11 Dec 15
I have recently seen statements or debates along the lines of:
Islam is a religion of peace (or not).
What does it mean to say something about a religion, when it is well known that the adherent of any large religion have a wide diversity of beliefs or views.
Can anything be said about Christianity in the format: Christianity is a religion of ...?
Would you be talking about/for all Christians when you made the statement? The majority? Your own group?
11 Dec 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhile you are waiting for those/whoever made that/those statements to respond, shall we discuss how scientific development has contributed to the weaponisation of civilisation?
I have recently seen statements or debates along the lines of:
Islam is a religion of peace (or not).
What does it mean to say something about a religion, when it is well known that the adherent of any large religion have a wide diversity of beliefs or views.
Can anything be said about Christianity in the format: Christianity is a religion of ...?
Wou ...[text shortened]... u be talking about/for all Christians when you made the statement? The majority? Your own group?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by divegeesterSure, as long as we also talk about the MASSIVE reduction in death rates from science
While you are waiting for those/whoever made that/those statements to respond, shall we discuss how scientific development has contributed to the weaponisation of civilisation?
and technology in the form of medicine and shelter and nutrition and communication
and quality of life improvements.
And then we can talk about all the ways religions have got in the way of those developments.
And then we can talk about the way that religions have no upsides to counter their downsides.
Or you could realise that we ALWAYS win this argument and not bother.
EDIT: Particularly as this argument is off topic for the thread you have posted it in.
If you want your ass whooped feel free to create your own thread on the topic.
Originally posted by divegeesterCan I take it that you have no opinion on the matter simply because you didn't make any such statement? Not even a negative opinion?
While you are waiting for those/whoever made that/those statements to respond, shall we discuss how scientific development has contributed to the weaponisation of civilisation?
Sure we can discuss the contributions of scientific development to weaponisation. Although I am not sure what to say about it as the facts are fairly obvious to all and not in dispute. I think we are remarkably lucky that it takes more than just science to build a nuclear bomb.
I also think that modern warfare has almost nothing to do with science and everything to do with money. After all, science is a commodity that can be bought and so are weapons. The reason why terrorists must strap on suicide vests and go blow themselves up is because they lack the money to buy missiles - not because they lack the scientific know-how.
Similarly, although the development of guns had a massive impact on the history of war, current gun problems are all about culture and nothing whatsoever to do with science.
Are you perhaps anti-science? That would be interesting given that we are discussing this over the internet.
12 Dec 15
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, I'm not anti-science in the slightest. In fact I work for a science based company. My original post was trying to point out that your OP is an excercise in futility. Like my post claiming that science is responsible for building nuclear bombs and therefore science is bad.
Can I take it that you have no opinion on the matter simply because you didn't make any such statement? Not even a negative opinion?
Sure we can discuss the contributions of scientific development to weaponisation. Although I am not sure what to say about it as the facts are fairly obvious to all and not in dispute. I think we are remarkably lucky that ...[text shortened]... aps anti-science? That would be interesting given that we are discussing this over the internet.
Originally posted by googlefudgeCalm down, you're drooling with excitement.
Sure, as long as we also talk about the MASSIVE reduction in death rates from science
and technology in the form of medicine and shelter and nutrition and communication
and quality of life improvements.
And then we can talk about all the ways religions have got in the way of those developments.
And then we can talk about the way that religions ...[text shortened]... ve posted it in.
If you want your ass whooped feel free to create your own thread on the topic.
Originally posted by divegeesterI don't get it. In what way is my post 'an exercise in futility'? Can you be more specific rather than giving vague analogies?
No, I'm not anti-science in the slightest. In fact I work for a science based company. My original post was trying to point out that your OP is an excercise in futility. Like my post claiming that science is responsible for building nuclear bombs and therefore science is bad.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt's not that the question you are asking is wrong per se, it's that it is impossible to classify a religion as a this or a that. If a Muslim claims Islam is a religion peace and he/she lives peacefully because of that religion, this it is a religion of peace to him. Same with Christianity. Same with science.
I don't get it. In what way is my post 'an exercise in futility'? Can you be more specific rather than giving vague analogies?
12 Dec 15
Originally posted by divegeesterIt seems to me that you agreed with my point but didn't really want to say so directly.
It's not that the question you are asking is wrong per se, it's that it is impossible to classify a religion as a this or a that. If a Muslim claims Islam is a religion peace and he/she lives peacefully because of that religion, this it is a religion of peace to him. Same with Christianity. Same with science.
12 Dec 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadNot so, although I can see why you may think that just looking at these few posts. To be clear; despite us clashing on occasion I frequently do agree with your points and I have no issue saying so. And to be even clearer; I think science has brought far more benefit to mankind than "religion" has.
It seems to me that you agreed with my point but didn't really want to say so directly.
12 Dec 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadI agree in so far that I'm skeptical about the formulation "<insert religion here> is a religion of peace", because I doubt that anyone can name a religion of war.
I have recently seen statements or debates along the lines of:
Islam is a religion of peace (or not).
What does it mean to say something about a religion, when it is well known that the adherent of any large religion have a wide diversity of beliefs or views.
Can anything be said about Christianity in the format: Christianity is a religion of ...?
Wou ...[text shortened]... u be talking about/for all Christians when you made the statement? The majority? Your own group?
12 Dec 15
Originally posted by divegeesterCan the weapon making activities of homo erectus be classified as science? If not then weaponisation predates science. If it can then both science and weaponisation predate civilisation by a pretty large margin.
While you are waiting for those/whoever made that/those statements to respond, shall we discuss how scientific development has contributed to the weaponisation of civilisation?
12 Dec 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtCan fixing a rock to a stick and bashing someone over the head with it be classed as science? What about the bow and arrow, or gunpowder? Can that same group of homo erectus chaps looking at the the sunrise every morning in ignorant fearful wonderment and hope, constitute "religion"?
Can the weapon making activities of homo erectus be classified as science? If not then weaponisation predates science. If it can then both science and weaponisation predate civilisation by a pretty large margin.