hahaha Bush says he doesn't believe in the Bible, does believe in evolution

[Denny Crane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

Sir Isaac Newton, FRS (4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727 [OS: 25 December 1642 – 20 March 1726])<sup id="cite_ref-OSNS_0-2" class="reference">[1]</sup> was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist, theologian and one of the most influential men<sup id="cite_ref-3" class="reference">[4]</sup> in human history. His Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, published in 1687, is considered to be the most influential book in the history of science. In this work, Newton described universal gravitation and the three laws of motion, laying the groundwork for classical mechanics, which dominated the scientific view of the physical universe for the next three centuries and is the basis for modern engineering.

Newton showed that the motions of objects on Earth and of celestial bodies are governed by the same set of natural laws by demonstrating the consistency between Kepler's laws of planetary motion and his theory of gravitation, thus removing the last doubts about heliocentrism and advancing the scientific revolution.

In mechanics, Newton enunciated the principles of conservation of momentum and angular momentum. In optics, he built the first "practical" reflecting telescope<sup id="cite_ref-4" class="reference">[5]</sup> and developed a theory of colour based on the observation that a prism decomposes white light into a visible spectrum. He also formulated an empirical law of cooling and studied the speed of sound.

In mathematics, Newton shares the credit with Gottfried Leibniz for the development of the differential and integral calculus. He also demonstrated the generalised binomial theorem, developed the so-called "Newton's method" for approximating the zeroes of a function, and contributed to the study of power series.

Newton was also highly religious (though unorthodox), producing more work on Biblical hermeneutics than the natural science he is remembered for today.

 

[MARIS61]

There's no one in the world who hasn't sinned.

Ridiculous nonsense.

Or not, depending on what you mean by "sinned".

I live my life by The Golden Rule, and that's as close as one can be to "sin-free" IMO.

I know many a man and woman who have done no wrong in their lives.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.unification.net/ws/theme015.htm

THE GOLDEN RULE

The Golden Rule or the ethic of reciprocity is found in the scriptures of nearly every religion. It is often regarded as the most concise and general principle of ethics. It is a condensation in one principle of all longer lists of ordinances such as the Decalogue. See also texts on Loving Kindness, pp. 967-73.
You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
<center>1. Judaism and Christianity. Bible, Leviticus 19.18</center>
Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.
<center>2. Christianity. Bible, Matthew 7.12</center>
Not one of you is a believer until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.
<center>3. Islam. Forty Hadith of an-Nawawi 13</center>
A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated.
<center>4. Jainism. Sutrakritanga 1.11.33</center>
Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence.
<center>5. Confucianism. Mencius VII.A.4</center>
One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself. This is the essence of morality. All other activities are due to selfish desire.
<center>6. Hinduism. Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva 113.8</center>
Tsekung asked, "Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?" Confucius replied, "It is the word shu--reciprocity: Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you."
<center>7. Confucianism. Analects 15.23</center>

<hr> Leviticus 19.18: Quoted by Jesus in Matthew 22.36-40 (below). Mencius VII.A.4 and Analects 15.23: Cf. Analects 6.28.2, p. 975.
<hr>
Comparing oneself to others in such terms as "Just as I am so are they, just as they are so am I," he should neither kill nor cause others to kill.
<center>8. Buddhism. Sutta Nipata 705</center>
One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts.
<center>9. African Traditional Religions. Yoruba Proverb (Nigeria)</center>
One who you think should be hit is none else but you. One who you think should be governed is none else but you. One who you think should be tortured is none else but you. One who you think should be enslaved is none else but you. One who you think should be killed is none else but you. A sage is ingenuous and leads his life after comprehending the parity of the killed and the killer. Therefore, neither does he cause violence to others nor does he make others do so.
<center>10. Jainism. Acarangasutra 5.101-2</center>
The Ariyan disciple thus reflects, Here am I, fond of my life, not wanting to die, fond of pleasure and averse from pain. Suppose someone should rob me of my life... it would not be a thing pleasing and delightful to me. If I, in my turn, should rob of his life one fond of his life, not wanting to die, one fond of pleasure and averse from pain, it would not be a thing pleasing or delightful to him. For a state that is not pleasant or delightful to me must also be to him also; and a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?
As a result of such reflection he himself abstains from taking the life of creatures and he encourages others so to abstain, and speaks in praise of so abstaining.
<center>11. Buddhism. Samyutta Nikaya v.353</center>
A certain heathen came to Shammai and said to him, "Make me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." Thereupon he repulsed him with the rod which was in his hand. When he went to Hillel, he said to him, "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah; all the rest of it is commentary; go and learn."
<center>12. Judaism. Talmud, Shabbat 31a</center>

<hr> Sutta Nipata 705: Cf. Dhammapada 129-130, p. 478. Acarangasutra 5.101-2: Cf. Dhammapada 129-130, p. 478. Samyutta Nikaya v.353: The passage gives a similar reflection about abstaining from other types of immoral behavior: theft, adultery, etc. To identify oneself with others is also a corollary to the Mahayana insight that all reality is interdependent and mutually related; cf. Guide to a Bodhisattva's Way of Life 8.112-16, p. 181; Majjhima Nikaya i.415, p. 465.
<hr>
"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" Jesus said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets."
<center>13. Christianity. Bible, Matthew 22.36-40</center>

<hr> Matthew 22.36-40: Cf. Deuteronomy 6.4-9, p. 55; Leviticus 19.18, p. 173; Luke 10.25-37, p. 971; Galatians 6.2, p. 974; Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 5.2.2, p. 972; Sun Myung Moon, 9-30-79, p. 150.

 

[Real]

Gutenberg invented the printing press to mass produce copies of the bible that were previously hand copied by monks.

Without the bible and the need to mass produce copies of it, the printing press may or may not have been invented, but certainly many many years later.

I guess public education would be great with books copied by... well, there wouldn't be monks in your world, so... I guess there wouldn't be books copied by anyone.

Here's some food for thought. If there were no religion, there would be no public education.

It was the Protestants if I'm not mistaken during the Reformation that really developed public education, if not started it all together.

The ironic thing is their goal of public education was to draw people away from what they saw as a corrupt Catholic church.

 

[Denny Crane]

Here's some food for thought. If there were no religion, there would be no public education.

It was the Protestants if I'm not mistaken during the Reformation that really developed public education, if not started it all together.

The ironic thing is their goal of public education was to draw people away from what they saw as a corrupt Catholic church.

If it weren't for religious people fleeing religious persecution in Europe, the New World may never have been settled.

Or at least only by the spanish, who massacred every native they came across to get their gold.

 

[Денг Гордон]

But if religion never existed, and people always had the understanding that this was a solely secular society, the thirst for knowledge and progress may be way ahead from where it is now.

 

[MARIS61]

Gutenberg invented the printing press to mass produce copies of the bible that were previously hand copied by monks.

Without the bible and the need to mass produce copies of it, the printing press may or may not have been invented, but certainly many many years later.

I guess public education would be great with books copied by... well, there wouldn't be monks in your world, so... I guess there wouldn't be books copied by anyone.

Loved him in Police Academy 4.

Had religion not existed, other stories would have been told and written and published and the need would still have been there for printing and he would have still invented it, maybe much sooner.

Either way, mass-producing the bible was a monstrous step backwards in the evolution of the western world.

Christianity in particular has fought nearly every kind of progress man has ever made, and tens of millions have been murdered in it's name.

Religion's biggest harm is the obscene waste of time and effort people spend, doing nothing, in it's name.

Those countless hours spent memorizing and reciting verses, praying to the air, listening to some alcoholic adulterer tell you to repent...

All that time could have been used to further medical knowledge, or learning to communicate with other peoples, or space travel, or mowing your elderly neighbor's lawn for them.

Religion is the biggest collective waste of time the world has ever known.

 

[Denny Crane]

But if religion never existed, and people always had the understanding that this was a solely secular society, the thirst for knowledge and progress may be way ahead from where it is now.

We'd be still living in caves.

The Church was the government for centuries, even before the fall of the roman empire.

Without it, there may have been feudalism. That's where there's 99% of the people dirt poor peasants and a few lords that rule over smallish territories.

 

[MARIS61]

If it weren't for religious people fleeing religious persecution in Europe, the New World may never have been settled.

Or at least only by the spanish, who massacred every native they came across to get their gold.

Actually the Spanish traded for their gold usually, so they'd be welcomed back to trade again.

It was the "religious people fleeing religious persecution in Europe" who massacred the natives.

 

[MARIS61]

But if religion never existed, and people always had the understanding that this was a solely secular society, the thirst for knowledge and progress may be way ahead from where it is now.

Exactly.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://lib-sh.lsuhsc.edu/fammed/grounds/history.html

MEDICINE IN THE DARK AGES (400-800 A.D.)

From the 2nd and the 4th centuries A.D., Roman territory declined and finally failed altogether. During this time of hunger, pestilence and war, there were few places scholars could go and feel safe. There was also a need for a place where the sick and wounded could go to seek solace. The one institution left that had the power to offer and assure asylum to these people was the Church of Rome.

Literary medicine found a haven in the churches and cloisters. Here information survived and records could be kept. Unfortunately, the monks were known as "practical men". They felt that natural law governed all of a man's life. Therefore, why should they worry about medical theories? They instead worried about practical matters of healing and tending. What worked was simply repeated. This put an end to medical learning and experimentation. It also opened the door for false treatments like charms and amulets. Once one "worked", it was used thereafter. And with all the decay of intellect around them, they of course looked to the greatest teachers of the past for any instruction they needed. Thus Galen's ideas on medicine became the foundation of medical knowledge.

There was another reason why the medical practices of the Dark Ages were centered in the monasteries. They were where the hospitals were. During the Dark Ages, lists of medical herbs were kept by the monks in the monastery. Persons needing medical help would go to these monks. St. Benedict (born 480 A.D.) encouraged monastic medicine at the hospice he founded at Montecassino. Cassiodorus (490-585?) encouraged monks in his monasteries to study medicine. He encouraged the teaching of herbs and medication but also fostered the bonds of Christian thought to its Greeco-Roman predecessor. He reemphasized the study of Hippocrates, Galen, and others. This seed of learning grew well over the next several centuries, Montecassino continued to foster medical education and grew to be renowned for its medical advances. This enlightenment set the stage for futher advancement as the early middle Ages dawned upon the world.

 

[Denny Crane]

Actually the Spanish traded for their gold usually, so they'd be welcomed back to trade again.

It was the "religious people fleeing religious persecution in Europe" who massacred the natives.

Montezuma ring a bell?

They didn't trade, they murdered the natives by the millions and destroyed entire civilizations in the process.

 

[barfo]

If it weren't for religious people fleeing religious persecution in Europe, the New World may never have been settled.

Or at least only by the spanish, who massacred every native they came across to get their gold.

I'm not sure this line of argument is very sound. You could make similar arguments about slavery, wars, the plague, etc.

Just because history happened in a particular way doesn't mean that any particular historical events were necessary or desirable.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

I'm not sure this line of argument is very sound. You could make similar arguments about slavery, wars, the plague, etc.

Just because history happened in a particular way doesn't mean that any particular historical events were necessary or desirable.

barfo

It was a counterargument to a similar thought on the "other side" of the debate.

Your response to the side you responded to is noted, however.

 

[MARIS61]

We'd be still living in caves.

Hey, if it's good enough for Bin Laden...

I've actually lived in a cave and it's whatever you make of it.

The Church was the government for centuries, even before the fall of the roman empire.

Centuries of barbaric atrocities and nearly no progress in human development.

Without it, there may have been feudalism. That's where there's 99% of the people dirt poor peasants and a few lords that rule over smallish territories.

So, America as we now know it.

Seriously, with education coming to the forefront and world travel opening up minds while disproving many myths, legends and superstitions which had held them back, humanity FINALLY dared to start thinking at a much quicker pace and that's why 99% of all human progress has taken place in the last hundred years or less.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm not sure this line of argument is very sound. You could make similar arguments about slavery, wars, the plague, etc.

Just because history happened in a particular way doesn't mean that any particular historical events were necessary or desirable.

barfo

The facts are the facts.

The pilgrims and others, like Lord Baltimore, were willing to risk the crossing of the atlantic in rather small wooden boats to go to a place that had no roads or sewers or churches or organized (european style) society of any kind.

Unless you can find anyone who came here from Europe around the same time for any other reason. Of course, a hundred-plus years later, the territory had been scouted and european corporations got into the new world to make a buck.

 

[Denny Crane]

Seriously, with education coming to the forefront and world travel opening up minds while disproving many myths, legends and superstitions which had held them back, humanity FINALLY dared to start thinking at a much quicker pace and that's why 99% of all human progress has taken place in the last hundred years or less.

Seriously, global warming... er cooling... er industrial revolution ... er...

Well, it got really cold for a few centuries back then and people basically starved and froze to death. Likely more to do with putting the freeze on human advancement. If you have 100% of the people foraging for food and 1/3 of those dying anyway, you're not going to have much free time to sit on your ass and think about planetary motion.

Once it did warm up, we had the free time to do those sorts of things, and it was people like Mendel and Newton who were among the leaders of the age of enlightenment.

Meanwhile, in England, the industrial revolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution

Another theory is that the British advance was due to the presence of an entrepreneurial class which believed in progress, technology and hard work.<sup id="cite_ref-27" class="reference">[28]</sup> The existence of this class is often linked to the Protestant work ethic (see Max Weber) and the particular status of the Baptists and the dissenting Protestant sects, such as the Quakers and Presbyterians that had flourished with the English Civil War. Reinforcement of confidence in the rule of law, which followed establishment of the prototype of constitutional monarchy in Britain in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and the emergence of a stable financial market there based on the management of the national debt by the Bank of England, contributed to the capacity for, and interest in, private financial investment in industrial ventures.

 

[MARIS61]

Montezuma ring a bell?

They didn't trade, they murdered the natives by the millions and destroyed entire civilizations in the process.

Maybe you are referring to Moctezuma II (1466-1520), the Tlatoani (ruler) of the Aztec civilization who was defeated by Hernán Cortés the Spanish conquistador.

Thousands actually, not millions, were slain, and they did it in the name of God.

I am surprised you used this as it destroys what little arguement you had. The Spanish Conquest of the Aztecs was one of the classic religious genocides in history, all the genocide being done by the order of religion.

It also demonstrates how religion has stunted education and progress. The Aztecs were one of the most mentally advanced civilizations of the time, with an educational system second to none, but the church replaced it with severely limited religious doctrine.

As for Montezuma, he was a mythical heroic-god in the mythology of certain Amerindian tribes of the Southwest United States, notably the Tohono O'odham and Pueblo peoples, and has no connection with Spain or Mexico.

 

[MARIS61]

The facts are the facts.

The pilgrims and others, like Lord Baltimore, were willing to risk the crossing of the atlantic in rather small wooden boats to go to a place that had no roads or sewers or churches or organized (european style) society of any kind.

Venice?

 

[Denny Crane]

Maybe you are referring to Moctezuma II (1466-1520), the Tlatoani (ruler) of the Aztec civilization who was defeated by Hernán Cortés the Spanish conquistador.

Thousands actually, not millions, were slain, and they did it in the name of God.

I am surprised you used this as it destroys what little arguement you had. The Spanish Conquest of the Aztecs was one of the classic religious genocides in history, all the genocide being done by the order of religion.

It also demonstrates how religion has stunted education and progress. The Aztecs were one of the most mentally advanced civilizations of the time, with an educational system second to none, but the church replaced it with severely limited religious doctrine.

As for Montezuma, he was a mythical heroic-god in the mythology of certain Amerindian tribes of the Southwest United States, notably the Tohono O'odham and Pueblo peoples, and has no connection with Spain or Mexico.

The pilgrims converted the natives to christianity, they didn't go about mass murdering them.

Somehow you're argument isn't strong when it's the national armies of the Spanish who were out doing all the killing for king/queen and country. (e.g. not the church)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_colonization_of_the_Americas

Columbus was made governor of the new territories and made several more journeys across the Atlantic Ocean. He profited from the labour of native slaves, whom he forced to mine gold; he also attempted to sell some slaves to Spain.<sup class="noprint Template-Fact">[citation needed]</sup> While generally regarded as an excellent navigator, he was a poor administrator and was stripped of the governorship in 1500.<sup class="noprint Template-Fact">[citation needed]</sup><sup class="noprint Template-Fact">
</sup>
On his immediate discovery of the Ta�*no people (one of three local Arawak-speaking indigenous groups), whom he met right after arriving on the island of Guanahani in the Bahamas on his first voyage, Columbus got the impression that he could conquer these people easily. In his journal he wrote, "I could conquer the whole of them with fifty men and govern them as I please" - and he proceeded to do just that.

He kidnapped some ten to twenty-five Indians and took them back to Spain. Only about seven or eight survived this journey but with the parrots, gold trinkets and other exotic loot Columbus displayed to the Spanish government he was able to persuade them into providing him with seventeen ships, nearly 1,500 men, cannons, crossbows, guns, cavalry, and attack dogs for the voyage.

He returned to Hispaniola and the Ta�*no (Arawaks) in 1493 demanding food, gold, spun cotton and whatever else they could get from the Indians. Cooperation was ensured by a punishment system: any minor offense by an Arawak would result in a Spaniard cutting off his ears or nose only to be sent back to the village as living, breathing, bleeding example of the work expected and the brutality the Spaniards were capable of.

The Tainos began to resist by refusing to plant for the Spanish, abandoning captured towns, etc. but over time this rebellion grew physically violent. Nonetheless, the Indian "sticks and stones" were no match to the guns and harmless to the armor the Spanish wore. Columbus used this resistance by the Indians as a reason to wage war and on March 24, 1495 the famed explorer set out to conquer this race that he had labeled "inferior" and "stupid."<sup class="noprint Template-Fact">[citation needed]</sup>

Naturally, the Spanish won and according to Kirkpatrick Sale, who quotes Ferdinand Columbus's biography of his father: "The soldiers mowed down dozens with point-blank volleys, loosed the dogs to rip open limbs and bellies, chased fleeing Indians into the bush to skewer them on sword and pike and 'with God's aid soon gained complete victory, killing many Indians and capturing others who were also killed.'"<sup class="noprint Template-Fact">[citation needed]</sup>

This led to a massive Spanish slave trade, in which Columbus brought back some 500 "specimens" to work as slaves in Spain while another 500 stayed as slaves for the crew left in the Americas.

Still, Columbus could not find the gold he was looking for all along. And refusing to call it slavery, Columbus resorted to this "forced labor". Indians were forced to mine for gold, raise Spanish food, provide sexual companionship, and even carry the Spanish everywhere they went. And beyond these cruel acts the Spanish disrupted the culture. Forcing the Ta�*no to work in mines led to widespread malnutrition and furthermore, an intrusion of European livestock and diseases caused further damage.<sup class="noprint Template-Fact">[citation needed]</sup>

The Ta�*no often refused to participate in the new lifestyle being forced upon them by the Spanish which resulted in suicide. In addition, children were often killed as a perceived escape from a terrible life to come.<sup class="noprint Template-Fact">[citation needed]</sup>

Before Columbus's arrival, hundreds of thousands of people populated Hispaniola alone. By 1509, only 60,000 Ta�*no remained there. Although population estimates vary, Father Bartolomé de las Casas, the “Defender of the Indians” estimated that there were six million (6,000,000) Ta�*no in the Caribbean at the time of Columbus's arrival in 1492.

 

[Denny Crane]

As for Montezuma:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montezuma

Montezuma, Moctezuma, Moteczoma, Motecuhzoma, Moteuczomah, are variant spellings and may refer to:

People

• Moctezuma I (c.1398-1469), the fifth Aztec emperor
• Moctezuma II (1466-1520), the ninth Aztec emperor, ruler at the beginning of the Spanish conquest of Mexico

 

[Денг Гордон]

Humans evolve from apes ---> Humans hunt and gather in communal living ---> Humans learn how to communicate with each other --> As the population of the group rises, humans need some organization within the group. Begin early governments to help allocate the scarce resources of the group as well as protect property. The beginning of economics takes place. ---> As human population grows, groups begin to get in contact with each other. ---> Some of these groups will go to war over conflicts of land and resources. ---> Groups make agreements to avoid wars and to divide land and resources. Beginning of diplomacy. --> As these groups of humans get larger, they begin looking at ways to increase the amount of resources they can get for their group to maintain the group. They begin to look for new ways to do things, coming up with new ideas, inventing new methods, and tools, beginning the human thirst of knowledge....and so on.

I don't get how religion is fundamental in that process taking place. With an implanted secular thought in all humans from the beginning of time, they wouldn't be sitting there just thinking, "this is the way things are because God made it". Instead of few individuals trying to find out new processes and how things actually work, and why they are that way, you would have the entire population thinking in that mindset, which would presumably spur new technological progress faster.

 

[MARIS61]

The pilgrims converted the natives to christianity, they didn't go about mass murdering them.

Somehow you're argument isn't strong when it's the national armies of the Spanish who were out doing all the killing for king/queen and country. (e.g. not the church)

The conquistadors brought with them the Catholic faith and many priests, to which the population was converted rapidly, or at least, nominally so. Because of their success in administrating the territories of reconquered Al-Andalus in Spain, the Catholic Church operated almost as an arm of the Spanish government.

 

[barfo]

The facts are the facts.

Agreed. But the fact that it happened that way doesn't make religion a necessary factor any more than it makes those funny 3 corner hats they wore a necessary factor.

Sooner or later, someone was bound to colonize the New World. Religion caused that particular group to go after it first. But if they hadn't, someone else probably would have.

The Mormons colonized Utah. If not for the Mormon church, would Utah still be Indian territory today?

barfo

 

[barfo]

It was a counterargument to a similar thought on the "other side" of the debate.

Ok. I missed that it was a response to some other argument, I guess, but it was an illogical counterargument nonetheless. If Johnny jumped off a cliff would you jump off a cliff too?

Your response to the side you responded to is noted, however.

I've started forwarding all my posts to the FBI so that you don't have to.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

I've started forwarding all my posts to the FBI so that you don't have to.

barfo

I didn't forward this hatred to the FBI, but whatever.

Where is Milkshake?

 

[barfo]

I didn't forward this hatred to the FBI, but whatever.

Where is Milkshake?

Down at the Dairy Queen, I imagine.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

Down at the Dairy Queen, I imagine.

barfo

Hmm, I was thinking "he" was at the club, making all the boys go crazy.

 

[rocketeer]

I don't get how religion is fundamental in that process taking place. With an implanted secular thought in all humans from the beginning of time, they wouldn't be sitting there just thinking, "this is the way things are because God made it". Instead of few individuals trying to find out new processes and how things actually work, and why they are that way, you would have the entire population thinking in that mindset, which would presumably spur new technological progress faster.

i wouldn't say that religion was needed in the process but i don't agree at all with your assumption that the lack of religion would have caused things to move along faster. science and religion really aren't "against each other" even if some people insist that they are.

 

[MARIS61]

The pilgrims converted the natives to christianity, they didn't go about mass murdering them.

Poppycock.

That's just silly propoganda invented centuries later.

This is closer to the reality of the invasion:

http://fiberfocus.blogspot.com/2008/11/thanksgivings-day-of-mourning-plymouth.html

And since you believed that nonsense, maybe Gutenburg really invented the press to print science textbooks, not the bible? I mean, how can we really be sure? Who can we trust to tell us the truth about the past?