Reply to: I'd just like to thank...........

[Buffoon]

I'd like to thank JC for his part in the biggest conspiracy known to man.

WHAT!
He had something to do with the cancellation of the original series of Star Trek?

[Churchill]

I'd like to thank JC for his part in the biggest conspiracy known to man.

[shoes]

Because if he hadn't you wouldn't be working in the computer industry for starters as there wouldn't be any computers!

Im failing to see the upside here

[OwlHoot]

Would that be Saint Albertus Magnus the Dominican Friar sometime Bishop of Regensburg?

Spot on, and how about Robert Grosseteste , and Roger Bacon

[threaded]

Would that be Saint Albertus Magnus the Dominican Friar sometime Bishop of Regensburg?

[Magnus]

Utter bollox. Where do you think most scientific progress was made numb nuts?

I beg your pardon??


Most scientific progress has been made -- WHERE -- in the liberal secular West, I would say. WHEN, it depends how you want to split up the eras, for example would you define several periods, in which case it would be in the 1930s. Or if you want to mark a single turning point it would be since some time between the ~15th century Renaissance and Newtown.

By WHOM -- well, the way I see it, there have been broadly three sources of ways to explain nature: 1) Greek philosophy where one pulled explanations out of one's arse (Aristotle-style); 2) religion, where one pulled explanations from one's arse but gave it religious authority; 3) science, based on observation, scepticism, rationality, and experimentation.

There have been religious efforts which used scientific processes to try to explain nature. Scholars like Albertus Magnus even tried to argue that science and religion should be separate, but they never got far, especially when they started bumping up against dogma.

Like I said in my first post, religion started failing when its position became untenable with Galileo's clear evidence against the geocentric model. Heliocentrism was nothing new though, the idea had existed for hundreds of years. I wonder how much sooner we, as humans, could have started our journey of scientific discovery if religion wasn't in the way?

I'm surprised this is even controversial. I thought the second point in my first post would have gotten the arguments; still, it's early days.

[threaded]

The church was able to suppress scientific inquiry for several hundred years..

Utter bollox. Where do you think most scientific progress was made numb nuts?

[Buffoon]

One of the major forces behind technical innovation has been war and religion has been a major cause of conflict. So they have been doing ‘their bit’ for technology.

[Magnus]

It's interesting to wonder about how much more advanced, both technologically and ethically, we would be as a species if there was no religion.

The church was able to suppress scientific inquiry for several hundred years, until Galileo finally spelt out the geocentric model of the solar system so clearly that the church's position was untenable. Imagine if adoption of scientific methods started occurring just after Greek philosophy had run its course, instead of several hundred years later?

It is known now that man's ethical scruples evolved because they are advantageous in a well-ordered stable society. They are part of innate nature, not an external 'do unto others' command from high up. Yet religion has always lectured that it is the source of morality, and indeed has suppressed innate human morality in order to dictate its own. If we as a species had known all along that ethics and morals are part of our nature, we would have explored and refined them. Instead they are currently warped, thanks to arbitrary aims of religion.

Imagine.. A world devoid of religion, eh?

[threaded]

So why is getting nailed up helpful to us?

Because if he hadn't you wouldn't be working in the computer industry for starters as there wouldn't be any computers!

[shoes]

HE REALLY DID IT AND CHOSE TO DO SO

So why is getting nailed up helpful to us?

[BOBJ]

HE REALLY DID IT AND CHOSE TO DO SO

Shouting doesn't make it true.

He didn't really "do it" though did he? Or are you trying to say he chose to die? I.e. he made them put him to death?

HE REALLY DID IT AND CHOSE TO DO SO

[SallyAnne]

Jesus did what he did on Good friday because he loved us so much.

He didn't really "do it" though did he? Or are you trying to say he chose to die? I.e. he made them put him to death?

Remember, Christ died for our sins so try to sin as much as possible. It would be rude to let him have died for nothing.

That was an Interesting lateral thinking of yours.But the trouble is that we don't have to sin to become sinners.On the contrary we commit sin because we are sinners by birth and only thrrough repentance and belief in Jesus Christ can our nature be changed and Jesus did what he did on Good friday because he loved us so much.

Cheers
AJ