“Basically, you deny one less god than I do,” he said. “You don’t believe in 2,999 gods. And I don’t believe in just one more.”
I think the argument about 3000 vs 2999 gods is a bit disingenuous; it's a common belief among theologians (of any creed) that varying religions are simply manifestations of the same god in different cultures (often with one interpretation being "correct"). There's a massive chasm between believing any sort of deity exists, and not; much less so for believing one characterization of a deity exists, rather than a selection of others. His analogy of the inevitability of religious texts versus scientific principles is interesting, but ultimately relies on the assumption that there is no god -- an ineffective way to make a point, and I'd question its validity: so many distinct cultures that had no contact with each other have strikingly similar origin stories. The same flood narrative exists in many cultures, such as India's Gita, Mesopotamia's Gilgamesh, or Genesis. Personally, I believe that Biblical inspiration and theophany around the world and throughout history were stepping stones to the normalization and establishment of a persistent moral code. Would the same texts have been written if history could be erased of their subjects and authors? Maybe not, but I doubt humanity would have developed significantly different systems of government, society, and ethics, just as I doubt our scientific principles would be differently expressed.
I think the argument about 3000 vs 2999 gods is a bit disingenuous; it's a common belief among theologians (of any creed) that varying religions are simply manifestations of the same god in different cultures
an ineffective way to make a point, and I'd question its validity: so many distinct cultures that had no contact with each other have strikingly similar origin stories. The same flood narrative exists in many cultures, such as India's Gita, Mesopotamia's Gilgamesh, or Genesis.
Quote from: Nasty Turkey. SAD! on February 03, 2017, 04:48:38 PMI think the argument about 3000 vs 2999 gods is a bit disingenuous; it's a common belief among theologians (of any creed) that varying religions are simply manifestations of the same god in different cultures “Basically, you deny one less interpretation of god than I do,” he said. “You don’t believe in 2,999 interpretations of god. And I don’t believe in just one more.”There you go.
There's a massive chasm between believing any sort of deity exists, and not; much less so for believing one characterization of a deity exists, rather than a selection of others.
QuoteThere's a massive chasm between believing any sort of deity exists, and not; much less so for believing one characterization of a deity exists, rather than a selection of others.
I really liked Gervais' rebuttal of the "science is just a different god" argument - that if you destroyed all religious texts they'd never resurface, but that if you destroyed all scientific texts, they'd eventually start to be rediscovered.
Quote from: SecondClass on February 05, 2017, 01:25:18 AMI really liked Gervais' rebuttal of the "science is just a different god" argument - that if you destroyed all religious texts they'd never resurface, but that if you destroyed all scientific texts, they'd eventually start to be rediscovered.It's already happened once with the Medieval times to the Renaissance in Europe.
Quote from: Luciana on February 05, 2017, 02:11:02 AMQuote from: SecondClass on February 05, 2017, 01:25:18 AMI really liked Gervais' rebuttal of the "science is just a different god" argument - that if you destroyed all religious texts they'd never resurface, but that if you destroyed all scientific texts, they'd eventually start to be rediscovered.It's already happened once with the Medieval times to the Renaissance in Europe.Is this referring to the popular conception of the dark ages? Because the idea that knowledge was somehow lost and then found again later is historically inaccurate. The supposed dark age didn't experience a decline in scholarship and rationality; the existence and characterization of the "dark age" is itself considered a popular myth.
Quote from: Nasty Turkey. SAD! on February 05, 2017, 06:48:08 AMQuote from: Luciana on February 05, 2017, 02:11:02 AMQuote from: SecondClass on February 05, 2017, 01:25:18 AMI really liked Gervais' rebuttal of the "science is just a different god" argument - that if you destroyed all religious texts they'd never resurface, but that if you destroyed all scientific texts, they'd eventually start to be rediscovered.It's already happened once with the Medieval times to the Renaissance in Europe.Is this referring to the popular conception of the dark ages? Because the idea that knowledge was somehow lost and then found again later is historically inaccurate. The supposed dark age didn't experience a decline in scholarship and rationality; the existence and characterization of the "dark age" is itself considered a popular myth.In the Medieval period in Western Europe, technology was indeed lost that the Western Romans had, that later moved over to the East with Constantinople. That technology was reintroduced into the West at a much later date.I'm not saying technology didn't advance, because obviously one only look at warfare to see that's not true. But it's silly to act like nothing was lost, especially something as simple as basic hygiene, and sewer systems. Obviously this is a problem when a massive empire collapses rapidly, and thus all trade, infrastructure, institutions and population declined rapidly. That led to fractured governments, and no one could really make the effort to do what Rome did for a long time.We had to wait for Charlameme to actually promote schools and universities again, and promote education, as the only record keeping since Rome fell was Monks in churches.
Quote from: Luciana on February 05, 2017, 12:45:28 PMQuote from: Nasty Turkey. SAD! on February 05, 2017, 06:48:08 AMQuote from: Luciana on February 05, 2017, 02:11:02 AMQuote from: SecondClass on February 05, 2017, 01:25:18 AMI really liked Gervais' rebuttal of the "science is just a different god" argument - that if you destroyed all religious texts they'd never resurface, but that if you destroyed all scientific texts, they'd eventually start to be rediscovered.It's already happened once with the Medieval times to the Renaissance in Europe.Is this referring to the popular conception of the dark ages? Because the idea that knowledge was somehow lost and then found again later is historically inaccurate. The supposed dark age didn't experience a decline in scholarship and rationality; the existence and characterization of the "dark age" is itself considered a popular myth.In the Medieval period in Western Europe, technology was indeed lost that the Western Romans had, that later moved over to the East with Constantinople. That technology was reintroduced into the West at a much later date.I'm not saying technology didn't advance, because obviously one only look at warfare to see that's not true. But it's silly to act like nothing was lost, especially something as simple as basic hygiene, and sewer systems. Obviously this is a problem when a massive empire collapses rapidly, and thus all trade, infrastructure, institutions and population declined rapidly. That led to fractured governments, and no one could really make the effort to do what Rome did for a long time.We had to wait for Charlameme to actually promote schools and universities again, and promote education, as the only record keeping since Rome fell was Monks in churches.Also can't forget the blatent fearmongering and hatred for ideas that challenged the churches as well. Wasn't called the dark ages so much because of what was lost, but because of the iron grip that shitty ideas and standards held over any scientific progress at the time.
Quote from: Sαndtrap on February 06, 2017, 11:56:56 AMQuote from: Luciana on February 05, 2017, 12:45:28 PMQuote from: Nasty Turkey. SAD! on February 05, 2017, 06:48:08 AMQuote from: Luciana on February 05, 2017, 02:11:02 AMQuote from: SecondClass on February 05, 2017, 01:25:18 AMI really liked Gervais' rebuttal of the "science is just a different god" argument - that if you destroyed all religious texts they'd never resurface, but that if you destroyed all scientific texts, they'd eventually start to be rediscovered.It's already happened once with the Medieval times to the Renaissance in Europe.Is this referring to the popular conception of the dark ages? Because the idea that knowledge was somehow lost and then found again later is historically inaccurate. The supposed dark age didn't experience a decline in scholarship and rationality; the existence and characterization of the "dark age" is itself considered a popular myth.In the Medieval period in Western Europe, technology was indeed lost that the Western Romans had, that later moved over to the East with Constantinople. That technology was reintroduced into the West at a much later date.I'm not saying technology didn't advance, because obviously one only look at warfare to see that's not true. But it's silly to act like nothing was lost, especially something as simple as basic hygiene, and sewer systems. Obviously this is a problem when a massive empire collapses rapidly, and thus all trade, infrastructure, institutions and population declined rapidly. That led to fractured governments, and no one could really make the effort to do what Rome did for a long time.We had to wait for Charlameme to actually promote schools and universities again, and promote education, as the only record keeping since Rome fell was Monks in churches.Also can't forget the blatent fearmongering and hatred for ideas that challenged the churches as well. Wasn't called the dark ages so much because of what was lost, but because of the iron grip that shitty ideas and standards held over any scientific progress at the time.This is also a myth. In the early middle ages, the church (various sects throughout east and west Europe) was the sole bastion of knowlege and literature following the fall of Rome until the reformation.
Quote from: Nasty Turkey. SAD! on February 06, 2017, 12:11:51 PMQuote from: Sαndtrap on February 06, 2017, 11:56:56 AMQuote from: Luciana on February 05, 2017, 12:45:28 PMQuote from: Nasty Turkey. SAD! on February 05, 2017, 06:48:08 AMQuote from: Luciana on February 05, 2017, 02:11:02 AMQuote from: SecondClass on February 05, 2017, 01:25:18 AMI really liked Gervais' rebuttal of the "science is just a different god" argument - that if you destroyed all religious texts they'd never resurface, but that if you destroyed all scientific texts, they'd eventually start to be rediscovered.It's already happened once with the Medieval times to the Renaissance in Europe.Is this referring to the popular conception of the dark ages? Because the idea that knowledge was somehow lost and then found again later is historically inaccurate. The supposed dark age didn't experience a decline in scholarship and rationality; the existence and characterization of the "dark age" is itself considered a popular myth.In the Medieval period in Western Europe, technology was indeed lost that the Western Romans had, that later moved over to the East with Constantinople. That technology was reintroduced into the West at a much later date.I'm not saying technology didn't advance, because obviously one only look at warfare to see that's not true. But it's silly to act like nothing was lost, especially something as simple as basic hygiene, and sewer systems. Obviously this is a problem when a massive empire collapses rapidly, and thus all trade, infrastructure, institutions and population declined rapidly. That led to fractured governments, and no one could really make the effort to do what Rome did for a long time.We had to wait for Charlameme to actually promote schools and universities again, and promote education, as the only record keeping since Rome fell was Monks in churches.Also can't forget the blatent fearmongering and hatred for ideas that challenged the churches as well. Wasn't called the dark ages so much because of what was lost, but because of the iron grip that shitty ideas and standards held over any scientific progress at the time.This is also a myth. In the early middle ages, the church (various sects throughout east and west Europe) was the sole bastion of knowlege and literature following the fall of Rome until the reformation.Can I know where you're getting that from? Because the last sources I know of on the dark ages point to most churches giving early scientists or people with progressive ideas a hard time on their views. I'm not saying the churches didn't keep literature but I don't think it's unfair to say that they were probably secretive or selective with their usage of it. The churches in those eras didn't play so nice.
Quote from: Sαndtrap on February 06, 2017, 12:20:25 PMQuote from: Nasty Turkey. SAD! on February 06, 2017, 12:11:51 PMQuote from: Sαndtrap on February 06, 2017, 11:56:56 AMQuote from: Luciana on February 05, 2017, 12:45:28 PMQuote from: Nasty Turkey. SAD! on February 05, 2017, 06:48:08 AMQuote from: Luciana on February 05, 2017, 02:11:02 AMQuote from: SecondClass on February 05, 2017, 01:25:18 AMI really liked Gervais' rebuttal of the "science is just a different god" argument - that if you destroyed all religious texts they'd never resurface, but that if you destroyed all scientific texts, they'd eventually start to be rediscovered.It's already happened once with the Medieval times to the Renaissance in Europe.Is this referring to the popular conception of the dark ages? Because the idea that knowledge was somehow lost and then found again later is historically inaccurate. The supposed dark age didn't experience a decline in scholarship and rationality; the existence and characterization of the "dark age" is itself considered a popular myth.In the Medieval period in Western Europe, technology was indeed lost that the Western Romans had, that later moved over to the East with Constantinople. That technology was reintroduced into the West at a much later date.I'm not saying technology didn't advance, because obviously one only look at warfare to see that's not true. But it's silly to act like nothing was lost, especially something as simple as basic hygiene, and sewer systems. Obviously this is a problem when a massive empire collapses rapidly, and thus all trade, infrastructure, institutions and population declined rapidly. That led to fractured governments, and no one could really make the effort to do what Rome did for a long time.We had to wait for Charlameme to actually promote schools and universities again, and promote education, as the only record keeping since Rome fell was Monks in churches.Also can't forget the blatent fearmongering and hatred for ideas that challenged the churches as well. Wasn't called the dark ages so much because of what was lost, but because of the iron grip that shitty ideas and standards held over any scientific progress at the time.This is also a myth. In the early middle ages, the church (various sects throughout east and west Europe) was the sole bastion of knowlege and literature following the fall of Rome until the reformation.Can I know where you're getting that from? Because the last sources I know of on the dark ages point to most churches giving early scientists or people with progressive ideas a hard time on their views. I'm not saying the churches didn't keep literature but I don't think it's unfair to say that they were probably secretive or selective with their usage of it. The churches in those eras didn't play so nice.Well no, I don't keep a list of early middle ages history sources handy. A quick search of it should clear it up, and I'm on my phone. Could you be referring to times around the reformation, like the 15th/16th century? The church got pretty draconian around then.
Ricky Gervais and Stephen Colbert debate religion
