Is Not Using Fossil Fuels an Insult to God?

[oVo]

No, it's simply that Christians were the center of this conversation.

There are no shortage of religions that if practiced as taught
would also right this ship and make this World a better place
for all it's inhabitants.

[betiko]

No, it's simply that Christians were the center of this conversation.

There are no shortage of religions that if practiced as taught
would also right this ship and make this World a better place
for all it's inhabitants.

humm no. religions are the ones that have made this world so fucked up since milleniums. Smart and decent people make a better world not religious ones (although you can be religious smart and decent, religious wouldn't be your prime quality). Look at this video... full grown men trying to pull the blanket their way to justify whatever actions and interests they have/do thanks to their imaginary friend, god. This gives them rights to feel superior to others, be in possession of irrefutable truth, because of the way they interpretate an old book. Do you really think only religion can teach you values?

Could americans vote for a godless president?

[thegreekdog]

Christians used a lot of fossil fuels during the Dark Ages for boiling scientists and atheists:

I take umbrage with this chart.

The Greek advancements should be much higher... certainly better than the Romans.

To answer pimpdave's question, yes, not using fossil fuels is an insult to God. God put these fossils on earth for us to use and consume. It would be insulting for us not to use and consume them as quickly as possible. The Bible specifically states "Verily, Hosiah and Bartholemew shalt thou usest the earth and what lies therein to powerith thoust all terrain vehicles and Escalades."

[jonesthecurl]

I think we have to make sure there's no resources left at all when jesus comes back and takes the "Nice" list off to Heaven. Otherwise it's wasted.

[thegreekdog]

I think we have to make sure there's no resources left at all when jesus comes back and takes the "Nice" list off to Heaven. Otherwise it's wasted.

We at least have to use it all up before May.

[jonesthecurl]

You work on the fossil fuels. I'll use up all the beer.

[Funkyterrance]

Christians used a lot of fossil fuels during the Dark Ages for boiling scientists and atheists:

I take umbrage with this chart.

I think it's also interesting that while the chart shows no scientific advances during the "Christian Era" the caption makes the false assumption that is was Christianity itself that was to blame for the decrease in scientific advancement when there is not necessarily causation. It also may be worth noting that the Romans, for all their wisdom, used lead in many of their households that ended up being of great detriment to their health. Today we use a number of harmful materials in building materials and household items produced by "science". I wonder how long till history repeats itself?

[thegreekdog]

Christians used a lot of fossil fuels during the Dark Ages for boiling scientists and atheists:

I take umbrage with this chart.

I think it's also interesting that while the chart shows no scientific advances during the "Christian Era" the caption makes the false assumption that is was Christianity itself that was to blame for the decrease in scientific advancement when there is not necessarily causation. It also may be worth noting that the Romans, for all their wisdom, used lead in many of their households that ended up being of great detriment to their health. Today we use a number of harmful materials in building materials and household items produced by "science". I wonder how long till history repeats itself?

To be serious, the argument that Christianity either held back or did not advance science is pretty dumb.

[Metsfanmax]

To be serious, the argument that Christianity either held back or did not advance science is pretty dumb.

Galileo didn't think so.

[thegreekdog]

To be serious, the argument that Christianity either held back or did not advance science is pretty dumb.

Galileo didn't think so.

No, he died. The Greeks figured it out way before Galileo anyway.

And unfortunately, his scientific ideas never came to fruition like immediately after he had them. His ideas died with him and it took us nearly 300 years to figure out that the earth revolved around the sun. Just think, if the Catholic Church hadn't killed him for publishing his theories, we would have known before 1957 that the Earth revolved around the sun. Think of all the scientific advancement lost! Oh the horror![/sarcasm]

EDIT - I'm really upset with myself. I made a deal never to respond seriously to pimpdave's threads. He's won again! Curses!

[Metsfanmax]

No, he died. The Greeks figured it out way before Galileo anyway.

I don't give them particular credit for the heliocentric model. There was no way to accurately test the hypothesis one way or the other, and inevitably someone was going to come along and challenge the accepted view. Galileo was influential not for his scientific ideas; Copernicus and Kepler are the ones really responsible for kicking off the heliocentric hypothesis in the modern era. Galileo was influential because he was the first that built a tool (i.e. the telescope) to actually test the hypothesis. It is quite honestly no exaggeration to describe Galileo as the father of modern science; his life demarcates the border between two eras; one when philosophers came up with scientific ideas from the armchair, and another when scientists actually rigorously tested their theories. Not everyone gets to claim they destroyed the father of modern science.

[thegreekdog]

No, he died. The Greeks figured it out way before Galileo anyway.

I don't give them particular credit for the heliocentric model. There was no way to accurately test the hypothesis one way or the other, and inevitably someone was going to come along and challenge the accepted view. Galileo was influential not for his scientific ideas; Copernicus and Kepler are the ones really responsible for kicking off the heliocentric hypothesis in the modern era. Galileo was influential because he was the first that built a tool (i.e. the telescope) to actually test the hypothesis. It is quite honestly no exaggeration to describe Galileo as the father of modern science; his life demarcates the border between two eras; one when philosophers came up with scientific ideas from the armchair, and another when scientists actually rigorously tested their theories. Not everyone gets to claim they destroyed the father of modern science.

That's great, but how did the church hold back science again?

[Metsfanmax]

No, he died. The Greeks figured it out way before Galileo anyway.

I don't give them particular credit for the heliocentric model. There was no way to accurately test the hypothesis one way or the other, and inevitably someone was going to come along and challenge the accepted view. Galileo was influential not for his scientific ideas; Copernicus and Kepler are the ones really responsible for kicking off the heliocentric hypothesis in the modern era. Galileo was influential because he was the first that built a tool (i.e. the telescope) to actually test the hypothesis. It is quite honestly no exaggeration to describe Galileo as the father of modern science; his life demarcates the border between two eras; one when philosophers came up with scientific ideas from the armchair, and another when scientists actually rigorously tested their theories. Not everyone gets to claim they destroyed the father of modern science.

That's great, but how did the church hold back science again?

The church deliberately prevented his ideas from being heard in a mainstream manner, and made him publicly denounce his ideas, thereby being the ones responsible for his ideas not gaining acceptance.

[thegreekdog]

No, he died. The Greeks figured it out way before Galileo anyway.

I don't give them particular credit for the heliocentric model. There was no way to accurately test the hypothesis one way or the other, and inevitably someone was going to come along and challenge the accepted view. Galileo was influential not for his scientific ideas; Copernicus and Kepler are the ones really responsible for kicking off the heliocentric hypothesis in the modern era. Galileo was influential because he was the first that built a tool (i.e. the telescope) to actually test the hypothesis. It is quite honestly no exaggeration to describe Galileo as the father of modern science; his life demarcates the border between two eras; one when philosophers came up with scientific ideas from the armchair, and another when scientists actually rigorously tested their theories. Not everyone gets to claim they destroyed the father of modern science.

That's great, but how did the church hold back science again?

The church deliberately prevented his ideas from being heard in a mainstream manner, and made him publicly denounce his ideas, thereby being the ones responsible for his ideas not gaining acceptance.

Which did what exactly? How was scientific progress held back? Are we talking computers in 1935 instead of 1940? Are we talking manned space exploration in 1850? Are we talking "everyone gets their free telescopes from the King of Spain?"

[Metsfanmax]

Which did what exactly? How was scientific progress held back? Are we talking computers in 1935 instead of 1940? Are we talking manned space exploration in 1850? Are we talking "everyone gets their free telescopes from the King of Spain?"

It's hard to quantify the impact of this action on one (great) man. But that's not the point. The church systematically repressed attempts to further science that conflicted with their doctrines. Galileo is just the best-known example, but not the only one. It's also hard to quantify what that did, which is why the chart is absurd. But I do not doubt that it was responsible for setting scientific progress back.