Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing

To save humanity, we should focus on the worst first. --jp 23:30, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

1) hunger 2) preventable disease 3) unsolved diseases like AIDS 4) natural resources 5) preventing war 6) poverty ..... 19) global warming 20) asteroid striking Earth.

1) overpopulation 2) preventing war 3) preventable disease 4) natural resource protection .... 19) maintaining American sovereignty over the world 20) asteroid striking Earth. 99) finding an extraterrestrial intelligent race that is broadcasting solutions to all these problems for any species that need them. My quick 0.02, arbitraged through the Euro. Human 00:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

We've already been visited by an intelligent extraterrestrial with solutions to all these problems. But most reject the solutions, and question his identity. His name was Jesus. Philip J. Rayment 21:56, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Good one - touché. I was thinking you were going to identify It as God. Human 22:18, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

I did. Jesus is God. Philip J. Rayment 22:42, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

1) totalitarianism/world government 2) global warming 3) pandemic risk 4) US national debt 5) genocide DanH 00:22, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

1) terrorism 2) Communism 3) genocide 4) Hunger/Poverty (not the government's job however)... 19) US national debt ..... 267) natural resources ..... 1,532) asteroid striking earth ..... 7,854,238) alien invasion 7,854,239) global warming. --CPAdmin1 00:31, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

1) preventing gay marriage 2) preventing abortion 3) putting the 10 commandments in schools 4) convincing the global scientific community that evolution is false 5) defeating terrorism indefinitely and continuously 6) stopping liberals 7) keeping guns 8) stopping socialised health care 9) preventing environmentalist lies from damaging America's economy 10) making the speed of light more scriptural 11) abolishing public education 12) promoting conservative facts

1) Rejection of God. Solve that one and the rest would fall into place. Philip J. Rayment 10:17, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

1)Prevent global warming, by finding alternative (read:wind, solar, hydrogen, and, if it ever appears, fusion) sources of energy. 2) Stop, and reverse, the deleterious effect that free trade and international repression has had on developing African and Asia countries. 3) Enshrine the UDHR, the effective culmination of 12,000 years of thought from various religions and philosophies, into national law throughout the world. Give the UN a credible way of enforcing this which is independent of various national interests. --Wikinterpreter^talk?

Yikes, add mind control--jp 18:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Poverty (people with money tend not to go hungry). 2) Wider, deeper democracy in all countries. 3) Preventable disease. 4) Alternative energy sources. 5) Be generally nicer to each other. --Robledo 10:52, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

(obscenity removed - keep it clean and comply with the rules)--Aschlafly 21:21, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Poverty 2) Democracy by choice, not war, in all countries. 3) Cure as many diseases as possible 4) Alternative energy sources Flippin 17:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Establish a democratic world government with a global military 2) Eliminate poverty (this should take care of preventable diseases as well) 3) Stabilize world population 4) Nuclear fusion (this should take care of the energy problem and pollution) 5) Be generally nicer to each other 6) Securing Earth against alien invasions or asteroids. MiddleMan

"Solving" the rejection of god would do absolutely nothing for anything. religion causes more problems then it solves, northern Ireland, terrorism, ID, the Tamil Tigers etc. My list would be 1) global warming 2) poverty 3) freedom of government for every country 4) endangered species of animals 5) freedom of sexuality 6)scientists need to be believed and people must accept that science is seperate from religion 7) seperation of church and state in every country 8) securing Earth from asteroids etc. 9) spreading the word about the fallibility of religion and everything associated with it including ID and young earth. I know a lot of the conservatives around here won't like my liberal take on things, but its a debate and there is my view. Bolly Ottihw 14:13, 10 May 2007

Not that religion is without its problems, I heard this canard tonight on Nightline (that religion is at the root of so much of the world's problems). From Stalin's Terror to Chairman Mao's Communist and Cultural revolutions, I do think religious disputes pale in comparison. HeartOfGold 02:47, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Global warming. Let me illustrate what I mean:

“

2PE 3:3 First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

”

Signing... HeartOfGold 02:53, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

- ::Bolly Ottihw, your comments are illogical, because they treat all religions (except, presumably, atheistic ones) as equal, and as they make contradictory claims and can't all be correct, as equally wrong. But it it not logical to assume that because some are wrong that all are, yet you are lumping them all together, despite, as HeartOfGold says, atheist worldviews have been far worse, and despite all the good that a Christian worldview has done for society. Philip J. Rayment 03:13, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Please explain how lumping all religions together is so wrong? Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all monotheistic, all believe in the same god and are all similar in a theoretical extent. I am not assuming that because one is wrong they all are, I am saying that they are because I think there is enough evidence that they all have a detrimental effect on society. Good things? I have seen very few. Firstly, look at some of the things a christian world view has brought about. In Australia there was the 'stolen generation'. This was when aboriginal children (aboriginals are the native people of Australia, much the same as American Indians) were taken from their parents by missionaries because they were 'not being brought up the right way'. Thus these children were denied there parents and as a result, aboriginal society has been fractured and almost destroyed. Then of course, there is the crusades, death and disease being the only outcomes of these misguided 'religious wars'. Don't forget the Inquisition or the witch hunts of the medieval times. Christianity has done far far more evil to the world than it has done good, just as with all the other religions.

Heart of Gold, I assume you meant athiestic when you said religious in your post about Chairman Mao and Stalin? Please correct me if you haven't. Bolly Ottihw 19:40, 10 May 2007

Islam and Judaism deny the Divinity of Jesus, for one thing. They can't all be correct on that.

As for the effects of Christianity on society, please read this review of For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery.

The 'stolen generation' is an urban myth, with most examples of "stolen" children not being stolen at all. And to the extent that any were taken against their parents' will, it was generally by governments, not missionaries.

The Crusades were, in part, a military action to stop and reverse the invasions by Muslims of various countries.

Philip J. Rayment 06:25, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

How dare you call the stolen generation an 'urban myth'? It is a fact, and most of the participants in it were either missionaries or christian. If you said that Down Under you would find very few people who would seriously consider it, and a wealth of aboriginals who were part of the stolen generation, as well as caucasians who admit to having instigated it.

So what is your point? Christians deny that Mohummed was a prophet, how can you all be correct on that? It cuts both ways. As for that review, 535 people were executed for 'religious heresy' in Aragon? How is that good? 535? That is a lot of deaths, just because these people did not think the same thoughts that the rulers did. Sounds a lot like communism or facism.

The Crusades would not have been nearly as major as they were if the church hadn't have called them a holy war to recapture Jerusalem and put all their support behind it. Another example of the detrimental affect the church had on society: in Italy in the 17-1800's many Jewish children were taken from their parents and banned from seeing them ever again, simply because they had been baptised as a baby by a catholic housekeeper who was employed by the Jewish families. What those children needed was the love and care of their parents, not the harsh upbringing of the catholic church. And you still haven't responded to the Northern Ireland crisis. Bolly Ottihw 21:25, 10 May 2007

I "dare" call it an 'urban myth' (well, perhaps that's not the best term, how about 'non-existent'?) because it is, and I do so 'down under', because that's where I am. Nobody has been able to name these supposed 'wealth of aboriginals', which is very strong evidence that there is no 'wealth of aboriginals' that were 'stolen'.

I never said that all agreed that Mohammad was a prophet; that actually supports my point that they all disagree. If they all disagree, then they can't all be correct, but it does not follow that they are all incorrect; it is still possible for one of them to be correct, yet you lump them all in together.

Neither did I say that Christians have never done anything bad. Sure, you can quote me some instances of Christians doing bad things (now, however, consistent with Christianity), but a few examples does not meant that Christianity per se is bad, and as I pointed out, it has done an enormous amount of good. And in fact it has primarily been Protestantism that has done the most good, whereas most of your examples are of non-Protestants.

Northern Ireland is a political dispute, not a religious one, even though the two political sides are split along nominally religious lines.

Philip J. Rayment 07:54, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

A fellow Aussie! Hip hip, Huzzah! Anyway, I am surprised that you deny this as it is well documented and quite easy to find some simple facts about it.

Ok they are all different in some respects. The reason I lump them all together is because all of them are about defending the indefencible in the face of overwhelming evidence, and because they are all a tool to discourage individual thought and different POV's.

Please enlighten me with some example of this 'good' that christianity, or protentism, has done because I have found none that is not outweighed enormously by the amount of death and suffering it has caused over the years.

Northern Ireland is a political dispute, however without the definition of one side as catholics, and the others as protestants, the trouble would have ended long ago. Instead a rival group mentality is fostered by sending children to denominational religious schools, by going to church and by marrying into the same group. If it wasn't for this, there would be no way of telling who was on what side, or any easy ways with which to inspire hatred. Bolly Ottihw 22:10, 10 May 2007

I deny it for the reasons that I gave; that there is a lack of evidence. Yes, it is well "documented", but without any actual list of "stolen" aborigines (beyond a handful). Most that were supposedly "stolen" were actually voluntarily given up by their parents who couldn't look after them, and reasons such as that.

Your argument about "defending the indefensible" presumes that it is indefensible, which it isn't. And Christianity is not "a tool to discourage individual thought"; if anything it has encouraged it.

I've already pointed you to a page which mentions some of the good that Christianity has done. Did you read it?

Philip J. Rayment 08:34, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Bolly Ottihw: do you have a source for that 1700-1800 Italy story? I never heard of that before. Leopeo 08:42, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Firstly, I don't have a direct source, it came from 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins, and I do not have a copy with me to check what sources he quoted, however if you do want to find out, I'm sure that it is not hard to obtain a copy of said book.

If you mean the book review? I did read that. I did not find very many examples of 'good to society' in there. Firstly, of those scientists who were christian, there was almost no alternative at that time. Christianity was taught as a fact because there was little scientific evidence to challenge the god hypothesis. If raised in this day and age then very few of them would have been christians as they would have had a wealth of information on the subject that was not available then. Also, Copernicus lived under house arrest for the majority of his later years, because the church did not like his theory that the earth revolved around the sun. Does not sound like a church that is pushing for revolutions in the field of science. All there is there is a small paragraph about the abolition of slavery. Yes, you now have one good thing that the church has done for society. All of this compared with the amount of people that have been killed as a result of the church? What about all the wars that were the result of England becoming protestant as compared with the majority of European nations who were catholic? There's another example of death for religion.

Of course religion discourages individual thought. You are not allowed to question the authority of the priests and bishops, or the bible. It is indoctrinated in young children as a fact and if they question, they are threatened with hell or simply told not to question. Bolly Ottihw 17:47, 11 May 2007

While I don't agree with Dawkins on this issue, I confess I haven't read the book. I have read other books by him and I know he tends to quote his sources. I will have to find a library copy. Leopeo 04:08, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Your attempt to make out that the relationship between Christianity and the scientific efforts of the scientists was coincidence more than anything else ignores the fact that the book's author (along with other researchers) specifically said that one was dependent on the other. Your handwaving away the dependency says much about your lack of objectivity.

Similarly, your attempt to counter the church's documented support for science with the odd counter-example shows that you are willing to grasp at straws.

I was raised in a Christian home and have attended church all my life, yet I have never been taught that I'm not allowed to question the authority of the church leadership, or even the Bible. Perhaps that's because I was raised as a Protestant, but I've already mentioned that it was Protestantism that I'm referring to as much as anything.

Philip J. Rayment 05:50, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Leopeo, I do encourage you to read the book, as I found it quite a revalation, I credit it for turning me from an agnostic to an atheist. Even if you are comfortable with your christian beliefs, I still think it is a very good book and worthwhile reading.

I am not making out that it was coincidence, it is true that the church has played a role in the dvelopment of science during the dark and middle ages. The main problem is that it has discourage scientific research that goes against its world view or ideology, for example the helioentric model, or evolution. Recently, ie the past 300-400 years there has been a tendency for the church to only use science where it supports their theology or whatever. I do admit however, that my knowledge of this is confined mostly to the catholic church and evangelicals so I cannot counter any claims you make about Protestantism, which sounds fairly mild as religions go. Bolly Ottihw 20:19, 11 May 2007

I've seen very little evidence of the church discouraging scientific research that goes against its worldview. Rather, I'm dismayed at the support that it gives to evolution (including from the Catholic church). Galileo had a lot of support for the heliocentric model, and the opposition of the church at the time had more to do with him offending the powers that be than with the science. On the other hand, atheism and its ilk strongly discourages scientific research that goes against its ideology; just look at the opposition in the scientific community to creationism, and look at the level of funding for each.

I have a friend who read The God Delusion. He is a Christian, and a fairly young one (i.e., he's been a Christian for only a few years), and I'm told by a mutual friend that The God Delusion strengthened his faith! His reasoning was that if this was the best case that atheists can raise against Christianity, they have no case!

Philip J. Rayment 06:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Why are you so dismayed at the support it gives to evolution? As far as scientific theories go it is a very strong one with a lot of supporting evidence. There is no need to abandon god just to believe it. I find it astonishing that so many people cannot accept that just maybe there is a possibility that the bible isn't 100% historically accurate, in fact there is quite a lot of proof that it isn't. Thats not to say that god doesn't exist, although that is my belief, it's simply that the bible was written by humans who aren't perfect. Good on him. I honestly mean that, if he is that certain in his faith then that's good. Much better to be certain about what you believe. On the other hand though if he belives that atheism has no case against christianity I would suggest that just maybe he didn't quite understand, or want to understand, the actual arguments put forward in the book. Richard Dawkins was not arguing that god did not exist, all he was arguing was that god is extremely unlikely and that there is no good proof of his existence. But there you go, people are different and they shall stay that way. Bolly Ottihw 22:34, 12 May 2007