Where would we be if...

MrStuffins · 16-08-2010 03:04AM

javaboy wrote: »

The world politically and socially speaking was still in its infancy at the beginning of the dark ages. I think if science had progressed unhindered at that stage we'd probably have blown each other to smithereens.

By the time the means to cause mass destruction became available, society had reached a point where such weapons were considered a deterrent and a last resort.

The slowdown of scientific advancement probably normalised the geographic spread of knowledge. What I mean is that if a particular country say France was a big world power back then and made some breakthrough, they would likely have kept it to themselves. It might have paved the way to more and more advances. International relations were fairly primitive back then so it's likely France would have gone to war with the other countries using their superior tech. So the advanced countries who made breakthroughs and were in a position to exploit them would become more advanced and more powerful while the unlucky countries whose research didn't bear any fruit would be further suppressed.

Instead what happened was the dark ages slowed science down. So advances only trickled out. They filtered out across the world and made for a more level playing field. Nobody got to get too far ahead if you get what I mean.

The world got to grow up before we got to handle anything dangerous. As such I feel we owe religion an enormous debt of gratitude.

I prefered his early stuff!

javaboy · 16-08-2010 03:18AM

MrStuffins wrote: »

I prefered his early stuff!

I had to post that big long waffle to ward off accusations of thanks whoring against the virgin joke.

Owwmykneecap · 16-08-2010 03:27AM

javaboy wrote: »

The world politically and socially speaking was still in its infancy at the beginning of the dark ages. I think if science had progressed unhindered at that stage we'd probably have blown each other to smithereens.

By the time the means to cause mass destruction became available, society had reached a point where such weapons were considered a deterrent and a last resort.

The slowdown of scientific advancement probably normalised the geographic spread of knowledge. What I mean is that if a particular country say France was a big world power back then and made some breakthrough, they would likely have kept it to themselves. It might have paved the way to more and more advances. International relations were fairly primitive back then so it's likely France would have gone to war with the other countries using their superior tech. So the advanced countries who made breakthroughs and were in a position to exploit them would become more advanced and more powerful while the unlucky countries whose research didn't bear any fruit would be further suppressed.

Instead what happened was the dark ages slowed science down. So advances only trickled out. They filtered out across the world and made for a more level playing field. Nobody got to get too far ahead if you get what I mean.

The world got to grow up before we got to handle anything dangerous. As such I feel we owe religion an enormous debt of gratitude.

That is without doubt the biggest pile of bollocks I've ever read.

And I leafed through Young Irelander magazine in Eason's today.

javaboy · 16-08-2010 03:31AM

Owwmykneecap wrote: »

That is without doubt the biggest pile of bollocks I've ever read.

Probably. But since neither of us obviously have anything better to do, care to discuss why?

Overheal · 16-08-2010 04:43AM

Well for one thing it fails to take into account that communication breakthroughs would have strengthened political ties, and the absences of poverty, disease and famine would have gone a long way to prevent the outbreak of war.

Einhard · 16-08-2010 05:18AM

ScienceNerd wrote: »

http://j-walkblog.com/images/darkageschart.gif

Why is it always the "Christian Dark Ages" and never the "Christian Renaissance"?

Darlughda · 16-08-2010 05:20AM

Well what fascinates me is how all this money went into building churches, especially during famine times in Ireland, when that money could have been better spent relieving hunger and poverty.

To this day, I cannot understand this anomoly. Why on earth do we have these expensive churches, land owned by religious orders, when people are desperate for somewhere to live?

Capt'n Midnight · 16-08-2010 11:33AM

Darlughda wrote: »

Well what fascinates me is how all this money went into building churches, especially during famine times in Ireland, when that money could have been better spent relieving hunger and poverty.

To this day, I cannot understand this anomoly. Why on earth do we have these expensive churches, land owned by religious orders, when people are desperate for somewhere to live?

ask the people who donated the money ?

also why should the religious orders have to provide somewhere for people to live , you'd just get people taking the soup. And the state would reduce spending on houses, the reason we have religious schools is that the state does not spend money on building schools. Also there are a few empty houses around , and the state didn't sort out social and affordable housing

Capt'n Midnight · 16-08-2010 11:37AM

starbelgrade wrote: »

I think that by this stage, man would have re-invented the wheel.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-australia.html

John Keogh was issued the innovation patent for a "circular transportation facilitation device" under a patent system introduced in May 2001.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero · 16-08-2010 11:43AM

Stupid thread. Just another attack on religion. Let me just say this, our cultural identity would be non-existant. Visiting China would be like going to an Ireland with different weather and different ethnicities. All our beliefs would be pretty much the same.

genericguy · 16-08-2010 11:50AM

THFC wrote: »

All our beliefs would be pretty much the same.

why is this a bad thing??

starbelgrade · 16-08-2010 11:54AM

THFC wrote: »

Stupid thread. Just another attack on religion. Let me just say this, our cultural identity would be non-existant.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that if Ireland hadn't been under the thumb of the RC Church for so long, that we would have no cultural identity?

Could really be that naive?

Big Pussy Bonpensiero · 16-08-2010 12:18PM

genericguy wrote: »

why is this a bad thing??

starbelgrade wrote: »

Are you seriously trying to suggest that if Ireland hadn't been under the thumb of the RC Church for so long, that we would have no cultural identity?

Could really be that naive?

How am I being naive? You're just another anti-religious person. Look at communist countries and what good atheism did to their culture. There would certainly be alot more amoral and cynical people. Religion, for the most part, was a good thing, like it or not.

Superbus · 16-08-2010 12:21PM

Einhard wrote: »

Why is it always the "Christian Dark Ages" and never the "Christian Renaissance"?

Because the non-Christian world wasn't really affected that much.

sensibleken · 16-08-2010 12:27PM

THFC wrote: »

How am I being naive? You're just another anti-religious person. Look at communist countries and what good atheism did to their culture. There would certainly be alot more amoral and cynical people. Religion, for the most part, was a good thing, like it or not.

im sure im not the only one who laughed at this. Just because someone is an athiest does not mean they dont have morals, nor ones that are similar to yourself.

giving the example of communist countries is also silly. they behaved like that because they were totallitarian murderous lunatics. there have been plenty of totalitarian murderous lunatics who were religious such as Charlemagne

piby · 16-08-2010 12:32PM

THFC wrote: »

How am I being naive? You're just another anti-religious person. Look at communist countries and what good atheism did to their culture. There would certainly be alot more amoral and cynical people.

So if I'm an atheist I am more immoral and cynical than a religious person? Surely if I derive my morality from intelligent observation and thought about the world around me that is just as, if not more, respectable than taking from a book (Bible, Koran etc.) that was written hundreds or thousands of years ago by other primates?

Can you provide me with specific examples of what exactly atheism did to certain Communist countries?

THFC wrote: »

Religion, for the most part, was a good thing, like it or not.

Persecution of the early Christians by the Romans?
Crusades?
Inquisition?
Modern Islamic Fundamentalism?

Just a few examples you might recall :rolleyes:

sensibleken · 16-08-2010 12:37PM

This is a question thats impossible to answer.

Firstly religion has been with us as far back as we can see. from at least the neolithic to today so its quite impossible to imagine a history where it didnt exist. most scientific innovations have taken place within a culture of religion be it the greeks, chineese or gregor mendel. the two are not mutually exclusive but we would be a fool to argue that each did not hamper the other at some stange. indeed there has been arguements within the scientific community, the best examples are between einstein and bohr. though in fairness nobody get burnt at the stake for that

Big Pussy Bonpensiero · 16-08-2010 12:52PM

piby wrote: »

So if I'm an atheist I am more immoral and cynical than a religious person? Surely if I derive my morality from intelligent observation and thought about the world around me that is just as, if not more, respectable than taking from a book (Bible, Koran etc.) that was written hundreds or thousands of years ago by other primates?

Can you provide me with specific examples of what exactly atheism did to certain Communist countries?

Is North Korea on your list of place to visit?

Persecution of the early Christians by the Romans?
Crusades?
Inquisition?
Modern Islamic Fundamentalism?

Just a few examples you might recall :rolleyes:

Are you that cynical? You're just saying the bad stuff. What about all the great works of art and architecture that would never have seen the light of day with out religion? More importantly what about the comfort it gives to so many people arount the world about their loved one's? The structure and and haven it has given so many people? How many times have you heard stories about former drug addicts/criminals turn their life around because they found Jesus/God? And the most influential person in history has had, without doubt, a more positive impact than negative on the lives of so many.
And btw, Islamic Fundamentalism?? Really, you really believe that Islam tells its followers to become terrorists? I wont even bother correct you on that.

sensibleken · 16-08-2010 01:00PM

THFC wrote: »

Are you that cynical? You're just saying the bad stuff. What about all the great works of art and architecture that would never have seen the light of day with out religion? More importantly what about the comfort it gives to so many people arount the world about their loved one's? The structure and and haven it has given so many people? How many times have you heard stories about former drug addicts/criminals turn their life around because they found Jesus/God? And the most influential person in history has had, without doubt, a more positive impact than negative on the lives of so many.
And btw, Islamic Fundamentalism?? Really, you really believe that Islam tells its followers to become terrorists? I wont even bother correct you on that.

no, youre not getting it. you said that if there was more athiesm there would be more amoral behaviour giving the soviet union as an emaple. you were then given examples of horrendous acts that came as a result of religious beliefs. thus showing you where youre wrong.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero · 16-08-2010 01:29PM

sensibleken wrote: »

no, youre not getting it. you said that if there was more athiesm there would be more amoral behaviour giving the soviet union as an emaple. you were then given examples of horrendous acts that came as a result of religious beliefs. thus showing you where youre wrong.

What

!?!? Read my posts again.

starbelgrade · 16-08-2010 01:31PM

THFC wrote: »

How am I being naive? You're just another anti-religious person. Look at communist countries and what good atheism did to their culture. There would certainly be alot more amoral and cynical people. Religion, for the most part, was a good thing, like it or not.

I am not anti-religious, though I am against a lot of things done in the name of religion. However, to claim that so called "aethiest countries" are more amoral & cynical than others is quite simply, a ludicrous statement in the extreme.

sensibleken · 16-08-2010 01:54PM

THFC wrote: »

What!?!? Read my posts again.

honestly, i couldnt be arsed

Spunk84 · 16-08-2010 03:30PM

if the dinosaucers were still around:eek:

would they be our pets?:D

Spunk84 · 16-08-2010 06:52PM

If a radio/CD Players in cars werent invented
If we didnt DVDs or piratebay
If PORN wasnt thought of :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
If anal sex was not thought of
If no one thought of drinking cows milk, but instead we drink Bulls milk:rolleyes:
If the wheel wasnt invented
The internet wasnt discovered-Honestly i cant remembered what i did before the internet:o
If couldnt ****
If curry wasnt invented
If kebabs wasnt invented
If priests still ruled Ireland:eek::eek: we be very sorry
If the catholic church still had there own way:eek:
If the Di Vinci code wasnt made a movie
If the whole world didnt stop and think " should we see titantic" people 3 hr movie about a ship sinking, YOU KNOW THE END!!!!!!!
Female teacher would be topless!!!!:rolleyes: tats mine sorry

etc etc can go on

Celly Smunt · 16-08-2010 07:01PM

THFC wrote: »

More importantly what about the comfort it gives to so many people arount the world about their loved one's?

i'd call it ransoming free will rather than comfort to be honest

Des Carter · 16-08-2010 07:08PM

Darlughda wrote: »

Well what fascinates me is how all this money went into building churches, especially during famine times in Ireland, when that money could have been better spent relieving hunger and poverty.

To this day, I cannot understand this anomoly. Why on earth do we have these expensive churches, land owned by religious orders, when people are desperate for somewhere to live?

If these churches werent built todays tourism industry would be severly damaged and hence less jobs.

scientific1982 · 16-08-2010 07:25PM

Superbus wrote: »

Probably would have killed each other into extinction long before now without a man in the sky dictating right and wrong.

Bull****.

Einhard · 17-08-2010 12:15AM

Superbus wrote: »

Because the non-Christian world wasn't really affected that much.

The non-Christian world wasn't affected by the massive population upheavals that precipitated the fall of the Roman Empire and changed the face of Europe within a couple of generations either. That was the main cause of the "Dark Ages", not the Church. Indeed, it was the Church at the time which did most to preserve learning in Europe, and spread literacy and other skills across the continent. Irish, for example, was first written down by ecclesiastics, and the skills behind artifacts such as the Tara Brooch entered the country as a result of the contacts established by missionaries. There was an intellectual as well as a religious revolution after the conversion to Christianity, and this was replicated across pagan Europe. This is not an attempt to defend the Church, but rather a response to people who misrepresent, or misunderstand, history for their own agenda.

Ash.J.Williams · 17-08-2010 12:35AM

THFC wrote: »

Are you that cynical? You're just saying the bad stuff. What about all the great works of art and architecture that would never have seen the light of day with out religion? More importantly what about the comfort it gives to so many people arount the world about their loved one's? The structure and and haven it has given so many people? How many times have you heard stories about former drug addicts/criminals turn their life around because they found Jesus/God? And the most influential person in history has had, without doubt, a more positive impact than negative on the lives of so many.
And btw, Islamic Fundamentalism?? Really, you really believe that Islam tells its followers to become terrorists? I wont even bother correct you on that.

I actually believe drug addicts and alcoholics cop out by "finding" religion. Replacing their addiction with another rather than being really cured. An alcoholic i encountered went off to a religious order for a 3 month rehab and came back a most insufferable human being, pointing out non-existent faults in myself and others and pushing her new ways on us...funnilly enough she was horsing coke into her as she was doing this....

i do obviously have faults, but not the ones that were being thrown at me in this case.

I also worked for a guy who spends time with john of gods and is a reformed alcoholic......absolute c*nt........preaching and talking ****e and at the same time not an ounce of christianity in the man...yet acting all christian.
I did laugh when he accused me of smelling of drink one morning real thick he was....that particular morning i reckoned it was 3 weeks since i even had a pint! He looked a little worried then.

piby · 17-08-2010 12:47AM

THFC wrote: »

What about all the great works of art and architecture that would never have seen the light of day with out religion?

Those works of art and achitecture were funded by religious bodies but the whole point of this thread is to examine where we might be if all that money hadn't gone to religious institutions. Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Raphael etc. relied on the Church as a patron. Thus if anything there might have been more money available to artists to develop their work or architects to build new structures. Of course we cannot speculate on what might have been but to suggest that said works would definately not have arisen had it not been for religion is just as naive.

THFC wrote: »

What!?!? Read my posts again.

The point was that you said you believed countries or political systems with an atheistic foundation were more immoral than those with a religious foundation. Yes the Soviet Union and North Korea was/is a totalitarian nightmare but that's not solely, or in any way, because of atheism. I was giving you examples of how religious regimes had acted immorally in the past such that you cannot say that either atheism or theism are inherently more moral than the other. You seem to have failed to grasp that point.

Where would we be if...

Comments