Christianity was not brought to the Roman Empire by conquering Goths. It began as a small "religious cult" in a small, distant province of the empire (Palestine), and its increasing popularity was regarded by the Empire, as being so troublesome, that Christianity was horribly persecuted in an attempt to suppress it, but it gained adherents, anyway, eventually including the emperor Constantine, who then basically made it the official religion of the empire - before which, I cannot imagine what basis there can be, for claiming that it spread by "social coercion."
Mickey Mouse has the same historical significance as the Bible?
Not relevant to my question about why Christianity has been so significant in Western Culture.
Judaism is still practiced in some parts of the world, particularly including Israel and the USA (and was practiced in Europe, to some considerable extent, until the Nazis came along; I don't know how popular it is in Europe, at this point in time).
As I pointed out, Christianity was far from easy, for its early adherents.
I didn't ask how many people are practicing Christianity in the manner the bible expects. I asked why it became so popular, historically. An obvious answer is that Christians engaged in conquest. However, that is far from being the whole story; early Christians were in no position to conquer anything, and that also applies to many Christian missionaries in far-off lands.
Christianity did not spread through the Roman Empire, by means of conquest or social coercion. As I stated, it spread while being persecuted (you never heard of Christians being fed to lions in the Roman Colliseum?)
1) The Bible is almost certainly the most influential literature in human history. It is certainly a profound influence upon western culture.
2) It derives from the cultural tradition of a small population, living in the Middle East. Great empires have come and gone, but the Hebrew cultural tradition persists.
3) Christianity, derived from this cultural tradition, was horrifically persecuted by what was the most powerful empire for centuries. Nevertheless, Christianity persisted, and became EVEN MORE popular and influential (and this was accomplished, without any violent conquest, and even with great and violent efforts to suppress it, simply by the power of its ideas) - eventually becoming the cultural tradition of virtually all of Europe, and beyond.
I think that the basic idea is that African populations have more accumulated mutations, generally, indicating that they are the oldest. The principle is that mutations occur at a predictable rate.
I didn't know that it pertained to the immune system, specifically, but I guess it kind of makes sense. There seems to be a built-in tendency for random varieties of lymphocytes to be produced, by random mutation, and then the new varieties may be effective for "recognizing" any new infectious agents. The older the population -> the more mutations -> the greater the variety of lymphocytes.
One significant problem with the US legal system is that it does not generally require that "loser pays" court and opponent's costs (although this may sometimes be specifically ordered by the court; usually, as a result of a separate litigation). As a result, a lawsuit can be launched, with very little risk to the complainant, and large risk to the defendant, who often settles out-of-court, just to save money. A significantly problematic aspect of such a situation, is that a true resolution is never achieved. Malpractice cases are a particularly troublesome example of this: practitioners can get a reputation for being incompetent, because of being sued, with no opportunity for vindication, since the practitioner's malpractice insurance company settles. This has caused many doctors, especially, to get fed up and quit the profession.
There continue to be calls for "tort reform" legislation, including the establishment of a loser pays principle.
Proposals to implement such a principle, as generally applicable law, are contested with an assertion that this would make it impossible for poor people to "get justice," since it would be a big risk to sue - if they lose, they would have to pay court and defendant's costs - and they might tend to be unwilling to risk it.
Often, currently, lawyers will sue (for a complainant), on "contingency," meaning that it's basically free-of-charge for a complainant; if he loses, the lawyer eats his own costs, while having gambled that he can get a lot of money if he wins, or the defendant settles. If loser pays, were implemented, then there would be much more risk to the lawyer, if doing contingency, since if he loses, he has to eat both his own AND court and defense costs; therefore, lawyers wouldn't likely do contingency, and a poor complainant would be on his own, to take the risks, and would perhaps not sue, even if he supposedly thought that he was right.
The Big Bang hypothesis, and hypotheses about the origin of life, are inferences from conceptual models derived by the Scientific Method. Science necessarily assumes that the laws of the universe, are constant.
It is my understanding that the Old Testament started to take form in ~1000BC, when the Hebrew civilization was already well-established. The stuff from before then, including Genesis and the Moses story and beyond, was compiled from oral traditions. It seems that they did have the Ten Commandments tablets, however, since the temple was built to house them.
In the movie "Inherit The Wind" (a dramatization of the Scopes Monkey Trial) Clarence Darrow (Scopes' defense attorney) is questioning a testifying William Jennings Bryan (prosecutor and Biblical literalist), and notes that Cain somehow finds a wife, with no previous description of where she came from.
Give it a rest, will you please? Your statement, above, is not an argument; it is simply more personal insult (same as your pulled-out-of-thin-air [to put it more politely than I could] insinuations about my being closed-minded, religious...OK, I'll give you "weirdo" since, although merely rude, I suppose that you can claim that I'm weird to you).
Is this really how you debate - stand around and simply propose that people are too stupid to agree with you? Very dogmatic, I daresay. And it does nothing to advance anyone's actual understanding of the subject of this thread topic (please, read what I wrote about "ad hominem" [or get the info elsewhere, if you prefer]).
The topic is about the relationship between religion, as a phenomenon, and war, as a phenomenon; the topic is not about any forum member's personal (in your imagination) "biases," or "blindness," or (in your imagination, wrt myself, anyway) personal religious beliefs, or other personal characteristics. You are merely expressing your own prejudices, and doing it in the worst, most obnoxious way, by expressing them in the form of personal insults. You could very well have simply made some statement about the "past" of Christianity, without having been personally unkind and discourteous.
And I'll bet that they think that it's really unfair. But I suppose that you could get your dog a toy gun, and at least let it pretend to be shooting with you.
OK, here's another one:
You can, but you need a really small dog, or a gun without a trigger guard.
A squirt gun, or plant mister set to straight flow, is pretty effective for convincing cats to get away from something (they will, however, look offended about it, so that's a risk).
BTW, I recently saw a news story about a really tiny gun (like, tie-clip size), but one that shoots real bullets and can be used for self defence, with maybe three in the magazine.
A common variant of this, is "pwned," presumably a typographical error, originally, since the "o" and "p" are next to each other on the keyboard, but the misspelling stuck. In some contexts, it is kind of an obnoxious (especially, if one is the loser of the contest) expression of triumph, but it is also used to convey the idea that something is impressively good; for example, in a discussion of movies, it was stated that (the actor, Gene) "Hackman pwns," expressing the opinion that Gene Hackman is a very good, and enjoyable, actor.
P.S. - I am totally unfamiliar with the term "yoof," and also, btw, "ftw," so I would be grateful if those were explained, too.
Basically true, as stated. The Crusades were initiated by the Pope, in response to Muslim conquests. When these conquests reached Christian holy lands of Palestine, the Pope sent letters to all the kings of Europe, asking them to raise armies and go defend Palestine - for reasons including, that there were Christians living there. (BTW, Europe had been notably "Christian" - and the Pope was politically very powerful, although not formally - since the time that it was part of the Roman empire under the emperor Constantine.) Anyway, despite several Crusades over the course of a few centuries, the Muslims retained possession of Palestine, and continued their conquests - which included virtually the whole Middle East and parts of Asia, north Africa and from there, Spain and then parts of France, where they were eventually defeated by Charles Martel. Also from the Middle East, the Muslims conquered Turkey and from there, parts of eastern Europe, and they eventually were decisively defeated at Vienna in the 17th Century, ~1000 years after Mohammed had, himself, begun the conquests. Crusaders did, indeed, themselves commit atrocities, including a notable massacre of a Jewish population, on the way to Palestine.
Well, it seems to me that you have argued (convincingly) against the likelihood of perfect knowledge of what is true, and perhaps even against the proposition that there exists an adequate, true definition for the word "knowledge." However, that is not a refutation of the existence of objective truth, nor a cause even for doubting that there is such a thing as objective truth - and certainly, your argument represents no cause for abandoning a search for truth. It does represent a cause for remaining cautious in supposing, at any moment, that one has perfect knowledge of what the truth is. Still, it is practical and useful to seek to know what is true, and to suppose that one can achieve at least a sufficient approximation for one's purposes - which is somewhat to say that "truth" at any moment, is what it best seems to be, having made one's best effort, and used one's most reliable methodology, to achieve one's best version of "knowledge" about what is true.
What then, is science? And why do you imagine that Scavier would expect that they can make for us an accurate (=true, to the extent that is known and can be practicably modeled using available electronic devices) simulation of automobiles?
Certainly, objective truth may sometimes be difficult to know; but that is far different from supposing that it does not exist, and that there is only each person's own truth in his own mind. Descartes decided that all that he REALLY knew was that "I think, therefore I am," but I imagine that, nevertheless, you are very confident that you know many truths, and that others know the same truths, and in some cases, you and they will together stake your lives upon the common understanding (example: you are proceeding through a traffic intersection; is that [hypothetically] true in your mind, AND in the mind of other drivers at that intersection?). Other examples: the true meaning of common words; the truth about how many dots are here (..), and how many total there would be if I made another, similar set; the truth about some commonly experienced behaviors of natural phenomena - snow is truly cold; gravity truly does what it does; how big a hole would be made in what material by what quantity of what type of explosive substance - about which, there may be many expressed opinions, but a single, objective truth that it is likely to be desirable to know, with reliable ways to know it, if one is proposing to do that.
There are all kinds of commonly known truths, and some things that are not yet known, but would be true for everybody, if they WERE known. I expect that you behave as if that were true, even if you are as carefully doubtful as Descartes.
And there are always more questions, and expectations that there can be objectively false answers to them, and then when those are recognized as being false, yet will remain the true one.
The words that I use, are normal for me. They are chosen carefully, to convey the precise meaning that I intend for the situation. Writing styles differ. Sorry if it's difficult to understand; I will explain, if you have a specific question.
I have not alleged that you made it up; I have stated that you have not given me a reason to believe it. If your belief is based upon information that you have read, then describe (at least some of) that information, so that the rest of us will know the basis for your opinion, and will have some basis of our own, to decide - like you - whether the opinion is accurate. Many persons believe many things. You have gone to the trouble of telling us what you believe. Shall I accept, on pure faith, that religion is the cause of most wars, since you believe that? Or will you have enough respect for me, to recognize that I shall make up my own mind, and you will attempt to inform it with some facts other than the mere fact that you have such a belief, yourself?
Fair enough. But it is a basis for making the evaluation. "Most wars are caused by religion" means, at least, that many more wars were caused by religion, than were not caused by religion. If this is true, then it is either true by immediate observation (not), or by logical necessity/deductive reasoning (not), or by inductive reasoning - that is to say, by counting them, to the extent that we know them, and comparing the numbers, with our confidence in this evaluation, being dependent upon the quantity of evidence (the number of wars counted and categorized) and the magnitude of the difference between the two numbers (of those wars apparently caused by religion, and of those wars not apparently caused by religion).
Anything else, it seems to me, would be just a wild guess, with no better than a random probability of being true (in this case, 50%, since it's a yes/no question, whether or not religion is the cause of most wars: as truly yes, as no, in the absence of evidence for making a reliable decision). And it would be a wild guess, having random accuracy, regardless of how happy one may personally feel about having decided one way or the other.
It is now a long-standing western cultural tradition, that we may reliably know the truth from rationally evaluating the evidence, and not from religious, or other, "authorities" or our own seemingly divine revelation or intuition. You can believe whatever you want, from whatever cause for belief, pleases you. But you have presented an assertion to others. You did that either because (1)you want them to believe that what you have said, is true and useful information, or (2)you did it, because it pleases you to make some "noise" (words appearing on a computer monitor), or (3)you did it simply because you want them to categorize you, personally, as someone with a specified belief, regardless of whether the belief is accurate or of any value as being accurate.
I'm guessing that your reason was (1), since (2) and (3) are of little significance (with regard to (3), you could as well tell us your favorite color, and then we'd all know that you were a person whose favorite color is that; and what would we do with such information - give you a gift of that color, or eradicate religions for the sake of providing you with personal pleasure?).
So, my question is not: hey, what does Tristan believe? My question is: what is true? IS religion the cause of most wars, or not? That Tristan believes the former, does nothing to answer that question. To answer it, you must explain to me: HOW shall I know whether or not religion is the cause of most wars? WHY should I believe the former? Why does Tristan believe the former? Instead you tell me only that it feels right to believe that, or something; that you have your reasons, but you're not telling. So, whatever.
Presumably you are referring to "argumentum ad hominem," which is the official name of a "classical logical fallacy," with which you may be familiar, since the phrase is widely used, especially in political debates.
A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning, a way of thinking that is unreliable, logically. A Classical Logical Fallacy is one that is so common and has been known for so long and so widely, that it has been given its own name, often in latin, for easy reference.
"Argumentum ad hominem" translates as "argument to the man," significantly distingished from an argument to the (man's) argument, which is properly useful for debating. This is because the purpose of a debate is to achieve a shared understanding of some objective truth (the topic of the debate), by means of opposing sides presenting reasoned arguments (logically related statements, having an asserted conclusion that is intended to be persuasive). By considering each side's arguments, including arguments about why the other side's arguments are wrong, eventually the truth becomes recognized.
Argumentum ad hominem, or "ad hominem argumentation," or sometimes just "ad hominem," is an argument or remark that is critical of one's opponent, personally - often, but not necessarily, simply a personal insult - rather than being a criticism of one's opponent's argument. This is a logical fallacy, because the personal characteristics of one's opponent, are not relevant to the consideration, which is instead about some objective matter, while the debaters are merely vehicles through which the relevant ideas/arguments are presented.
There are exceptions, particularly including a case where the opponent's argument consists of an assertion that he claims simply to be authoritative about (he says that such-and-such is true, and you should believe that it's true, since he's an expert in such matters; in such a case, it is reasonable to consider, and argue, whether he really is such an expert, especially about that particular matter). But generally, the personal characteristics of the debaters, are not relevant, so that considering their personal characteristics, as if these are a basis for logically determining whether a debater's argument - or side of the debate, generally - is accurate, would be flawed reasoning.
Even so, ad hominem remarks are VERY common in debates - often, because they tend to be actually effective in persuading an audience to favor one side or the other, by inspiring personal prejudices, like or dislike for one debater, and therefore a tendency perhaps to disregard a disliked debater's arguments. This is problematic, since it may very likely result in a faulty understanding, rather than an understanding of truth, such as was intended to be the purpose of the debate.
If you're interested, you can check out this webpage, which lists and describes many of the most common logical fallacies. You may be surprised at how often they can be observed in actual debates, or even in one's own reasoning processes, and in all sorts of discussions with others:
I do not contest the entitlement of Tristan, or anyone else, to hold an opinion, or to express it. But I am not seeking (and I do not imagine that anyone else is seeking) to compile a catalog of what opinion is held, by each person on this planet (or even in this forum community), on each topic that may be considered.
What matters to me (and I would expect, to anyone participating in an objective discussion or debate) is not whether this person has that opinion, but rather, what should be my opinion, as informed by those persons with whom I am having the discussion. That, it seems to me, is the value of a discussion, and of a forum: not, to identify or categorize each person by what his opinion is, on some topic, but to formulate my own understanding (my own opinion, if you like) by examinining the opinions of others, and their reasons for having those opinions, and by evaluating those opinions, and those reasons, in determining whether they are persuasive - in which case, I thus come to share the persuasive opinion, as it has become my now better-informed, and better-reasoned, understanding, on the subject being discussed.
In other words, a discussion (on a topic that is more than trivial; and this one is more than trivial) is a search for truth - which is much more valuable than the rather trivial knowledge of who has what opinion. The search proceeds by a comparison between competing ideas, including my own, which I present with the expectation that they will be evaluated, and perhaps criticized and contested, by others who are similarly seeking to acquire their better understanding of what is objectively true about the subject.
This, of course, is facilitated by "opinions" that are stated in an understandable way, and well-founded in reasoning and factual information - in other words, a well formulated argument. This is how I attempt to write my contributions to discussions. And it is what I am likely to find useful and valuable in the stated opinons of others.
Sometimes, an opinion may be useful as having been a not-previously-considered idea. Sometimes, it may simply be welcome and gratifying (although not greatly useful) as being a notification that another person shares one's own opinion. But if it is not one's own opinion, then it is most likely to be useful only if it is persuasive.
Anyway, that is what, to me, is "discussion." My "search for truth, and a better-informed understanding," does not, btw, mean that I expect to have my mind changed; I don't; I wouldn't have presented my contributing argument if I did not think that it was a good one; it only means that I am willing to have my mind changed, if I am presented with a good reason for that. I expect the same of others; I expect that they will seek to have an understanding of the truth of the matter, and to communicate that understanding in a way that recognizes truth as valuable and worthy of being shared.
This particular discussion is not a question of: do you prefer chocolate or vanilla (or even, gripping or drifting)? It is a question of: what is the value or threat of religion? If Tristan regards religions as a threat to the safety of his fellow humans, since being the cause of most wars, then the least that he can do is try to convince us that this is true, by making a persuasive argument. And if he's wrong in his belief, then the least that we can do is persude him that THAT is true. Alternatively, we humans could confine our "discussions" to simply asserted "opinions," and then simply fight in order to compel compliance with them, without examining them for accuracy, or disregard the issue altogether. Tristan has not chosen the latter, since he did assert an opinion. Perhaps he does not want to examine it for accuracy; he simply wants it to be held in mind. What he wants to be the effect of holding it in mind, he has not stated explicitly, but I can imagine some likely effects, if it is generally regarded as being true.
I can only hope that you will read my post again, more carefully, and recognize that I did NOT "attack [Tristan] for holding opinions at all." I attacked HIS ASSERTION as being unsupported with fact and reason (which is not equivalent to "forbidden"), and as having been expressed in a confusing way (re: "feeling"). And I furthermore DID proceed to "challenge his opinions with contrary information," by listing a considerable number of wars without an apparently religious cause, to compare to the few examples that he provided (and I, too, can think of only a few), of religion-caused wars. This seems to me to be a perfectly fair and reasonable way of contesting his assertion that most wars are caused by religion. In no way, and at no time, did I even suggest that he should not be permitted to state an opinion; I simply criticized the opinion that he stated, in accordance with the way that he stated it and that I understood it.
I am sorry that you don't like my vocabulary; if you would like to teach me how to communicate more effectively, then you are welcome to try to do that; I am aware that this is a place with varied experiences and cultures. As it is, I try to write carefully, and precisely, for the purpose of being clearly understood (and for the record, "what is the truth," rather than "what do you feel," may provoke some thought, but it is a straightforward question, with no "multi-syllabic" words).
Since I'm American, I had to look up "tosser." I found, among many definitions of "toss": "to agitate, disturb or disquiet" - which may apply. It seems to me that, wrt a complex and contentious topic such as this, a little disquiet in one's thinking may not be all bad, as long as one is basically courteous, which I try to be, by confining my criticisms - however intellectually disturbing or "passionate" they may seem to be - to others' arguments, rather than being personally insulting.
I also found for "tosser": "masturbator," which is pretty weird for this context, but also seems, indeed, to be intended as quite rude and insulting. I don't know if that is somehow what you meant, or not.
No, but if there is a word that I have used, that you don't understand (and have no dictionary of your own), then I am willing to try to define it for you.
Then what is your purpose in expressing an opinion on the subject, if you have nothing whatsoever to base it on? Shall we all flip a coin, and decide whether religion is the principal cause of warfare, based upon how many heads, and tails, we get? You HAVE made an assertion. And now, you seem to say not only that you have no way of knowing if your assertion is true, but that furthermore, it doesn't even matter whether or not it is true. Why, then, did you present it? What was your purpose in making the statement, if it has no basis in truth, and no value?
Well, good. Now you're on track, at least. However, these are just some examples (and debatable ones, at that - especially the World Wars, to my mind, although I am no expert on history) of wars based upon religions. Thus, you have a reason for supposing that religion has been, at least somehow, a cause for SOME wars - which is a VERY different proposition than that MOST wars have been because of religion, which is what you asserted (presumably, as a statement of what is significantly true about religion, and about war).
Anyway...
How about the Babylonian, Persian, Egyptian, Mongol, Macedonian, Roman, Viking, British, French, Spanish, and other, wars for empire? How about the war between King John and the feudal lords that resulted in Magna Carta? How about the French Revolution, the American Revolution and Civil War, and every other American war? How about British, French, Spanish and Portuguese wars of colonization? How about the Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cambodian and Cuban Civil Wars? How about other civil wars, and a great many inter-tribal wars on all continents (except Antarctica, I suppose)? There have been MANY wars with no apparent religious basis that was primary or explicit. And yet, you have asserted that religion is the cause of MOST wars (again, presumably for the purpose of making some meaningful statement about religion, that significantly distinguishes it from general, biological competition between human populations).
Agreement may be up to the individual, but truth is not. And there may be enormously different consequences resulting from an agreement with truth, contrasted to an agreement with falsehood - which is why truth is valued, falsehood is abhorred, and people care very much about discerning the difference between them, and about the qualities of arguments that are used to assist in discerning the difference. Humans have, perhaps uniquely, language (and abstract, logical reasoning) - and a use for it that is much greater (including, more beneficial and more powerfully dangerous) than communicating their transient emotional state. Also, there is a significant distinction between a vague, intuitional "feeling" about what is true, and a truth that is actually, reliably that.
I have made of it that you have described your belief - which is distinct from a thought, and both are distinct from an emotion (most commonly, also called a "feeling," although admittedly, it is not uncommon to use, sometimes confusingly, the word "feel" as a synonym for "believe"). More significantly - and with polite apology - I have reason for regarding your belief as not representing a reliable truth.
Not a problem, actually, since it was expected, and intended, to provoke thought (and perhaps a more objectively useful argument from you, eventually).
You would be foolish to assume that I have immutable religious beliefs. You would be correct to assume that I have thought carefully about the topic, and have expressed my best, reasoned understanding at this moment, pertaining to it. If I were afraid that you might change my mind, I would not have given you the opportunity to try. But I can assure you that ad hominem argumentation will be as useless for that purpose as it has always been known to be, as a logical fallacy because of being irrelevant (unless, of course, you're just trying to hurt my feelings).
Last edited by David33, .
Reason : spelling correction