debate is defiantly best between atheists.

Either way, as the saying goes, "there's no good or evil: only power".

As they other saying goes, "Knowledge is Power"

Religion has given this world great knowledge, which has been good for its growth

But either way, I've got two ultimate ways of viewing things: "Small World" and "Big World". Small world is humanitarian and filled with good ideas for improving life. Big world is for ultimate ideas, and recognizes that the improvement of human lives harms everything else

Small world wise, religion has done good and bad for this world

Big world wise, it's done nothing but evil

I suppose that leaves not much for religion to go on...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gafgar Adolis
Member Avatar
Chaos God of Moderation (and No Pants)
Teachers
Alucard,Dec 12 2007
06:23 PM
@Gafgar:that makes you something of a absurdist philosopher then?

More like just a drunk, horny asshat.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Yue's Corner · Next Topic »
Add Reply