Javaman

Gemma, I thought your "You'll Be Happy" thread was deceitful and dishonest but I offer my apologies if I am mistaken. I assumed you were baiting but on re-read, I'm not so sure.

The Admiral

This will be my last post concerning Gemma Terese. Whoever she/he may be it is probably sitting back laughing its ass off.

The Admiral

Radorth

Perhaps, but I still suggest you are being subjective. I susect you als o do not know how brutal some native American tribes were to each other. Apparently their religion did not teach them not to rob, rape, steal and murder.

Oh my. Am I being politically incorrect? Here comes the "fundy bigot" accusations I suppose.

Rad

tommyc

Ok, I don't want to sound racist here, but when all the infighting between the tribes was occuring, the indians hadn't yet had the benefit of all the scientific knowledge that other (european) races had the benefit of. Now that they have access I think their religion is mostly important on their race's history and is not used to manipulate and harm. Other religions have been far more technically and scientifically advanced for centuries and yet still hold extreme (harmful) religious views despite it.

Or maybe it's just prejudiced, I just don't see their religion as harmful, its not in your face, and they don't preach to people who don't want to hear. Im sure they consider personal relationships to be far more important in their day to day lives than a Magical Sky God. Again, these are just my feelings, and I'm not assuming I'm correct about this, please enlighten me if you have more knowledge on the subject.

Mageth

Apparently their religion did not teach them not to rob, rape, steal and murder.

And the Europeans that came to America, with the "benefit" of their Christian religion, did those very things to the Native Americans they found here, in spades. Not too surprising, since the European Christian "tribes" had pretty much perfected practicing those arts against each other, and others (Jews, Moslems, etc.) over the centuries.

Radorth

I see two problems with your rationale.

1. If the native American "religion" were backed up by the European power and war machines, and mixture of church and government it might well have been foisted on enemies. We don't know that. One cannot very well say what would happen if you argued with the head medicine man of a 2,000,000 member tribe. He might pronounce all kinds of curses on you.

2. You attribute better behavior to the knowledge of science, but that assertion would stretch the credulity of a liberal history professor. Ironically it could have improved through the teaching of Christian principles by a kindly priest. These assertions that science teaches us to be civilized flys in the face of modern history. How are we a bit more civilized? The only reason Russia didn't blow up America is because they would have been blown up themselves. Science has created about as many problems as it has solved.

How do we know that the Quakers and Methodists should not be credited with ending slavery?

But I AM willing to admit that nothing changes much, whatever philosophy we apply to our problems.

Rad

Radorth

Let's talk specifics. After WW II, the German women headed west towards the horrid capitalist Protestant American tribe, or east toward the socialist atheist Russian tribes to be safe from rape?

And was it horrid capitalist Protestant American tribes which kept them from starving to death, and helped them rebuild a modern country, or was it those loving atheist socialists?

Rad

tommyc

I didn't argue that science makes people more caring and less selfish and less prone to voilence. I argued that hopefully a better understanding of science would lead people to be more sceptical and reject spurious claims of the supernatural, and that as the native indians didnt' have this benefit until recent centuries, they haven't had time to examine there religion sceptically. I expect this will change over time and eventually their religion will be an issue of their rich history rather than thing which dominates their lives, as most major religions do these days.

I would also argue that overall the human race has improved drastically from the sciences. Science improves general living standards. I certainly would not like to be living in England a century ago, and that's not because because Id miss the TV or the internet, but I appreciate the advances in medical science and living conditions.

Through improved technology people can now communicate with each other from massive distances, they can analyse news and political affairs across the globe, making people aware of their rights and how they are treated in their country compared to another. Th internet givies them better access to medical advice, legal advice, education, the list is evidence of science's massive GOOD affect on the world. Sure the nuclear weapons issue is a tricky one, but it has certainly stopped mass war for half a century. (maybe im being too off hand with that comment, because it is a very important issue).

One last point, a serious question, would you say we should not advance our scientific knowledge out of fear of its consequences and its perceived bad affect on society?

tommyc

the way you describe them as atheist socialists is suggesting (from what I can tell) that you consider atheists to be socialist. Well I can assure you I am not, in fact Im very right wing. I know many atheist who are in the same position. A more accurate way of describing them would be "Socialists who also happened to be atheist". I don't think their lack of believing in God had anything to do with any cruelty they inflicted on people (which is what I believe you were suggesting) but that's an issue for MF&P.

Radorth

No, I was talking about the Russians of 1945.

Rad