InfiniteNow Posted July 22, 2009 Report Posted July 22, 2009 However the other religions including Christianity are doing far more good than any harm to the world and the people of the world. In the modern age secular man is the true destroyer. Stalin, Pol Pot, the warlords in Africa that behead and mutilate and cause the death of 2,500 children a day from starvation and the lack of clean water. Ah, yes... that old canard. :) Yep... it was secularism which informed the disgusting practices of Stalin and Pol Pot. How many times will we hear that same tired claim repeated before people know better than to use it? It's akin to suggesting that if I put kittens into microwaves that my doing so is informed by my lack of belief in the tooth fairy. Good grief. Quote
RevOfAllRevs Posted July 22, 2009 Report Posted July 22, 2009 The art and architecture of the renaissance was not inspired by religious thought. The era preceding it however was. It was called the “Dark Ages”. Well my point being was that religion (most major religions) has given mankind art, buildings, great literature, the frame work of science and other disciplines, a social scaffolding and catalyst to come and stay together among other good things. Of course like everything else it wasn't all good! But all in all, in my opinion religion is more good than bad for society. ; }> Quote
RevOfAllRevs Posted July 22, 2009 Report Posted July 22, 2009 Ah, yes... that old canard. :) Yep... it was secularism which informed the disgusting practices of Stalin and Pol Pot. How many times will we hear that same tired claim repeated before people know better than to use it? It's akin to suggesting that if I put kittens into microwaves that my doing so is informed by my lack of belief in the tooth fairy. Good grief. Yes you will hear the truth many more times if you insist on blaming religion for secular mans woes. Greed is the root of all evil, if you deny that show proof instead of using tired old sayings. And I see that you are resorting to insults when you can't defend your claims with facts, typical fare. ; {> Quote
Thunderbird Posted July 22, 2009 Report Posted July 22, 2009 For starters I don’t think that religion has done much to stifle creativity, in fact the opposite is true. When Michelangelo was commissioned to do a piece for the church, I highly doubt if the church restricted the artist in creativity and would bet that he had free reign to do as he wished. The facts are that we do have the great wonders created by the religious builders and artists, we don't have to speculate what could of been. We have some of the greatest things that man has ever created or accomplished BECAUSE of religion. Its that simple. ; }> Think again. the church was infact responsible for defacing many great works of renaissance art. Some of Michelangelo’s most famous works, the frescoes in the Sistine Chapel, were also a subject of infamous argument. The Last Judgment, a huge mural covering an entire wall within the chapel, caused such a stir that another artist was later commissioned to cover portions of it. As told by the Vatican Museum, a high ranking member or the church was quoted as saying “’it was most dishonest in such an honoured place to have painted so many nude figures who so dishonestly show their shame and that it was not a work for a Chapel of the Pope but for stoves and taverns’ (G. Vasari, LeVite)” (Vatican.va). The decision was made by the Council of Trent in 1564, the same year as Michelangelo’s death, to have Daniele da Volterra paint “breeches” onto the nude figures religious builders and artists, Again you are misleading. The art was commissioned by the church. The Church was the patron simply because they had the money to pay for it. The creativity came from the ones they hired. The were in a sense commercial artist working for the church. In other words they were not free to do what they wanted to do. Quote
InfiniteNow Posted July 22, 2009 Report Posted July 22, 2009 Yes you will hear the truth many more times if you insist on blaming religion for secular mans woes. This is a strawman. I never claimed any such thing, nor would I. Greed is the root of all evil, if you deny that show proof instead of using tired old sayings.Actually, that's not how it works. YOU are the one making the assertion. YOU are the one claiming that "greed is the root of all evil." This means that the onus is on YOU to prove it, not on me to deny it. Either way, I'm not interesting in playing this game with you. I grew tired of it long ago. You can take that as a concession if you'd like, I don't care. The simple truth is that I know it will take more than a few examples of evil which is NOT caused by greed to change your mind and penetrate the intellectual shield which is indoctrination. And I see that you are resorting to insults when you can't defend your claims with facts, typical fare. If you think that I insulted you, then you are far too sensitive to offense, and it's best that we don't interact. I neither insulted you nor religion in that post, only the suggestion that the actions of Stalin and PolPot were somehow informed by their secularism. That suggestion is a bald faced lie, and it's one that those of theistic persuasion repeat far too often, despite it's lack of accuracy. Quote
Boerseun Posted July 22, 2009 Report Posted July 22, 2009 Greed is the root of all evil, if you deny that show proof instead of using tired old sayings.So you're using a tired old saying as your proof?:shrug: Quote
RevOfAllRevs Posted July 22, 2009 Report Posted July 22, 2009 Think again. the church was infact responsible for defacing many great works of renaissance art. Again you are misleading. The art was commissioned by the church. The Church was the patron simply because they had the money to pay for it. The creativity came from the ones they hired. The were in a sense commercial artist working for the church. In other words they were not free to do what they wanted to do. Still it does not distract from the fact that the works that we do have (that I mentioned, and hundreds that I did not) wouldn't be here save for religious belief. ; {> Quote
Boerseun Posted July 22, 2009 Report Posted July 22, 2009 Well, neither would we have had the Children's Crusade or the Inquisition, if not for religious belief - for what it's worth, of course. Quote
modest Posted July 22, 2009 Report Posted July 22, 2009 Society came before religion, not the other way around. It depends what you mean by society. Religion came when humans were living in tribes kind of like baboons live in now—most conservatively at 30,000 years, but more likely around 100,000 years ago. I guess not exactly like a baboon troop, but back when we were hunter / gatherers. Paleolithic religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ~modest Quote
RevOfAllRevs Posted July 22, 2009 Report Posted July 22, 2009 So I stand by my claim that religion had done much more good than harm. We wouldn't have everything from the first large structure ie; the ziggurats to the pyramids to the Sistine chapel and more. We wouldn't have many of works of art and literature. I highly doubt if civilization would of emerged when it did and advance as fast as it did if religion was non existent. I won't comment on the side arguments that a few of you have attempted make, because those are your claims not mine, and you are welcome to them and they don't concern nor rebut my claims. ; {> Quote
modest Posted July 22, 2009 Report Posted July 22, 2009 Of course, I guess I could be wrong -- so if you can give me the names of half a dozen creationists with PhD degrees in geology, biology, or paleontology then by all means, I will recant and apologize. This site... Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net Has a list of about 55. Some of them have a link to accompanying information which appears to be well-sourced. But, you'd have to check them all to be sure. ~modest EDIT: Sorry, make that 94. This link is more appropriate: http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html Quote
RevOfAllRevs Posted July 22, 2009 Report Posted July 22, 2009 Well, neither would we have had the Children's Crusade or the Inquisition, if not for religious belief - for what it's worth, of course. The crusades were holy war fought at a time when war was truly hell. The Christians fought to remove the Muslim infidels from the holy city. I have no opinion if they were good or bad. But they paled in comparison to one pol pot. When you combine the secular wars of one two Vietnam Korea the civil war warlords in Africa just to name a few and its laughable to claim that religious wars were atrocities. So, I feel that immoral secular man is far more dangerous that a red letter christian religious man. Why? A secular humanist highest authority is man. The same men that arranged the killing fields. A red letter christian goes by the teachings of Jesus, and murder for example is forbidden. Not to mention stealing and adultery etc.... ; {> Quote
Boerseun Posted July 22, 2009 Report Posted July 22, 2009 So I stand by my claim that religion had done much more good than harm. We wouldn't have everything from the first large structure ie; the ziggurats to the pyramids to the Sistine chapel and more. We wouldn't have many of works of art and literature. I highly doubt if civilization would of emerged when it did and advance as fast as it did if religion was non existent. I won't comment on the side arguments that a few of you have attempted make, because those are your claims not mine, and you are welcome to them and they don't concern nor rebut my claims. ; {>...which, be the same token, is your claims to make, and you're certainly welcome to them, but they don't address nor rebut the genocides, warfare, rape, pillage, destruction, witch-hunts, slavery, bombings, general misery and ignorance that religions is directly responsible for. What you're proposing is a statistics game. Yes, you say, religion was bad, but it was more good than bad. Well, if that's your take on things, I'll take a few Vermeers over the Inquisition any day. Or a Rembrandt, for that matter. Neither of them were religious, but they painted the socks off of any religious folk you'd care to mention. Quote
RevOfAllRevs Posted July 22, 2009 Report Posted July 22, 2009 This site... Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net Has a list of about 55. Some of them have a link to accompanying information which appears to be well-sourced. But, you'd have to check them all to be sure. ~modest EDIT: Sorry, make that 94. This link is more appropriate: Who's Who in Creation/Evolution - CreationSuperLibrary.com Thanks for the link I will check it out. I knew that some guys like Behe who is a christian apologist and has authored a few great books that urge the bible be looked at as compatible with science has a PhD in micro biology or some related field, it seems that I am not the only one here that plays fast and loose with numbers. ; {> ps there were 94 then there were Creationists holding Doctorates in science. Quote
Pyrotex Posted July 22, 2009 Report Posted July 22, 2009 Still it does not distract from the fact that the works that we do have ...wouldn't be here save for religious belief...This is an un-answerable question, that is founded on the "false dichotomy" fallacy. There is no rational reason to demand that either the works were the direct products of religion or else they would never have existed. We cannot go back in time, change history, and let it run forward again to see how things would have played out. However, we can speculate, as you have. The content of much of European art from 500CE forward does involve religious icons, such as saints and crosses. For 1,000 years, the only powers with enough money and clout to build really big buildings were the Church and a few Kings. So, we got cathedrals and castles. However, if the Church had not existed - had Paganism (for example) survived the pogroms of the 5th century CE, and replaced christianity, which it could plausibly have done - and had everything else been equal (more or less) - then great art would STILL have been produced. Perhaps by the same historic figures! But the content of their work would have changed. There would have been Pagan icons, such as Pagan saints and Pagan symbols, such as pentagrams and doves. And we would have gotten (the same old) Pagan temples and (the same old) castles. And we would be having this very same conversation, but arguing it the other way around, claiming (and refuting) that: Paganism was the source of some of the best art and architecture in the world, and if it weren't for Pagan faith, the incredible art that has survived to this day would have never existed! Well... :shrug: yeah... so? :hihi: Quote
modest Posted July 22, 2009 Report Posted July 22, 2009 This is an un-answerable question, that is founded on the "false dichotomy" fallacy. There is no rational reason to demand that either the works were the direct products of religion or else they would never have existed. We cannot go back in time, change history, and let it run forward again to see how things would have played out. However, we can speculate, as you have. The content of much of European art from 500CE forward does involve religious icons, such as saints and crosses. For 1,000 years, the only powers with enough money and clout to build really big buildings were the Church and a few Kings. So, we got cathedrals and castles. However, if the Church had not existed - had Paganism (for example) survived the pogroms of the 5th century CE, and replaced christianity, which it could plausibly have done - and had everything else been equal (more or less) - then great art would STILL have been produced. Perhaps by the same historic figures! But the content of their work would have changed. There would have been Pagan icons, such as Pagan saints and Pagan symbols, such as pentagrams and doves. And we would have gotten (the same old) Pagan temples and (the same old) castles. And we would be having this very same conversation, but arguing it the other way around, claiming (and refuting) that: Paganism was the source of some of the best art and architecture in the world, and if it weren't for Pagan faith, the incredible art that has survived to this day would have never existed! Well... :hihi: yeah... so? :doh: :shrug: Coexistence does not establish cause. ~modest Quote
InfiniteNow Posted July 22, 2009 Report Posted July 22, 2009 It depends what you mean by society. Religion came when humans were living in tribes kind of like baboons live in now—most conservatively at 30,000 years, but more likely around 100,000 years ago. I guess not exactly like a baboon troop, but back when we were hunter / gatherers. See post #417: Well, I think part of the issue is that we may be using different definitions of society. I see apes as a form of society. I see wolves as a society. I see elephants as a society. I see ants and bees as a society. Obviously (to me, at least) the society (reproductive advantage via group behavior) preceded religion. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.