[Closed] Creationist religious nutjob on R4 "One to One 9.30am"

Religion held back science because every time it disagreed with the bible they objected and they had great power

Its not really that debatable tbh

Religion did not always hold back science. It can be argued that Islam helped collect information from lots of different cultures and bring it all together to be studied. understanding and knowledge was encouraged. Some of the libraries in Andalucia, Cordoba especially, lead the way to modern science and culture. Though to counter that, the Catholic invasion did very well and destroying a lot of that too.

Unfortunately you're going to need stats for that Roper

just gonna throw this into the mix.. see if it helps clear things up at all..

[img] [/img]

nice one Yunki. I think it ties it all up nicely. same time next week? 😯

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

no problem.. I'm always happy to help clear up some of life's little mysteries..

just call me Solomon 😀

[img] [/img]

Unfortunately you're going to need stats for that Roper

I'm not sure what you mean I need stats. It is accepted history. Look at Cordoba between the 10C and 11C. It was the capital of knowledge in Europe brought to gether by Islamists. It's libraries had an estimated 400,000 volumes, far larger than anywhere in Europe at the time. Books from greek, Latin Hebrew etcetera were translated to gain a wider understanding of what was known.
It's influence can still be seen in the UK today. The use of Arabic numbers (not Roman) in mathematics, also words like, alchemy, algebra, alcohol.... most words beginning with al have an arabic history.

Roper I think he was joking tbh re the stats thing

Its a fair point that not all religions plunged us into the dark ages. However when science contradict their book science lost out for a long long time. Even today we still have folk wanting to teach creationism - we should discuss this one day 😉

The pope is not generallymconsidered to be infallible. Only when he makes certainkinds of pronouncements, dunno what the term is

Is it arrogance?

Only on matters of morals and faith is the pope infallible - that is quite a broad church [ groans] when you are a church
They dont say what statements they consider to be infallible so its hard to know which was the last one iirc pope John paul did a few

Religion held back science because every time it disagreed with the bible they objected and they had great power

The religious authorities held back science.

Religion is NOT THE SAME as the religious authorities, in the same way that the English language isn't Shakespeare.

The religious authorities held back science.

It would've been quite difficult to do it on their own, I'd have thought.

With apologies to Godwin, weren't the Nazis only following orders?

So when the pope/church was attacking Gallileo [ or coppernicus before him] fro example was it
a] An act free from religion
b] a religiously motivated act due to what they said contradicting what the bible said

ITS NOT A HARD QUESTION

Not interested in this Molly its obvious what occurred and it was religiously motivated.
It held back knowledge because they had all the answers

FFS

It's not a hard concept to understand, to paraphrase your insult.

Religion as a concept is not the same as whoever happens to currently be in charge of it.

The bible has not changed a lot, but science is now free to propose ideas that contradict it. What's changed? The authorities.

They are certainly different areas, but would the religious authorities have any power if it weren't for the religious beliefs of their members?

If we discuss individual beliefs, they are so varied that it's impossible to pin down and discuss. The issue of seeming to attack individuals also rears its head.

If we discuss the organisations, we get told that they don't necessarily reflect the beliefs of individuals.

Religion as a concept is not the same as whoever happens to currently be in charge of it.

but yes it's the men in charge actually making the decrees - who incidentally probably said "god made me do it*" so passing the buck back to religion then.

*or "I am just a conduit for the holy spirit" or similar

Molly you are getting irrate on this thread
No offence but you either need to clam down or walk away.
NOT A TROLL OR GOAD

You could of course answer my question - it was either religiously motivated or it was not and its is obvious which of these it was.

Religion as a concept is not the same as whoever happens to currently be in charge of it.

Whoever happens to be in charge of it ,has generally been chosen by the Church elders, believes the religion and the bible. Ergot whatever they do it is motivated by the Bible and religion and defence of what the Bible says.
had they not had a special book that answered these questions they would not care whether evidence said we orbited the sun or not as it would not matter.

Molly you are getting irrate on this thread
No offence but you either need to clam down or walk away.
NOT A TROLL OR GOAD

With all due respect, I beg to differ.
As usual, he's one of the few voices of reason as another anti-religion thread degenerates into the same old aggression .
But this time he's just outnumbered and OUT-SHOUTED!!!!!!!!!!

another anti-religion thread degenerates into the same old aggression

There's a lot of tosh on this thread.

EDIT: can someone provide a quick summary to save me and others wading through all this nonsense.

Thanks.

With all due respect, I beg to differ.

As usual, he's one of the few voices of reason as another anti-religion thread degenerates into the same old aggression .

But this time he's just outnumbered and OUT-SHOUTED!!!!!!!!!!

Well as I see Godwins law was evoked 31 minutes ago so:

GAME OVER

Credits roll:

thanks to
R4
Jesus
Mohammed
Moses
Buddha
and too many other to mention 🙂

Molly you are getting irrate on this thread

No, I'm really not.

You could of course answer my question - it was either religiously motivated or it was not and its is obvious which of these it was

I thought that was a rhetorical question.

Obviously these things seemed to have religion as their primary motivation. But the reality is probably a lot more complicated than that.

The Catholic church in those days in that area was the establishment, and they held all the power. They had made pronouncements on the nature of all things based on the bible. So for them to be proved wrong would have been a serious embarrassment from a purely political point of view.

Actual theology was mainly done by monks in those days. Most of the shite that went on was all about politics and power games, using religion as a pretext.

Believers are always outnumbered on these

I'm not a believer, just to make that clear.

Loum - appreciated.

If individuals want to believe in anything, it rarely does any harm to society. It's only when those individuals club together that there are issues.

not noticed much aggression

Not noticed much here either.

So for them to be proved wrong would have been a serious embarrassment from a purely political point of view.

Shirley the guys in charge were in charge through religion, if religion gets undermined [b]they[/b] get undermined. Religion and politics/power were the same thing back then weren't they? Not sure you can separate the two.

It turns out that there [i]is[/i] proof that God exists: http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/welcome.php

In fact, there are [url= http://www.andrewcorbett.net/articles/5-proofs.html ]five proofs[/url]!

1. cause
2. design
3. morality
4. resurrection
5. experience

Would it be interesting to take each proof in turn?

You did better than me

For example the fist question asked me if the laws of logic exist - well they do exist just like religion exists.

I rather felt they meant to ask me if I believe the laws rather than whether I believe they exist.

I feel that the best test to determine whether or not you really believe that absolute moral laws exist, is not whether you feel that atrocities like rape and child molestation could be right somewhere in the universe, but whether they could ever be right if perpetrated against you or someone you love. Please keep in mind, I am asking what YOU believe, not what you think anyone else believes.

Yes there is no moral ambiguity over say murder or lying now is there with "absolute moral law"
Stupid emotive nonsense
We should have them on this thread though

I gave up at this point

so pointing out a bloody big fault in the prevailing religion wasn't a consideration? It was just political?

I don't expect the authorities really gave a crap as to what revolved around what. I think they would have cared a great deal about being made to look stupid though. Especially when their power base was built upon being the only people who could tell you what was right.

Yes there is no moral ambiguity over say murder or lying now is there

Lots of ambiguity over murder. Even in our modern law courts. And even more over lying.

Is it ok to kill someone who's a threat to your own life? Or safety? What about the death penalty? Is it ok to lie to prevent something really bad happening? I'm sure many captured spies have lied about lots of things.

I don't expect the authorities really gave a crap as to what revolved around what. I think they would have cared a great deal about being made to look stupid though

I think the fact that some aspect of the bible was incorrect meant that other aspects could be questioned and its façade of being completely true was lost. This was the great danger
I think they genuinely thought it was heresy to question the biblical account.

Molly that was my point - they used an emotive example that was absolute [ there are very few absolutes tbh] rather than use murder or lies to show that [ in general] morals are not absolute.
They could have used theft - was Robin hood right to steal to feed the poor?
Etc

molgrips - Member
I don't expect the authorities really gave a crap as to what revolved around what. I think they would have cared a great deal about being made to look stupid though. Especially when their power base was built upon being the only people who could tell you what was right.

If I could risk sticking my head back in here for a minute before Junkyard irritates me off again, I would pick up on this and your earlier well made point about the authority of religion, which to my mind is what we in the west ultimately suffer from.

Back in Feudal times the battle for control was between the church and the various Crowned Heads of Europe, both of course claim divine right to rule, so the agenda was the definition of Gods desire, wether he permits you to rule by birth or selection from Rome.

So your assertion that authority has changed is correct, but it was that battle for authority that muddied the whole Judaeo Christian teaching in the first place and why, personally looking further East for a solution I felt at the time was a better idea.

Whatever.. Carry on, I'm off again, in the greater scheme of things with the appearance of a Crisp rant there are more important things to do right now..

If I could risk sticking my head back in here for a minute before Junkyard irritates me off again

Nice explanation and not unreasaonable
FWIW I agree that eastern religions/philosophies are far more useful in life and from my spiritual journey of youth only the eastern ones remain and are practised

To be clear I dont believe but much of Buddhism is useful for life IMHO

Junkyard - Member
I put in no effort to achieve this and i dont troll you.

It's that constant inward outward drawing of breath that's doing it.. 😉

Genuine laugh for that one 😆

Good point well made igrf.

I think the fact that some aspect of the bible was incorrect meant that other aspects could be questioned and its façade of being completely true was lost. This was the great danger
I think they genuinely thought it was heresy to question the biblical account.

Well some people did, some didn't. There was quite a bit of variation in how people interpreted the bible back then, just as there is now. Some people managed to get away with it, some didn't.

Only on matters of morals and faith is the pope infallible - that is quite a broad church

nearly, it is this but only when he defines doctrine, [i]ex cathedra[/i] is the term sought. And even then canon law requires that it has to be manifestly demonstrated. This was last invoked in 1950, referring to the assumption of the virgin Mary, and then 100 years previous to that, regarding the immaculate conception, and this was before papal infallibility was defined at the first Vatican Council.

I gave up at this point

Shame; the conclusion is absolutely hilarious.

There's a lot of tosh on this thread.

Which you'll be correcting shortly no-doubt. Or was that your contribution?

[img] [/img]

In fact, there are five proofs!

1. cause
2. design
3. morality
4. resurrection
5. experience

Would it be interesting to take each proof in turn?

Oh dear, you were being serious. 😐

I don't think you understand the concept of 'proof'. I saw no 'proof' in that link. I'm probably not very bright, perhaps you could spell in out for me?

Bimbler, I've just found evidence for God, where is she?

OK, about the 5 ‘proofs’ of God (not sure which God, but anyway)

1. No proof. The fact that something does not seem logical to our current thinking, and the fact that something has the tiniest of probabilities, does NOT mean that thing can not have happened.

2. What proof? The writer makes no sense.

3. Each of us are NOT born with an innate sense of morality. Suggest the author does some research of child behavior.

4. Even if a bloke called Jesus existed, so what, it proves nothing about any gods.

5. One person unrepeatable experience does NOT make proof.

Really. And I'm just your average uneducated chump in the street, If I can shred that 'proof' imagine what someone with a GVNQ or two could do.

Odin vs Jesus

[img] [/img]

Again! again! again! nothing like a bit of subjectivity to get stw babbling on. See Painting thread. Some really bonkers opinions on there IMHO. Each to there own.

religious fundamentalists regardless of denomination are mentally ill, put them in a big padded warehouse somewhere so they can have conversations with their imaginary friends without embarrassing themselves.

miketually - Member

Would it be interesting to take each proof in turn?

I guess it would- because just saying something is proof is easy, backing it up in this case is impossible. So fill yer boots.