What period in history would you have loved to go back and see for yourself

[Soggyfox]

To Soggyfox: We are parents and as such we make decisions for our children based on what we know to be best for them. Teaching our children to be good Christians is not only the right choice, it is the best choice we can make. We don't let our children decide whether or not to do drugs on their own. We know drugs will affect their lives in bad ways. We also know that living a life without God is an empty and arrogant existance and we want better things for our children. I hope that helps you see my view a little more clearly.

unfortunate it doesn't, it saddens me that you think my life is empty and i'm arrogant because i don't believe in your God.

as a point, you won't have any choice over whether your children take drugs, they'll be more influenced by their social network and friends. You may think saying "no no no to drugs" works as a deterrent but unfortunately it does the quit the opposite.

i'l leave this debate now.

 

[SpaceShip]

Just after the beginning of the art deco period.

 

[Marvolo]

unfortunate it doesn't, it saddens me that you think my life is empty and i'm arrogant because i don't believe in your God.

as a point, you won't have any choice over whether your children take drugs, they'll be more influenced by their social network and friends. You may think saying "no no no to drugs" works as a deterrent but unfortunately it does the quit the opposite.

i'l leave this debate now.

Which is why it is important to be part of the church and make sure their friends and social network is full of morally upstanding people.

 

[Soggyfox]

Which is why it is important to be part of the church and make sure their friends and social network is full of morally upstanding people.

you really are begining to make me laugh, are you serious or just trolling for a giggle.

i really must leave this thread as i could see myself hoofed into another dimension sharpish if i continue to post.

 

[Sephiroth]

These discussions always go nowhere. We'll all just have to agree to disagree.

To answer the original question:

Within the timespan 500-1500 AD, in Europe, two periods jump out at me for being particularly attractive. One is the Byzantine dynasty under the Macedonian Emperors, the other is 15th-Century Florence.

 

[Talysia]

Actually, on giving it further thought, I think I'd like to go back and see what the reactions to the various land discoveries were like when the news broke. These days, we don't have half as many things to explore or discover (on Earth, at least) and the thought of discovering new lands appeals to my inner explorer.

 

[Sephiroth]

I agree. There is something incredibly romantic about the whole New World scenario. And the thought of being on a boat, on your way to a land where the unknown awaits.......new peoples, new plants, animals...who can say whether there are monsters, demons, even, awaiting our arrival?

Scary, but exhilarating...

 

[Allegra]

...the other is 15th-Century Florence.

If there's only one seat left for that destination, Sephiroth, you'll have to fight with me for it! However I can go a little later, say the mid-15 century till the mid-16 century. I want to see Michelangelo finish his job.

 

[Sephiroth]

Let's hope they're not fully booked!

I know what you mean, I wouldn't want to stop at 1500! I would miss the Scientific Revolution...and then, Bernini's new St. Peter's...and...well, a lot more........

 

[mosaix]

Marvolo,

Let me explain a little. You seemed to think that I was implying that religious people needed educating. You seemed to think I was getting personal and replied in kind and I admit I took exception.

You are a relatively new contributor to the Chrons and so, perhaps, don't realise that, as opposed to many, many other web sites, we here on Chronicles don't get personal unless we are praising each other or out of genuine affection. I think that you don't realise that and therefore misread my post.

Until you raised the point of religion I was referring to belief systems in general and I specifically mentioned education in relation to superstition. Education should teach our kids to question more and not believe everything they here - that was my thrust. There are many Christians who post on here who I regard as friends and I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with you being a Christian - not that you need my approval.

As, I think, JD has said in another thread we can argue and disagree over each others beliefs whilst still liking each other as individuals. I took exception to you making assumptions about how I saw myself and how I regarded others. What you said could not be farther from the truth and I am still cross about it, but I should not have replied how I did. I was rude.

However that does not mean to say that I am going to let you get away with something you said.

I do not practice a religion. I did, but now I don't and I know the difference.

A religious person believes something for which there is no proof and, therefore has no reason to change their mind about what they believe. These beliefs seem to differ from country to country and culture to culture and therefore, patently, can't all be true.

I don't do that. I have no beliefs. I either know something or I don't - based on facts. I change my mind from time to time based on newly discovered facts. These facts are the same from country to country, culture to culture.

And that is the difference. Religion is based on belief - I am an non-believer. And please don't say that I believe that god doesn't exist and ipso facto am practicing a religion. I just don't believe - get it? When a babe is born it doesn't believe - non-belief therefore is the default state. A one-day old babe isn't practicing a religion by not believing, is it?

And please don't call me non-tolerant (extreme or otherwise), or I am going to get cross again. You know very little about me. You know absolutely nothing about what I tolerate or what I don't. 'Atheist' doesn't imply intolerance any more than 'religious' implies tolerance.

 

[j d worthington]

Allow me to throw a term out here that may help clarify something; rather than "proof", which has acquired plenty of looser definitions as well as the more strict mathematical one, perhaps "testable, verifiable evidence" is a worthwhile substitution.

And as mosaix said, the difference lies in faith versus knowledge (or verifiable information); hence a-theism (lack of a belief in gods) is not in any way a religion. It is a lack of a belief, not a belief itself. (That there are atheists -- speaking from the perspective of the usual religions -- who are driven by belief rather than evidence, is quite true. But that is a separate issue. One of the problems is that defining atheists is sort of like herding cats... Not that easy to get them to group together on much of anything, as about the only thing they can be said to have in common is that lack of a belief in a deity and that they tend generally to be fiercely independent thinkers.) Or, as has been put by others: We're all atheists to one degree or another; none of us believe in all the gods mankind has ever come up with. Some of us simply take it one step further. Present verifiable evidence, and it will be considered. Until then, I see no reason to believe.

On the moral issue... Frankly, that's another misconception, as morals predate all religion. We see ethical, moral behavior in the animal kingdom as well. Human beings simply evolved a more complex form of it and made it more institutionalized and rationalized; and that has been the result of our development as a species. Ethics and morals are more or less inherent in any viable species, as without them there is no possibility of cooperation and therefore no survival. That specific morals or ethics may be connected to religions I don't think anyone disputes; but moral and ethical behavior per se... no. Murder is a non-viable option for a species qua species. It simply doesn't work. Therefore, those within a species who kill others of the same species eventually find themselves as outcasts. With human beings, as we're more complex organisms with the capacity for verbalization, we take it much further; we recognize that rampant murder damages us all, and so the offendor is punished. So it is with most of the basics of morality. We develop them as we develop as a species, and they do predate any religion... they predate, in primitive form, humanity itself. They can also be developed without regard to any religion, simply by referring to the fact that actions inevitably have consequences, as none of us lives entirely alone, without interdependence. We all require some dependence upon others to survive.

As for your feeling that you won't be accepted because you're a Christian... no. Your beliefs some of us may not accept (in the sense of agreeing with) but you're a valuable member of the forum; someone who has put in some very good feedback on several issues and has debated passionately on various topics... all of which are good things. This is simply a subject upon which we are likely to always disagree; but it's the subject we disagree on, and such disagreement is not meant as an attack on the person. Therein lies the difference.

 

[Marvolo]

The point I am hoping to get across about many athiests practicing a religion is very simple.

What would you call blind devotion to the knowledge of the day?

Let me clarify.

I'm going to ask you a question Mosaix since this discussion has been mostly between me and you. Afterwards I'm going to make a point that is completely off-topic and you'll probably be offended by it.

Are you a nuclear physicist? Or perhaps a molecular biologist? What about a fellow with a doctorate in any of the various degrees that would let you fully understand any of the very deep mysteries of our universe?

The answer is probably no. So without a doctorate in every advanced field of science you don't know anything for certain other than what you hear or read.

So what makes your books and hearsay better than mine? What makes your devotion to certain knowledges different than mine?

Nothing does.

The other point I want to make and I'll offend you a bit with this one as well is that just because I have a low post count and this is a better than average forum doesn't give you the high road on this discussion. We enter all discussions as equals on forums such as this and you have to win debates on merit alone, post count and time spent on the forum have little to do with it in my opinion, whether you have 30 something like soggyfox or a million like JD.

Now, I'm sure you're not happy with my post and for that I'm sorry. I told myself yesterday the Christian thing to do here would be just bow out of the discussion tastefully and present my opinion again when asked. But I just can't let the athiests not practicing a religion issue rest.

And JD is correct. Not all athiests do practice a religion, but as you described your beliefs Mosaix I see that you do practice a religion which worships the science of the day. That is different from some other athiests who are as ignorant to the science of the day as they are to the word of God. Those types of athiest are really just nihilists calling themselves athiests and their deeper MO is just resentment towards any sort of structure.

To Soggyfox: I still don't see what you think is funny about that statement. I honestly don't. Feel free to elaborate.

Also, this debate reaches to the very meaning of truth. To everyone who is raising the point that they only believe what can be proven to be true, I find that unsatisfactory. The reality is that truth changes everyday and is very circumstancial to the person relying on the particular truth. Smoking wasn't unhealthy once. Babies needed to lay on their stomachs. Doctors say something is good medicine one year, the next year we have lawsuits because people die from it.

I've been on your side before, waiting for God to appear before me and say "Hey, here you go. Now you have no reason to doubt me." But life doesn't work that way. But I have noticed this. I see a lot of order in the world around me. I don't see morality in the animal kingdom. I see a global instinct which directs the non-human inhabitants of this world to find a natural equilibrium. I see that most things presented to me by man and man only wind up either not being what they seem or falling short of what is promised. New science is exciting. I'm a science fiction reader and aspiring author. But new science and discovery doesn't, and won't, bring us anything other than easier living and revelations on the broken or unfulfilled promises of yesterday's science. It changes and breaks its own rules and I dare say very few of the people here can raise their hand and say "I work in the lab every day exploring the deeper mysteries of the universe, let me elaborate on why I don't believe God exists." Most here are only going on what scientists discover because none of us have that knowledge for themselves.

This debate even goes on within the highest levels of the scientific community that athiests like Mosaix worship. Dr. Frances Collins was the head of the Human Genome Project. He helped map out every part of our DNA and he believes in a loving God.

My truth is different than your truth Mosaix or yours Soggyfox. But I don't see how you can worship your truths Mosaix and not call it a religion, or laugh at mine Soggyfox because I believe that my children being active in a church and careful screening of their friends and the parents of their friends cannot be anything but helpful in making sure they make the right decisions in life. Our truths differ but I once thought like you Mosaix. I was never as happy then as I am now. I truly hope that everyone here can find their own relationship with God. But it won't just be my words or anyone elses that convince you. It'll have to start with you searching for an answer that man can't give you.

And also mankind and belief, religion, superstition, whatever moniker you want to put on it, grew up hand in hand. We have practiced forms of belief from the very earliest days when we practiced ceromonial burial to sun worship to polytheism to Judaism to Christian to Islam. Mankind feels the need to search for higher answers. Some find that answer in science, others don't. I can't abide by the answers science gives today and takes away tomorrow. But non-belief isn't the default state. My children constantly seek answers and they see their mother and I as the guiding lights in their lives. We'll guide them to the guiding light in our eyes.

I'm tired and don't see a point in typing anymore.

G'night.

 

[Sephiroth]

Marvolo, can I ask you a question?

If you believe in evolution, and the scientific version of world history and prehistory (which from your statement in the last paragraph, you do), then what is it that makes you a believer? You obviously do not believe that god created the world in seven days about 6000 years ago, so what is it that makes you so sure of 'his' existence? Why do you believe?

This is a sincere question, and I am not asking it so that I can ridicule whatever answer you give. I'm genuinely curious as to your rationale.

 

[Marvolo]

To Sephiroth:

I had a response typed out and while trying to highlight something to backspace it I hit the back button on my mouse, fun.

Anyway.

I believe in intelligent design but it is easy to hear someone talk about seeing an equilibrium in the non-human ecosystem and think they're an evolutionist. The hard thing about an evolution/intelligent design discussion is that we're both looking at the same thing and interpreting it differently. An evolutionist looks at the platypus and says, "The platypus has evolved to fit its environment perfectly." Someone like me sees the platypus and says, "God has made the platypus so that it has the best chance to survive." My problem with the theory of evolution is that it still has big holes due to the fact that paleontologists can't seem to find all the links between one species and another. When they do claim to have everything figured out, they end up being wrong because paleontology is barely a science and more of a crazy game of 52 card pickup. When I was a kid the Brontosaurus was a real dinosaur. When I grew up the Brontosaurus became an Apatosaurus with the wrong head attached. This is just an example.

To the question about the Earth being created in seven days and being 6,000 years old. When I was a teenager - young adult the early books of the Bible always presented a problem for me. Some preachers taught they were literal stories and to be a Christian you had to believe each one word for word. But later I met another very intelligent Christian who taught that the old testament could be read with an allegorical mindset for better enrichment of our lives. This was one the barriers I overcame in going from an athiest to a Christian (this and the beginning of feeling a joy while being in the church, which is something that never happened before). I read the early books of the Bible as figurative stories with literal roots. These stories are very old. Everyone pretty much agrees that we came from one spot in Africa (pretty much everyone). In the old testament there is no telling what seven days means to God. When Adam & Eve were kicked out of the gardens of Eden mankind existed outside of God's graces for a while. Many of the day/year quotations in the old testament I believe are allegorical as well, representing the time it took for man to organize and recieve God's favor again.

It's 6:43 and I have to get ready for work.

I hope this helps you see my viewpoint a little more clearly Sephiroth.

 

[mosaix]

The point I am hoping to get across about many athiests practicing a religion is very simple.

What would you call blind devotion to the knowledge of the day?

Let me clarify.

I'm going to ask you a question Mosaix since this discussion has been mostly between me and you. Afterwards I'm going to make a point that is completely off-topic and you'll probably be offended by it.

Are you a nuclear physicist? Or perhaps a molecular biologist? What about a fellow with a doctorate in any of the various degrees that would let you fully understand any of the very deep mysteries of our universe?

The answer is probably no. So without a doctorate in every advanced field of science you don't know anything for certain other than what you hear or read.

So what makes your books and hearsay better than mine? What makes your devotion to certain knowledges different than mine?

Where did the 'blind devotion' bit come from. Please stop this Marvolo. Putting words into other people mouths and then using them in your argument is, I agree, a useful debating tactic, but futile. I know what I think, you don't.

The point is that there ARE physicists and biologists and fellows with doctorates (some of them contribute to Chrons). And their work is closely examined and peer reviewed. And I could go to other, independent physicists and biologists and fellows with doctorates and ask them their opinion on other scientists works. I've never been to Australia, are you telling me I should doubt its existence until I have?

The other point I want to make and I'll offend you a bit with this one as well is that just because I have a low post count and this is a better than average forum doesn't give you the high road on this discussion. We enter all discussions as equals on forums such as this and you have to win debates on merit alone, post count and time spent on the forum have little to do with it in my opinion, whether you have 30 something like soggyfox or a million like JD.

Not offended at all. And again you misunderstand me. My point was that after a while of posting on here people come to realise that when a point is made it isn't usually personal. You seemed to think my point about education was personal and I was trying to explain how that mistake might have come about. You made the same mistake again by thinking I was being personal about post counts and taking the high road - I wasn't. In a forum like this, without face to face contact, it is easy to misconstrue a point and it seems to have happened again. My point is that you can take my points, and most other peoples here at face value - non of them are personal. To reiterate my point Marvolo, the Chronicles is not like most forums, we are a friendly bunch and have open discssuions without insulting each other or trying to put each other down.

And JD is correct. Not all athiests do practice a religion, but as you described your beliefs Mosaix I see that you do practice a religion which worships the science of the day. That is different from some other athiests who are as ignorant to the science of the day as they are to the word of God. Those types of athiest are really just nihilists calling themselves athiests and their deeper MO is just resentment towards any sort of structure.

I don't worship anything Marvolo. I take an interest in what goes on around me. I think what we have here is a disagreement over the meaning of the word religion and I am content to let it rest at that.

Smoking wasn't unhealthy once.

Smoking has always been unhealthy. It's just that some people believed it wasn't. That's the difference between truth and belief.

I've been on your side before, waiting for God to appear before me and say "Hey, here you go. Now you have no reason to doubt me."

Now I see how you misunderstand me. I'm not waiting for 'him', I don't doubt 'him'. Lack of 'him' in my life isn't a void that I am waiting to be filled. I am perfectly content with the universe as it is. I am in the default state of 'no belief'.

But life doesn't work that way. But I have noticed this. I see a lot of order in the world around me.

Any organism existing in an environment will see order in that environment because evolution ensures that the organism is suited to the environment.

I don't see morality in the animal kingdom.

We are part of the animal kingdom, we are moral animals. When stone-age man started to live and hunt in groups he had to have a set of rules than enabled members of the groups to get along on a day to day basis, to cooperate. From such humble beginnings morality arose and this happened before there was the 'word', written or otherwise.

This debate even goes on within the highest levels of the scientific community that athiests like Mosaix worship.

Marvolo, if you are going to pass comment on me personally, please, please stick to what you know about me and not what you imagine.

My truth is different than your truth Mosaix or yours Soggyfox. But I don't see how you can worship your truths Mosaix and not call it a religion.

There you go again with that 'worship' thing.

It'll have to start with you searching for an answer that man can't give you.

What's the question?

But non-belief isn't the default state. My children constantly seek answers and they see their mother and I as the guiding lights in their lives.

Your mixing up the questions with the answers there. If belief was the default state there'd be no need to seek answers no need ask questions. It is precisely because kids start out with no beliefs that they are so inquisitive.



But, by now you must be starting to see that our exchanges just go to prove my original point, made several posts ago and not related to religion per se nor was it anti-religious nor did it say religion was the root of all evil. What I said was belief systems, because they can never be proven will tend to lead to conflict.

1 + 1 = 2 This is true. It is easily proven and I've never, ever heard anyone argue over it.

Fairies exist and only show themselves to people who truly believe in them. This is a belief and if anyone believed it anymore it would provoke hours of endless debate that could never be resolved. If it was believed by an entire race of people it would tend to lead to conflict. That was my point.

The posts that you, I and others have exchanged in this thread and others prove I am right. We don't agree because because neither you or I can point to a single verifiable fact that will prove or disprove your belief. And because there are no facts that we can agree on then we don't agree. And disagreement tends to lead to conflict.

Search the thousands and thousands of threads here on Chronicles and you will find that, almost without exception, the threads that the moderators have had to close down have involved heated exchanges about belief systems.

For some reason this thread has turned in a religious debate and, if it is going to continue in that vein, I for one will no longer contribute. I made a point about conflict and I think the resultant posts have, inadvertently, proven my point for me.

 

[Allegra]

Sorry to interrupt but I just have to venture a question here:

But I just can't let the athiests not practicing a religion issue rest.

WHY?

Considering millions and millions of people around the globe have never bent their knees to anyone, you won’t get a rest yourself. Let the believers believe whatever they choose to believe and unbelievers not believe whatever you think they should believe. (And never even try to persuade me eating blue cheese cos I’m not gonna buy it! - Sorry blue cheese lovers, mind you I love practically any cheese except that, yuk.)

 

[j d worthington]

Folks... the discussion per se can be an interesting discussion, but I'd suggest opening up another thread if we're going to continue it, and let this thread get back on topic. (And yes, I realize I contributed to the entire thing. Without meaning to "alibi", I was simply attempting to clarify a point and, in the process, also introduce a possibly less ambiguous phrase for use, to help with reaching an understanding.)

At any rate... as I said, the discussion is a valid one, though assumptions about the other person should be treated warily, and I'd suggest phrasing them clearly as assumptions, rather than knowledge of what one or the other believes, feels, etc., unless they specifically say they do.

If anyone wishes to continue this discussion, I'd suggest opening a new thread, but we do need to be careful. We've had one or two threads on religion/lack of belief that managed to stay open, but usually they become extremely heated. I think we'd all prefer a civil discussion on the matter, addressing the points raised by each and debating them, to getting into personal attacks or disrespect for each other.

As noted, this is a surprisingly friendly community -- a rarity on the internet, from what I've seen -- and it'd be nice to keep it that way....

 

[Sephiroth]

I agree. At the other board I post on sometimes, these discussions frequently get out of hand and degenerate into a slanging-match. I wouldn't like to see that happen here. It's an evocative subject for all of us, myself included, as evidenced by the fact that I felt the need to post a comment.

Marvolo, thank you for the intelligent and thoughtful statement of your position; it certainly helps me to better understand where you are coming from.

 

[Allegra]

Yes J.D. is right (isn't he always?). I apologize if I offended anyone unintentionally with my above post. It’s just that sometimes my tongue gets stuck in the cheek - Chrispeny has something to do with this because he does it all the time and it’s contagious!

Seriously though, I understand and respect both believers and unbelievers (learned it hard way from my parents) and I believe that understanding and respect are all we need for about everything on this planet.

Now back to the topic, apart from 15 - 16th century's Florence, I also wish to travel back to perhaps 9th century's Iceland when people were still using fish for currency!

 

[j d worthington]

Yes J.D. is right (isn't he always?). I apologize if I offended anyone unintentionally with my above post. It’s just that sometimes my tongue gets stuck in the cheek - Chrispeny has something to do with this because he does it all the time and it’s contagious!

Seriously though, I understand and respect both believers and unbelievers (learned it hard way from my parents) and I believe that understanding and respect are all we need for about everything on this planet.

Now back to the topic, apart from 15 - 16th century's Florence, I also wish to travel back to perhaps 9th century's Iceland when people were still using fish for currency!

Well, not quite, yet.... Just to clarify: my own post just above was simply a general statement, not aimed at anyone in particular. I've just found that that's the best way to keep the discussion focused on the issue, rather than personalities; in which case it can often be a very meaty discussion, and one I hope all parties (or at least, all sides) can feel was worthwhile and rewarding.

As for what period... well, for me, I've always been fascinated by the various witch-hunts... their causes and the change in zeitgeist that led from an acceptance that such things were, but without the harsher penalties being inflicted, to the outright panics and mass murders that were often the result... especially as the causes seem to vary, and are quite complex, both from region to region and from one time to another. (Certainly the Salem incident in American history is by no means unique; what makes it stand out is that it was so concentrated and in such a relatively short span of time... but it was part of a pattern that had been around since shortly after the colony was first established, and lasted for a good while after.)

So I'd probably pick one (or several) of those... just so long as I could avoid being in the middle of the darned thing as a participant!