Evolution vs Creation

In the case of literature it’s probably 50/50. It is, however, obvious that religion has impeded science throughout the centuries. In the past centuries, it denied the more logical scientific model of the solar system, in the past decade it raised moral out cry over the use of otherwise meaningless stem cells. One of the major flaws of most religions is it bases morality of a strict unchanging set of rules, such as “Thou shalt not kill.” A much smarter morality is simply the broader guideline that I justify things with “Do that which is best for society without giving yourself too little.” In this logical morality system the use of stem cells, which are incapable of any form of pain or loss or any other negative effect and could lead to vast medical advancements, is not just not immoral, but a moral necessity.

one might argue that Religion has furthered civilization enough to counter these negative effects on science, however that is not true. A common argument for religion is that it has provided information important to the growth of civilization. The Bible is said to have encouraged proper sanitation in the world’s earliest large cities (such as the importance of burying corpses), which helped prevent rampant spread of disease. However, The Bible was written entirely by men and as a result contains no information not already known by man. Therefor the guidelines for proper sanition found in it were already very well known and if they had not been enforced by religion they would have been enforced by culture. I forget what religion it is, but there is one that forbid eating pork. This was because in the past pork contained a deadly disease. People credit religions for saving these people from the deadly disease, however if that religion had never existed not eating pork would simply have become a cultural aspect rather than a religious aspect. An example of this is that Indian food contains so many spices not only because spices are abundant in India, but also because they discovered spices made food last longer. Spicing food became a cultural aspect that aided Indian civilization by making food last longer.

I am inclined to believe that in the modern world science has been slowed by religion tremendously. However, that said, going back to previous points I really don’t feel like restating, a world without religion would be so fundamentally different we cannot know if the world would be better off or not, and that is 50/50.

I know I’m late to the party and all, but I’ve read the last 10 pages and I honestly don’t see what is so hard to understand about Someonerandm’s point of not knowing what the world would be like without religion. I’ve never seen so many red herring and straw-man fallacies in my life.

I mean, he’s(?) repeatedly stated a very simple and to the point concept: We don’t know, and I’ve seen people read this concept and get:
-Someonerandm thinks religion is undoubtedly and irrefutably all good
-Someonerandm thinks religion is undoubtedly and irrefutably all bad
-Someonerandm is a supporter of religion
-Various other things not amounting to “We don’t know”

I mean, how do you guys intend to have a discussion about something when one person says “A” and another person counters that with arguments geared toward refuting “B”?

In the broad category of “a world” I agree with you.

I wonder what the world would be like if it wasn’t based on electrical values. :wink:

kzot!

I missed the joke/point. ):

Stupid people are not supposed to get jokes, anyway

Then you shouldn’t be making them either.

“Religion” has no values, like electricity. They are amoral. “Religion” is part of humanity and humanity has values and morality. That was the implication.

Pffft, semantics…
Trust me, if you think I’m losing an argument, it’s just because I’m feeling perfidious.

Except he repeatedly said that our entire culture is based on religion :meh:

Right. Which is why we don’t know.

Actually a lot of literature and art made its way INTO christianity.

You know what hell is like right? How would you describe it? How would you describe satan, angels, or jesus?

Well the bible sure as hell doesn’t. The most the bible says about hell is there’s fire and someone is gnashing their teeth.

The view we have of those things now are because of literature describing hell, people’s obsession with cherubs, and italians all drawing jesus as a white italian man instead of a middle eastern one.

The bible itself has been edited a lot, missing books that used to be in it, and was made that way purely BECAUSE of culture and people in control. Culture MADE religion, not the other way around. You said kings were put into power by divine right, they got into power in the first place and made divine right as a way to stay in power and keep power in the family.

Christianity is the stupidest religion of them all, just being a mish mash of stolen ideas from the pagans, greeks, and egyptians.

You guys talking like religion is somehow responsible for the way society is today, religions are just a reflection of the culture of the time in which they were made. Nothing more. They have done nothing good for our societies, and just make good people do bad things, and puts bad people into power over the good. Nobody is themselves, they base their lives on lies and nothing gets anywhere.

Thanks intooblivion. You said it a lot better than I did.

I know that’s your point. I was pointing out to ThatOneGuy that you didn’t only say we don’t know.

God, you’re so closed minded. I haven’t talked about Christianity like it started anything. I’m talking about the Bible kickstarting one part of modern culture, and half of that book had nothing to do with Christianity. Yeah, people are closed minded, but your head is just as far up your arse as their’s are.

I never said that literature today was copied out of the bible. I said it kickstarted it. Why do you think people wrote about that stuff? Could it perhaps be because they were studying the bible? Hmmmmm.

The problem is Soup, you’re just wrong.

There were slews of libraries, schools, a democratic government and more in Rome before the individual gospels were combined into the Bible. The Bible is a compendium of several religious texts. That’s why it’s separated into books.

Meaning there were books and literature before the Bible, along with academia, plays, novels, ect. There would have been literature after without it.

Now, you can make the argument that without the Bible our literature would have been different (and probably better). But that’s not the argument you made. You said two pages ago that without the Bible we wouldn’t have literature at all. Which is completely false.

Except I didn’t say that. I said we wouldn’t have literature today, as in the literature we have.

I don’t know if you noticed, but there’s a bit of a gap between the current age of literature and the roman empire or ancient greece.

Then you’re making the argument it would have been different.

Learn to structure a sentence so you don’t misrepresent your position. Let me fix this for you then.

This is not me being a grammar Nazi. This is not semantics. This is me completely changing your position by typing what you meant.

No, I’m not saying it would be different, I’m saying the Bible is responsible for today’s literature.

You’re either wrong or you have no idea how to formulate a cohesive sentence.

Founded in 2004, Leakfree.org became one of the first online communities dedicated to Valve’s Source engine development. It is more famously known for the formation of Black Mesa: Source under the 'Leakfree Modification Team' handle in September 2004.