Have Theistic ideals slowed humanities progression?

Debate Room
81

No, hadn’t even heard the term ‘Habiru’, had to look it up. Not surprised .Over the last few years, from the stuff I haveread, it seems there is far more humbuggery in Judaism than I had imagined.

However, I realise I still; need to take care with Youtube. Yesterday I started watching one of those list clips of 10 this or that. Number 10 was the Tel Stele Stele inscription. The dickhead presenter claimed that because the house of David is mentioned, it proves the existence of the Davidic empire and royal line. It doesn’t. So far there doesn’t seem to be a consensus among scholars with no vested interest.

In their Book "The Bible Unearthed, Israeli archaeologists Neil Siberman and Israel Finkelstein have a simpler explanation which sits better with the facts I think : That the house of David may have existed. That David was probably tribal leader and that Davidic empire did not exist…

That interpretation make sense to me; YHWH went from being a pretty war god with a nice wife (Asherah) to the super duper bachelor creator, lord of the Universe. So naturally, his chosen people had to be pretty special. To that end They fashioned a suitably grand history.

82

In my opinion it’s not religion that has slowed the progress of society. What I think has slowed the progress of society is when an ideology is held in a position where people hold the decisions of the ideology as correct, even if they are incorrect. They will defend these decisions even when the errors are right in front of their noses. People being blinded by ideology is the problem.

2 Likes
83

Fellow Unbelievers,

I agree that Theism and other Supernatural notions have slowed down human progress, if for no other reason because they disable the very rational minds people need to solve human problems, as well as encourage a passivity and denial of individual agency in dealing with problems.

I also agree with others here that there are other enemies of human progress such as Totalitarian political ideologies and systems, and that using the force of such systems is no answer to the stagnation caused by Theism and Supernaturalism.

A rational way of thinking and living has to be acquired naturally and spread and accepted by example.

Now, to address the hypothetical of what I would do if I were forced into a position of absolute power, I would first, abdicate, then I would evacuate and demolish my Fearless Leader Headquarters, so that no one else could assume the role, at least without the trouble of starting over from scratch. I don’t believe in Omniscience or Omnipotence, neither in anyone or anything nor in myself.

84

It sounds like some folks are harboring some “Warrior King” fantasies here:

Lou Reed “Warrior King (Revenge)” With Lyrics in Description

1 Like
85

Greetings, Sheldon,
Wouldn’t immortality give us an eternity to address and solve environmental problems? As well as an eternity to figure out how to foil maniacs who attempt to weild absolute power? Or an eternity to travel and inhabit the Universe to get away if all else fails?

As some unknown Transhumanist once asked: “What is the point of life if the end result is death?”

86

You mean like the argument that given an eternity, a monkey with a type writer would eventually produce the bible/Harry Potter/The Satires of Juvenal?

1 Like
87

Oh fuck cranks - I chuckled :face_with_hand_over_mouth:. God you are witty.

88

Greetings, Boomer47,

I was thinking ore like, given an eternity, monkeys can evolve, typewriters can be replaced with other media, and many more and better stories can be composed.

As Judy Tenuda quickly and incredulously says while carrying her squeeze-box: “It can happen!”

89

Screenshot_2020-12-02-23-09-52
Screenshot_2020-12-02-23-09-521069×956 86.4 KB

Hello fellow Towelie!

But you missed an e in Towelie’s name :disappointed:

90

Not necessarily, environmental problems undoubtedly wouldn’t wait for us, often times we don’t even notice them until the damage is already done.

In my opinion, the point of life, is to experience it, because it comes to an end, makes it all the more precious. Random flukes rarely have any reason, they just are.

91

“can” does not infer will.

Same goes for infinite time to develop.

Even our rate of technological change and new technology since say the eighteenth century does not infer anything about the future, although it implies it,

I’m afraid the topic is of limited interest to me becauseI won’t be here.

92

Boomer47,
You are correct that nothing is inevitable. Futurist Alvin Toffler once said the two words he never uses are ‘trend’ and ‘predict.’

All I’m meaning to say is that a real attempt at eternal life would beat all the illusory attempts of religion, that it wouldn’t necessarily mean grim outcomes for either Humanity or Planet, and if something is worth doing, why not at least have the option to do it forever…or as long as desired?

Wharever your reasons for saying you won’t be around,:I wish you the best for however long you want it.

93

You may be right.

As I get older, it’s getting harder for me to understand why anyone would want to live forever. Seems to me that for most people, all living forever would mean is not dying. No guarantee of a happier, more useful or fulfilling life.

Plus, what are the chances the procedure to extend life indefinitely will be horrendously expensive? That would mean there would be a vast underclass of people who only lived 100 years or so…
Having even a relatively small percentage of people living indefinitely would also probably mean some form of strict population growth.

With people living so long, I reckon such a society would become anomic, with suicide becoming a big thing, perhaps even a new religion.****

If you haven’t seen it, I recommend the film ‘Gattaca’

“Gattaca is a 1997 American dystopian science fiction film written and directed by Andrew Niccol. It stars Ethan Hawke and Uma Thurman, with Jude Law, Loren Dean, Ernest Borgnine, Gore Vidal, and Alan Arkin appearing in supporting roles.[4] The film presents a biopunk vision of a future society driven by eugenics where potential children are conceived through genetic selection to ensure they possess the best hereditary traits of their parents.[5] The film centers on Vincent Freeman, played by Hawke, who was conceived outside the eugenics program and struggles to overcome genetic discrimination to realize his dream of going into space”

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
***"Messiah ’ by Gore Vidal

"Messiah is a satirical novel by Gore Vidal, first published in 1954 in the United States by E.P. Dutton.[2] It is the story of the creation of a new religion, Cavism, which quickly comes to replace the established but failing Christian religion.

Plot summary
The novel is written as the memoir of Eugene Luther, one of the first followers of Cavism, founded by John Cave, an American undertaker. Cave teaches, among other things, not to fear death and to actually desire it under certain circumstances. Later followers come to glorify death, and even enforce it on other members. The founder John Cave is himself killed by his followers when he proves inconvenient for the new religion’s development."

94

I enjoyed Gattaca. This one has a similar story to what you described

Also very good…

95

@Whitefire13

In time.

Haven’t seen that film. However, have seen a TV film based on the original short story by Harlan Ellison. He sued the makers of ‘In Time’ because it really is blatant plagiarism.

96

Boomer47,

I can see some other problems that would need to be solved alongside super-annuated or indefinite lifespans

Namely, to accomodate all the new humans congregating on the Planet, we would need innovations in ways to live underground, on and under the sea, in Antarctica, in space, and on other planets.

We would probably need a new Green Revolution to raise more food in these disparate and hostile environments.

We would need new ways of making water potable, perhaps harvest water vapor from comets.

We would need new methods of super-mass-producing medicines, tools, and methods of entertainment.

But while difficult, none of this is impossible. Our reasoning minds and productivity have got us this far, and if left free, they can take us further.

As for the possibly of a two-tiered society, this reminds me of the objection given to the new Apple computer 'way back when. Some actually objected to the Apple because it would create two classes: those who have it and those who don’t. Of course, that could be said of any new technology from a computer on down to a rabbit-hunting stick.

All new technology starts expensive and hard-to-get and use. Then, with competition, expiration of patents, knock-off brands, and price wars, the technology price goes down, becomes more compact, user-friendly, and the household tool of every person.

Without government barriers like the U.S. bans and restrictions on new medicines, cloning, and stem-cell research, and without third-party providers like insurers and Medicare/Medicaid/National Health Services running up the prices, longevity tech could be highly available.

And none of this has to be mandatory. We’re an Automotive Age, but the Amish pedestrian and buggy-rider still have right-of-way and deserve respect for their safety. Likewise, those who want an indefinite life and those who don’t need not be enemies.

As free-wheelin’ Bob Dylan might put it: You can live in my dream if I can live in yours.

1 Like
97

Again, I find I quite agree with you Cranky.
Perhaps its because I’m just one more old codger witnessing how much faster time passes the longer you experience it. And when I find myself contemplating time and immortality I will suddenly realise that if this is the best thing I can be wasting what precious little time I have left, then life really must be losing its attraction. Its at times like this I decide I really should join that formation bungy jumping team.
I have always thought the Christian promise of life eternal seemed somewhat threatening because it was always so short on detail, like they were hiding something. But its no secret. You can read all about the rather simple itinerary of Heaven in Revelations; about the interminable 24/7 praising and worshipping and hallelujahing while YAHWEH absorbs all this adoration on his celestial throne. This scenario doesn’t get as much airtime as you’d expect for information about what eternity has to offer. The reason seems pretty obvious.
I don’t suppose I should be so critical of the heavenly prospect because like Dunbar in Catch 22, I now like to find boring things to do that makes the time seem to pass more slowly. I guess I’ll pass on the bungy jumping; too exciting, it would age me too much too soon.

98

I doubt it, since our environment’s existence is itself finite.

I’ve never seen any credible argument, or objective evidence that life has some over arching purpose. So I’ve always regarded that question as presumptive.

99

Indeed.

However, I see the Amish lifestyle as an affectation. As far as I can tell it can only occur in a liberal democracy. I’m not even convinced the Amish could have their life style in any democracy.

In terms social, economic and ecological changes needs in an immortal society. Our resources are finite. There seem to be a polite fiction that improvements needed to feed and house everyone can be made indefinitely. Even as we are now, we are already running out of fossil fuels*** and heading towards over population.

I’m not convinced human immortality is sustainable except to a strictly limited degree.

***It’s no secret that we’re running out of oil. Yet people seem oblivious to what that entails long term. I’m referring to the many other uses we have for oil, ranging from fertiliser to plastics.

100

Sheldon,

You wrote:

doubt it, since our environment’s existence is itself finite.

According to The Laws of Thermodynamics, energy/matter changes forms, but is neither created nor destroyed. The energy/matter of the environment may be finite in one form, but the constituent elements still exist and just change forms.

I’ve never seen any credible argument, or objective evidence that life has some over arching purpose. So I’ve always regarded that question as presumptive.

In nature, each living thing acts towards the preservation of its own structural integrity and to persevere in its self-locomotion. That’s a purpose.

And even if purpose were entirely arbitrary, what argument is there against acting towards that purpose even more and even longer? By golly, let Sheldon be Sheldon as long as he wants! Bazinga To Infinity And Beyond! :grin: