Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Human History  (Read 23960 times)

Re: Human History

Reply #51 –
Quote from: jseaton2311 on

But 911 changed the landscape permanently.

In what way? 911 was a trivial event but for the 3000 people who died, their friends and relatives and a shocked public. More than 30,000 people are killed by firearms each year in this country, and more than 10,000 of them are homicides. Do these numbers shock and horrify like 911 did? Why not? Because the media take all of those deaths in stride because they trickle in on a local level.

Re: Human History

Reply #52 –
Quote from: Jimbro3738 on
911 was a trivial event but for the 3000 people who died, their friends and relatives and a shocked public.


That pretty much covers the whole world, Jimbro, so I don't see your point.  If you are talking about folks in the Andromeda galaxy, then I'm sure it was trivial for them.

But are you too shortsighted to even see the practical impact?  What about the psychological or economic impacts, not just here but around the globe?  Life is not the same on planet earth since 9/11 and you  call it a trivial event.  Death in itself is not horrifying, more than 150,000 people die everyday, we slaughter more than 30,000 people a year with cars--you gonna give up driving in sanctimonious protest?  Are you truly horrified by death--all death--(I don't think so), or is the manner or the reason why people die that is the horrifying part?  Which is more horrifying for you, a death from an accident or the death of an innocent child slaughtered by terrorists?  If you see them as equally trivial then you have lost your humanity.   :knight:  :cheers:
James J

Re: Human History

Reply #53 –
I think you do have a deep point there jimbro. It is all about presentation and tapping into immediate emotion with the media putting aside the wider for each local incident. This touches immediate emotion locally for them whilst the wider issue is shoved aside.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: Human History

Reply #54 –
Want to try something different and help bring us back to the topic, jseaton2311?

What would you say was one of the most damaging 100 years of Christianity (or just religion)?

I'm going with this. Because of stuff like this. But clearly there were some perks too.

Re: Human History

Reply #56 –
Quote from: ensbb3 on
What would you say was one of the most damaging 100 years of Christianity (or just religion)?


Most of it was damaging, even deadly, throughout its course, but it has had its good points, especially early on.  You see I am not an antitheist in that people should be free to believe what they will.  However, when anything, take racism for example, becomes harmful and/or outrageous to a society, people need to take a stand--don't you think?  Religion is harmful, damaging and outrageous in many respects that are plain to see today, so I take a stand.  I don't take a stand as an atheist or because I am an atheist, I take a stand as a concerned member of planet Earth. 

Faults in certain religions need to be quickly corrected by those religions (or sects of religions), or they should be abolished (as should racism), because of their harm (sometimes deadly), to society.  Preventing the teaching of good science in schools is harmful in that it stifles education and the attainment and advancement of real world knowledge.  Religions that deny followers the right to use contraceptives or have abortions is harmful to a society that has to carry the burden of unwanted and neglected children who grow up to live on social programs paid for by those who are productive in society.  And any religion whose written and holy doctrine is to force itself on the whole of humanity is just plain offensive lunacy.  These are but a few examples. 

Religion should first do no harm; you don't need to be a genius to see the harm certain religious doctrine causes .  Believe what you wish to believe, but just leave it at that and worship quietly amongst yourselves.  I don't get carried away with atheism (any more), and I haven't ever preached it to anyone, not even my own children, one of whom is religious while the other two are not--all by their own choices.   :knight:  :cheers:
James J

Re: Human History

Reply #57 –
James, you might want to read this… :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: Human History

Reply #58 –
Quote from: Belfrager on
Tennessee... the land of future... the best one hundred years of civilization...

Actually all the Presidents from Tennessee were ruthless assholes. You'd probably like them.

Re: Human History

Reply #59 –
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on

James, you might want to read this… :)


I read it twice thank you for that article.  My trifling thoughts are that as the population of scientists increases due to the many new sub-branches of science, one will not find just the unobtrusive nerdy guy in the back corner with his test tubes and Bunsen burner, as apparently the author Austin Hughes would prefer.  Instead you will find every character of person that there is in the world, now delving into science.  Hence, you will find the good, the bad and the ugly as you would in any other endeavor of man where there is money and possibly fame to be gained.  Shocking news only to science idealists like Hughes. 

Lines in the sand have been drawn for science not to cross by powerful and influential institutions before, but to no avail then or now.  Envisage the world if science had bowed to the fervent entreatments of religion to not delve into areas presumed to be better left for religion to answer.  Can you imagine how much knowledge, technology and over all improvement in life could have been lost?  Now philosophy wishes to draw a line in the sand for science not to cross and it fights science with the eloquent, logical and convincing style born out of philosophy itself.  It gives me pause for a moment or two, sure, but soon I dismiss it as simply a futile attempt at philosophy's own self-preservation.  Just like religion, philosophy is not going away any time soon and perhaps never entirely away at all.  But why would anyone ask science not to attempt to eclipse philosophy in the first place?  What is philosophy afraid that science might find--philosophy's own folly perhaps? 

If the intellectual expertise of Sam Harris in neuroscience intuits him to believe that science can ultimately answer questions of morality and ethics, why shouldn't he be able to conjecture on that--even pontificate on it for money if he wishes?  Science often begins with musing and conjecture, it's not scientifically backed up yet, but so what?  If you stop scientists from imagining out loud and bouncing things off others, what good are you doing--moreover, what harm could you be doing?  Surely it would have been folly to imagine that the same person who witnessed a 12 second flight at Kitty Hawk could have also witnessed a man walking on the moon a short 65 years later.  And what if it turns out that the only thing that could save the generation of your grandchildren from global war and destruction was for the questions of morality and ethics to be resolved scientifically--would it then still be scientific folly?  You and I or anyone else, has no idea of what science may eventually discover, trying to impede or constrain science is the only true folly here Oak.   :knight:  :cheers:
 
James J

Re: Human History

Reply #60 –
Quote from: jseaton2311 on

And what if it turns out that the only thing that could save the generation of your grandchildren from global war and destruction was for the questions of morality and ethics to be resolved scientifically--would it then still be scientific folly? 

What if it turns out that that the reason why we are on the verge of global war and destruction is scientists who keep inventing more effective weapons. Or is there perhaps some other reason, religion or philosophy? Nope, looks like scientific progress in the military area is the only reason.

Quote from: jseaton2311 on

You and I or anyone else, has no idea of what science may eventually discover, trying to impede or constrain science is the only true folly here Oak.   :knight:  :cheers:

I have a very good idea what they will discover: More of the same.

Re: Human History

Reply #61 –
Quote from: ersi on

Quote from: jseaton2311 on

And what if it turns out that the only thing that could save the generation of your grandchildren from global war and destruction was for the questions of morality and ethics to be resolved scientifically--would it then still be scientific folly? 

What if it turns out that that the reason why we are on the verge of global war and destruction is scientists who keep inventing more effective weapons. Or is there perhaps some other reason, religion or philosophy? Nope, looks like scientific progress in the military area is the only reason.

Lol, so the caveman who invented the first club to bash in the brains of a neighboring tribe did it.  Are you sure he was a scientist?  Get serious. 

Quote from: jseaton2311 on

You and I or anyone else, has no idea of what science may eventually discover, trying to impede or constrain science is the only true folly here Oak.   :knight:  :cheers:

I have a very good idea what they will discover: More of the same.

We can only hope so Ersi...we can only hope so.   :knight:  :cheers:

James J

Re: Human History

Reply #62 –
Like it or not, science NEEDS religion and philosophy to keep it in check.

Science is great at asking--- and answering-- whether we CAN do something. Religion and philosophy ask whether we SHOULD do it.

You can build a bigger monster, a more powerful bomb, mess with human DNA in an attempt to build a superior human. Science can do that. But, should you? What if the superior human builds a bigger monster to throw his more powerful bomb to wipe all us lesser men off the face of the planet? Science never asks that---- until after the fact.
What would happen if a large asteroid slammed into the Earth?
According to several tests involving a watermelon and a large hammer, it would be really bad!

Re: Human History

Reply #63 –
it seems apocalyptic mind will bring to nowhere ..

and that is how insane people change the world

since Normal People are to Fear to Create something Radical 

Re: Human History

Reply #64 –
Quote from: mjmsprt40 on
Like it or not, science NEEDS religion and philosophy to keep it in check.

No it doesn't.  When they tried, it didn't work. 


Quote from: mjmsprt40 on
Science is great at asking--- and answering-- whether we CAN do something. Religion and philosophy ask whether we SHOULD do it.

And science will do it anyway.


Quote from: mjmsprt40 on
You can build a bigger monster, a more powerful bomb, mess with human DNA in an attempt to build a superior human. Science can do that. But, should you? What if the superior human builds a bigger monster to throw his more powerful bomb to wipe all us lesser men off the face of the planet? Science never asks that---- until after the fact.


I'm sure this is a spoof and not a good one at that.   :knight:  :cheers:
James J

Re: Human History

Reply #65 –
Finding out that you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do it.......

What would happen if a large asteroid slammed into the Earth?
According to several tests involving a watermelon and a large hammer, it would be really bad!

Re: Human History

Reply #66 –
Yes, you can do this--- but --- just don't. No need to explain.

What would happen if a large asteroid slammed into the Earth?
According to several tests involving a watermelon and a large hammer, it would be really bad!

Re: Human History

Reply #67 –
Science do not need anything , because it is a Dead Matter .

while Human ..
For somehow,  Need Consciousness to develop Science . 

No Conscious mind , No Science .

Vice versa

Re: Human History

Reply #68 –
Religions , in my perspective is something like Social-Political vehicle .

it is good at populate the People .

no People , no Taxes .
no taxes , No Experiments .

especially experiments that Founded by the Governments .

Re: Human History

Reply #69 –
I don't know what science has to do with History except if DnD has turned a Marxist refuge...
On the other hand, post modernism as the end of history doesn't convince me.
A matter of attitude.

Re: Human History

Reply #71 –
Quote from: mjmsprt40 on
Like it or not, science NEEDS religion and philosophy to keep it in check.

Why's that? It might discover something that offends people that take a book written by people barely out of the stoneage more literally than they took it themselves? Oh right, you mentioned building a superhuman and other monstrosities. There's no reason to assume that the atheist scientist lacks because shed primitive superstitions. Now look at what religious ethics have brought us. Yes, it has happened people of limited cognitive and moral development do the right thing. Look up Kohlberg's stages for moral development for more explanation.

However, the religious excuse for ethics has brought us "witch" burnings, the Inquisitions, people fleeing to the New World for religious freedom only to establish a dictatorship that went so far as to execute Native Americans for holding weddings according to their own customs and traditions, Cromwell invading Ireland resulting in half the Irish dead. That's just the beginning of  atrocities committed in the name of religious ethics and concerning only one religion. In modern times, still only dealing with Christianity, jseaton2311 already mentioned religious prohibition against abortion and the added strain to social services. Yet, many of the ones against abortion also managed to be against contraception. Condoms, of course, also serve to reduce the spread of STDs A widespread folly among religious people is to assume that religion (their religion in particular) somehow has a monopoly on morals and ethics.
Quote from: jseaton2311 on
But why would anyone ask science not to attempt to eclipse philosophy in the first place?  What is philosophy afraid that science might find--philosophy's own folly perhaps?

Perhaps philosophy and religion can incorporate new insights and discoveries by science? If not, they seem doomed to intellectual death and rehashing the same tired ideas in evermore eloquent ways.

Or in sometimes less eloquent. In the Myr thread, I briefly criticized this for inaccuracies. I had to keep my critique short as to not waste hours shredding it. Then it occurred to me that articles like that are deliberately long and convoluted for several reasons: to confuse the reader into accepting the author's opinion, to impress readers with sheer number of arguments (the accuracy of them not withstanding), the common knowledge that most people will only read the top and possibly conclusion of any given lengthy article and assume the middle is correct, and other reasons. In other words, I suspect that some of the philosophers are becoming less eloquently deliberately. I say this knowing how counter-intuitive it might seem.  Think of it this way, it's actually easier poke holes in Aquinas' "Five Proofs" than it is to do so with an article like Hughes' because Aquinas wrote his ideas clearly and concisely without deliberately misrepresenting mainstream scientific opinion and bloating it with gibberish.

Re: Human History

Reply #74 –
I don't know about a Bear's foot although it looks like a Bear's something.

Strange how a vegetarian would want to even pretend that they might be eating a cuddly little turkey with "meaty" gravy.