FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-24-2003, 11:33 AM   #21
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,505
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by marduck
I don’t know, I’d have to check the most ancient of civil codes “the code of hamurabi” 1750 BCE to see if there is any indication of non-religious based frowning on wild whoopee.
There are laws prohibiting adultery but that probably isn't related to disease.

Quote:
I often wondered about the Greeks ca. 400 BCE lots of whoopee, maybe syphilis wasn’t prevalent till later.
If I remember correctly, the Greeks did suffer from plagues, but I don't know what era that referred to.

Quote:
Did people even in the Plague years make a connection between cause and effect or did they blame the disease on evil spirits?
They may have blamed the disease on evil spirits, but many of the rituals that were most widely practiced were scientifically sound: burning the bodies of the dead, etc. There was also certain superstitions: tea was "healthy", but it was really because they boiled the water, etc.

Quote:
I’m not convinced of this, the science and technology of a society are owned by the politicians and ruling wealthy class that provides the $, even now the majority of our technology is wasted on weapons and such. War was the sport of the day, (think Bush) if not Caligula than Napoleon or Ginghas Kahn or Alex the Great etc. etc. We’d be toast by now.
I'm not convinced that we'd be toast by now. So far we've gotten away with having nukes and we're not toast, right? I've spoken to a few experts on nuclear warfare, and even at the peak of the cold war, we wouldn't have been able to destroy all life on the planet if we wanted to. Even so, where the nukes were aimed would not have ended all human life. If it had happened, it probably wouldn't have set mankind back to the dark ages, most scientific knowledge is fairly well documented and distributed.

Many of the greatest technological advancements were developed for warfare. This is still the case today (internet, microwaves, etc).

The Greeks were the first civilization I can recall that demonstrated a real interest in discovering scientific principles out of curiosity. What non-scientific purpose was there in calculating the circumference of the earth or determining that the earth revolved around the sun? This knowledge was lost for about 2,000 years and the advances in the past 500 years eclipse the advances in the previous 5,000 years.

Let me put it this way: assuming we don't self-destruct, how far will science and technology be 2,000 years from now? Had we not taken a 2,000 year hiatus, that's where we would be now.

-Mike...
mike_decock is offline  
Old 04-24-2003, 02:38 PM   #22
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 204
Smile held back

The way i look at it, religion has held back science the most out of any field of study. I think that our present civilization would be hundreds of years ahead than it is now today if it weren't for religion. A few of the examples that come to mind are Copernicus and Galileo.
johngalt is offline  
Old 04-24-2003, 02:38 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Deep South
Posts: 889
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Radorth
Well said JT!

We want you in heaven, so I'm going to have Sabine witness to you.

Rad
Please don't go to any trouble on my account. Really. Please.
Infidelettante is offline  
Old 04-24-2003, 02:41 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Deep South
Posts: 889
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Godless Dave
I disagree. I think Jimmy Carter would be doing good with or without religion.
He is one of my most admired people so I think you are right GD.
Infidelettante is offline  
Old 04-25-2003, 07:45 AM   #25
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: U.S.
Posts: 2,565
Default

People can clearly be good or bad and be religious. That would indicate to me that religion is not a determining factor in whether or not someone is good or bad. They are good or bad for other reasons, and they bring that to their religion.

IMO, religion is a forum wherein people are discouraged from critically examining moral choices and encouraged to rely on the judgement of authority figures. This is why I believe people in general would be morally better off without religion muddying the waters.

Jamie
Jamie_L is offline  
Old 04-26-2003, 01:48 PM   #26
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,199
Default Re: What would a world without religion be like?

Quote:
Originally posted by MrFrosty
In your opinion, what would a world without religion -- its controls, creeds and philosophies -- actually be like?
As I see it, it would depend on why we abandoned religion. There appear to be two reasons to do so: because you don't want it, as a child doesn't want to be told to clean up his room; or because you don't need it, being mature enough to clean your room without being told. If we ditch religion for the first reason, we'll have Hell on Earth; if we ditch it for the second reason, we'll have Heaven on Earth.
yguy is offline  
Old 04-26-2003, 01:50 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: burbank
Posts: 758
Default

not much different than it is today.
fatherphil is offline  
Old 04-26-2003, 03:41 PM   #28
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 16,829
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Radorth
I think the world would do well without religion as long as you permitted reading the NT and Christian revival, which religious people never help with anyway.
Radorth bragging about how irreligious he is.
lpetrich is offline  
Old 04-26-2003, 03:43 PM   #29
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 16,829
Default

mike_decock:
Wouldn't the religious disapproval of promiscuous sex have been replaced with a "social" disapproval of promiscuous sex? Even if STDs weren't technically understood, the effects would have been observed and a link between disease and promiscuity would have been detected.

Seems like an attribution of too much rationality -- I think that there might be some psychological quirk behind hostility to perceived indiscriminate sex.

It may be something like the way we like love affairs for ourselves, but not for our partners.
lpetrich is offline  
Old 04-26-2003, 08:43 PM   #30
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Sundsvall, Sweden
Posts: 3,159
Default Re: Re: What would a world without religion be like?

Quote:
Originally posted by yguy
As I see it, it would depend on why we abandoned religion. There appear to be two reasons to do so: because you don't want it, as a child doesn't want to be told to clean up his room; or because you don't need it, being mature enough to clean your room without being told. If we ditch religion for the first reason, we'll have Hell on Earth; if we ditch it for the second reason, we'll have Heaven on Earth.
Well put!
Eudaimonist is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:15 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.