Science, not fit for stone-age societies.

[SirYeen]

Apparently we haven't been listening to the right christians. Recently a christian I was debating sent this video as an argument.



Ow and apparently the problem of suffering has been solved. Fuck all those who say it hasn't, it's right here! Gee, can't you people read ?

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/godprime.html

 

[Epiquinn]

I don't think that's a horrible point the author of that video is trying to make. People living in the stone-age have stone-age values, and it wouldn't necessarily be a good idea to share the fruits of our technological advancement with societies of this kind. Imagine, for instance, if the Inquisition had had surveillance technology or WMD's at their disposal. Though admittedly it's pretty far-fetched to go to that from antibiotics and painkillers.

What Jesus should have taught the people, however, are the values of the Enlightenment, scientific inquiry and the dangers of superstition. This would inevitably lead to a technological breakthrough that would increase the standard of living of everyone in the world, and this includes improved medicine. Handing them over a bunch of pills and instructions on how to make them wouldn't do that much good.

 

[SirYeen]

That was actually my point. I didn't refer to anti-biotics or weapons or anything. I merely stated that an omniscient being surely could have given the ideas of the enlightenment and the scientific principles. Basically it was a sidetrack of an argument where he was trying to argue that stoning could in some cases be the most ethical decision to make due to the circumstances. I was trying to point out that he didn't just have to point out the reasoning behind stoning, he also had to prove it was the most ethical thing to do in order to eventually prove it's divinely inspired.

I must say he *did* in my opinion do a great job at pointing out why stoning was a punishment back then. The reason I posted this here is because it seemed to imply that there was no way back then to introduce the idea that real solutions come from real understanding and that to get this understanding you'd have to observe the world and try to seek patterns.

 

[RedYellow]

Yeah it seems like the point is that the bible could make a better case for itself if it contained knowledge no human had access to at the time.

 

[SirYeen]

Well yeah, If we had suddenly seen a society that suddenly had acces to the most elegant solutions so ingenius no human could have come up with it, if we didn't have to understand why people had such barbaric practices back then but instead got to understand why they suddenly prospered and no longer needed to do stuff like that they WOULD have a case. However I don't think that's the case.

Ow and this is god we are talking about, the bible we are talking about. Obviously they have got the morals part now. If they don't well that's their free will isn't it ?

 

[Unwardil]

What part of omnipotence are Christians uncomprehending of? Every time they say their god couldn't do something they hammer another nail into his coffin. The reason the time travelers couldn't explain computers to the confederates is because they were not omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent beings. Also because they were fictitious. Just like Jesus.

 

[RedYellow]

Yeah his argument implies that no culture should ever have knowledge that might lead to destruction, which is potentially any knowledge. I pointed out to him that his argument only further damages the legitimacy of the bible, which came from the culture he argues wasn't even ready for human rights. If human rights didn't exist, then neither did accountability to historical accuracy in writing.

 

[SirYeen]

I wonder though couldn't god like hitchens said just have picked a different society ? I mean he could have picked ANY society, why not the chinese ? Or is this argument flawed ? I thought it was pretty good, judging on the history courses I got at school. However apparently this is nonsense, so now from rational peeps, is it ?