|
Post by wdmundt on May 29, 2008 18:05:03 GMT -4
Or I suppose one could argue that we might never have heard of them if they had been religious. They'd have been too busy worshiping.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 29, 2008 18:48:32 GMT -4
Not really. I'm not using their arguments to make a point about the subject at hand. I'm just pointing out that two fairly important visionaries were "irreligious." To which the religious response is, "how much more could they have done if they had been religious?" The argument hinges on whether religion is viewed as an advantage. If it is, then anyone, no matter what their native talent, would be improved by religion, and therefore religion is required to acheive their greatest potential (because their greatest potential is what they could accomplish if they had every advantage in addition to their native talent). You could make an argument that the greatness of some people came from their lack of advantages others possess, and that without those obstacles they may not have acheived greatness, but the potential to acheive greatness was in them regardless - the obstacles only brought to the surface what was already there and presumably they may have found some other method to tap that ability. So, if mankind might have achieved greater things if they were religious. Or, you could make a strong case for the opposite. Religions often seeem to profess to know everything about the world that their followers need to know. "Don't go into the valley, it is forbidden" "The world is flat, don't go too far out into the ocean" "Demons are beyond the forest, do not venture there" "Do not do this or that, it will offend thy God" "Be content, and God will look after you." I know these aren't real historical quotes but you see my point. As philosophy and science progressed throughout the ages, the biggest stumbling block to that progress was organized religion. The Christian faith allows man to be ruler of the earth, and all animal life and resources are made by Him for his use. He doesn't respect those things, he feels his owns them and exploits them. Different cultures aren't there to share and interact with, they are there to convert and enslave. And that mindset is still with our society in varying degrees today. So, I'd have to say that without religion we might have even achieved greater things.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on May 29, 2008 18:51:38 GMT -4
Don't use your inhaler, or the alien gas will get into your lungs....
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on May 29, 2008 20:17:37 GMT -4
I would rather leave than participate on a board that "coddles" irrational religious freaks... If by "coddle" you mean allow people to express pretty much whatever religious beliefs they want (within limits) regardless of whether or not I share them, then yes, I guess I am coddling (although I have locked a number of Jason's topics). I guess the constitution coddles religious people too. I do not agree with many of Jason's beliefs, but that doesn't mean I'm going to restrict his ability to express those beliefs. And it also doesn't mean I'm going to ignore unnecessary hostility directed towards him. And really, I have seen worse "religious freaks" than Jason, and a lot of "anti-religion freaks" as well. There's no doubt that some people have been offended by some of Jason's comments, and I don't mean to encourage that. But I understand that from his point of view they are not intended to be offensive.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on May 29, 2008 20:20:11 GMT -4
Not really. I'm not using their arguments to make a point about the subject at hand. I'm just pointing out that two fairly important visionaries were "irreligious." To which the religious response is, "how much more could they have done if they had been religious?" And the other side of that coin is that maybe we would have done more without religion. Maybe we would have landed on the moon 500 years earlier without religion holding us back. It's the same argument I've had about musicians who claim drug use helps them create good music... but how do they know they wouldn't have created ever better music without the drugs? Maybe the Beatles would have sold more records without the drugs. I am the Walrus? The Yellow Submarine? What the heck were they smoking?
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on May 29, 2008 23:06:51 GMT -4
No need to apologize Are you sure it can't be used either way? I suppose I could be mistaken on this, but I have never heard "risk adverse," except for a seemingly endless stream of occurrences I just saw by someone who meant "risk averse," and who on at least one occasion (mis)quoted me. What would "risk adverse" mean? Aversion refers to preference - if I am risk averse, that means I don't like risk, and am willing to make a certain level of sacrifice to avoid it. In economics, the two alternatives to "risk averse" are "risk neutral" and "risk loving." Risk adverse sounds like it would mean not conducive to the existence of risk, which would be a property of a situation or an environment rather than a person. I suppose maybe we could consider a person "risk adverse" if they are the leader of an organization and squash any risk-takers within that organization But when we are talking about people disliking risk, I think "risk averse" is what we want to say. I suppose I could go back and change all my uses of the phrase to "adverse to risk" which would be more proper. Or I could just use other phrases. Please don't change anything on my account. But I would say "averse to risk" rather than "adverse to risk." Bugger, I am supposed to be a believer in descriptive rather than prescriptive grammar, now I have compromised my principles
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 30, 2008 11:23:18 GMT -4
So, if mankind might have achieved greater things if they were religious. Or, you could make a strong case for the opposite. Can you though? Your examples, as you admit, aren't real examples of what any real religion preaches. They seem to be playing to the stereotype that many people have about religions as being full of nonsensical restrictive taboos. But are actual religions, particularly modern religions really like that? I disagree. What philosophy and science we have from the ancient Greeks were preserved by religious individuals (in fact, for much of the middle ages religious groups were the only repositories of scientific or philosophical knowledge). Our modern university system has its roots in religion. Many scientists and philosophers felt they were illuminating God's creation (Isaac Newton, for example). Columbus felt he was inspired of God to explore and find a new route to the Indies. The stereotype that religion wants to quash scientific inquiry is just that - a stereotype. It is a caricature, not the reality. "The heart of the prudent getteth knowledge; and the ear of the wise seeketh knowledge." "The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth." It does not allow man to abuse that dominion. Man is to use these resources with respect, and ever mindful that he is only their custodian, and is responsible to one day give an account of his use of them. Christianity does not preach that you should enslave others, and holds that to be saved requires true faith - an individual's choice, in other words. Invariably when Christianity has been used as an excuse for terrible actions it has been used by those willfully ignorant of what that religion preaches. They have taken the bits that seem to support what they want to do out of context to justify their actions while ignoring the more inconvenient bits that would condemn their actions. It is the actions of hypocrites that have given religion a bad name. How can a religion be blamed for the actions of those who do not actually follow it? You might be able to find some people that seem to have been crippled by their strict adherence to a particular religious belief, but there are many more people who have been driven by their religious belief to achieve greatness.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 30, 2008 12:47:28 GMT -4
Okay--late to the game, but I've been having internet troubles. (Our router died.) According to the brief research I've done, "risk-averse" (I like the hyphen there; I think it makes more sense) is the right way to write it, since "averse" means "opposed to." I think an argument can be made that the act of lessening risk would make one "risk-adverse," but it's not, I think, a term that gets used.
Sorry for the argument by dictionary, but that's really the only way to get a definition to work.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on May 30, 2008 13:53:54 GMT -4
Not really. I'm not using their arguments to make a point about the subject at hand. I'm just pointing out that two fairly important visionaries were "irreligious." Three. Don't forget Isaac Asimov (my personal hero.)
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 30, 2008 15:01:27 GMT -4
In other words, "I would rather leave than act civilly." I would rather leave than participate on a board that "coddles" irrational religious freaks... Oh come on, RAF, surely Jason's rants shouldn't bother you that much? Jason may be a bit over zealous at times, but anyone can choose to ignore his posts if they wish. Whatever his beliefs, I get the impression that he's one of the increasingly fewer Christians (?) who actually lives his faith, but of course I don't know him personally. This may be good or bad, depending on which areas of his faith are emphasized. I for one think that he makes the forum interesting and gives it diversity. He can also frustrate and befuddle me. He is also polite and intelligent. His one major fault is posting those silly analogies that don't make a whole lot of sense. Oh, and his semantic games can make you want to pull your hair out. Listen, I don't believe in God and think of religions in general as fairy tales gone wild, but I understand why people believe what they do. \ One thing for sure, I don't take anything said on this forum personally - so far.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 30, 2008 15:23:45 GMT -4
Whatever his beliefs, I get the impression that he's one of the increasingly fewer Christians (?) who actually lives his faith, but of course I don't know him personally. This may be good or bad, depending on which areas of his faith are emphasized. I try. That's really all any Christian can say. I don't think I'm the best Christian in the world but I'm probably not the worst one either (of course some people argue that a Mormon can't be a Christian at all). Thank you. Allow me to return the compliment. You did get the one about the M&Ms, didn't you? Sometimes that is the intent. Like I said, I'm not a perfect Christian. I probably enjoy antagonizing people on the internet far more than is really healthy.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 30, 2008 15:26:06 GMT -4
And hey, the more RAF rants and raves at me, the more rational and polite I look by comparison. He's really unintentionally bolstering my arguments.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on May 30, 2008 15:27:55 GMT -4
(of course some people argue that a Mormon can't be a Christian at all). Ha ha. Thus the question mark!
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 30, 2008 15:32:59 GMT -4
(of course some people argue that a Mormon can't be a Christian at all).Ha ha. Thus the question mark! Well we certainly consider ourselves Christians (the name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, after all, and the Book of Mormon is subtitled "Another Testament of Jesus Christ") We don't go around telling others that they aren't Christians because they don't believe exactly what we do either.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on May 30, 2008 18:07:03 GMT -4
Interesting. I can assume that religion has driven people to discoveries and actions over the eons. Hard to say how many that would have happened without. Well, that and war. We have a good history in that (not meant as good if you see what I mean).
I think the underlying issue whether religious or not is in the human make up. Looking over the hill to see what is there or stay in the cave, safer but the walls are dull. Maybe a bit of paint needed. How about a few stick figures?
Without wanting to be rude I personally think religion is along for the ride in mankind's development. Please, that comes from my point of view. We would not be here today if it wasn't for that need to look over that hill and wonder what is there.
But, people can be religious for many reasons. Forgive me but it is not a thought I am used to so give me a moment. Reading some of the memoirs of the Apollo astronauts it is clear that religion did play a part for them. Good I say. But I also think that they were very much aware of capabilities of the time etc. The need o look over the hill if you will.
Either way I think self sacrifice is hard wired into the human psyche and surfaces in ways triggered by many things but also self preservation is also high up there in the old noggin. So I could assume that it can play a part and also not play a part . Strength of character and all that.
Not meaning to offend anyone.
|
|