How many of you believe in God?

College Confidential Community
641

<p>You are referring to the second french revolution, after the national assembly is done away with for the government by robespierre. After the cashiering of Louis and marie antoinette, there was a period of terror in which lives were lost and people were beheaded. Let me remind you that terror is one of the stages of all revolutions that ever taken place. There is no revolution that can take place without a phase of terror. I challenge you to name one.</p>

<p>These are not my observations, these are the observations of Crane Brinton in the book The Anatomy of Revolution.</p>

<p>Terror existed in the english revolution, russian revolution, the first and second french revolution, the american revolution.</p>

<p>But then, after the terror, the thermidorean reaction came into place (also a phase of revolution). Napoleon took power and France rose higher than ever before. Your obeservation of terror after the french revolution was not due to the confiscation of church lands which the national assembly did partake in. The terror was a standard phase of revolution. To demonstrate this, look at the enlish revolution prior to cromwell. Charles II (or was is James II)...whatever...the ruler of england at the time was beheaded and there was also mass beheading going on in england. The only difference is that the anglican church (protestant) presided over england. This goes to show that terror phases of revolutions are not about morals at all; they have taken place under religious societies as well as atheistic societies. Such is also what Brinton observes.</p>

<p>Your Aztec example and generalization of Christians troubles me. By making such statements on the Aztecs, you are violating their Imperatives; their paradigms of morality. Rather, you are imposing your own moral standards upon their religion and their culture. Historically, this is a common Christian practice (through missionaries, conquisators, and "evangelists"), but in contemporary times, this looked down upon. Did i mention i hate pat Robertson. As an outsider to Aztec culture, you do not have the prerogative to judge it. This is the fundamental philosophy of the "live and let live" doctrine. </p>

<p>In short, do not impose your moral standards upon others.</p>

<p>On the generalization of Christianity, that is quite a shallow, underthought statement. Some of the nicest people I have met; kind, helpful, humble, etc. were christian, but some of the biggest *******s i have met were also christian.</p>

<p>Shame on such a generalization.</p>

642

<p>All the *******s I've met were either gay or atheist.</p>

643

<p>I didn't read everything, but I saw something about a dicussion (argument?) about art history.</p>

<p>Giotto is the first notable Renaissance artist, because of his blue skies and other such things. Giotto, Duccio, Cimabue, Simone Martini--all these people are deemed from the EARLY Renaissance. There's the Early, and there's the High. Boticelli was somewhere between early and high.</p>

<p>For the most part, the southern/Italian Renaissance was becoming more and more secular. The Iberian peninsula also saw a more secular art world (even the most Christian of El Greco's work were rather secular).</p>

<p>The North, who was lagging behind unbelievably, were extremely based on Christian theology. Their work during the peak of the Italian Renaissance was nearly primitive. Hieratic figures still existed, there was lack of contrapposto, lack of knowledge of recession into depth (especially the lack of sfumato and correct chiaroscuro). Lack of scientific innovation is largely credited to blind following of Christian ideology. Why find another answer when the Bible already has one?</p>

<p>How can you say Boticelli was nothing great, Justinian? Boticelli surpassed the men of his time by leagues.</p>

<p>Having said that, I'm mostly atheist. I have morals. I don't think premarital sex is a good thing, I don't think having drugs and dissing your parents are fabulous either.</p>

<p>I think Christianity is for the weak. If a person's own ideals/morals aren't stable/good enough for a person to even accept, a person turns to Christianity and becomes the dog and religion becomes Pavlov's bells.</p>

<p>Just a generalization.</p>

644

<p>
[quote]
I think Christianity is for the weak. If a person's own ideals/morals aren't stable/good enough for a person to even accept, a person turns to Christianity and becomes the dog and religion becomes Pavlov's bells.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Atheism are for fools who dont deserve to live and enjoy God's grace.</p>

645

<p>I can equally say that Christianity are for ignorant fools looking for a scapegoat who can't live with the fact that things are the way they are. They don't deserve to live if they aren't even living for themselves but for something that doesn't exist.</p>

646

<p>
[quote]
I can equally say that Christianity are for ignorant fools looking for a scapegoat who can't live with the fact that things are the way they are. They don't deserve to live if they aren't even living for themselves but for something that doesn't exist.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You can say that at Comedy Central :D</p>

647

<p>Finally, someone agrees with me. (Great minds think alike, of course)</p>

<p>Effulgent: Well, some people do not draw distinction between just proto renaissance art and early renaissance art. I have seen sources classify giatto as early renaissance, but i have also seen others classify him as pre. </p>

<p>All petty arguments aside, we certainly agree in principle; morality is not derived from religion. the real issue that Justinian failed to acknowledge was the humanistic, secular movement of the florencian renaissance (south italy). He also said that the renaissance art lacked complexity and 3D perspective compared to pre renaissance art...that is how this whole thing came about.</p>

<p>Glad to see there is someone else on this board with historical perspective.</p>

<p>Effulgent:
"I think Christianity is for the weak. If a person's own ideals/morals aren't stable/good enough for a person to even accept, a person turns to Christianity and becomes the dog and religion becomes Pavlov's bells"</p>

<p>There is no doubt that Christianity has a tendency of equalizing society; placing equal value on all. though this seems good in principle, it serves to hold the wealthy and fortunate in bondage by forcing them tp uphold the weak in society. This does not seem consistent with human nature of rational self interest.</p>

<p>"dog and religion becomes Pavlov's bells"</p>

<p>hahahahaha. Ivan was the man!</p>

648

<p>not quite that they dont deserve to live, but they are leading an ignorant life.</p>

649

<p>
[quote]
not quite that they dont deserve to live, but they are leading an ignorant life.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That is true of atheists and homosexuals.</p>

650

<p>"That is true of atheists and homosexuals."</p>

<p>hahahahahaha...i thought that homosexuality is accepted in society; i guess word has not got down to florida yet</p>

651

<p>
[quote]
hahahahahaha...i thought that homosexuality is accepted in society; i guess word has not got down to florida yet

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Homosexuality is not accepted in society. Gay mariages are forbidden. Movies and music make fun of gay people all the time. Most people dont think highly about gays. If you're gay, I might as well laugh as you :)</p>

652

<p>Gay marriages are accepted in many societies. Heard of the new law the UK just passed? </p>

<p>Although I think marriage all together should go. Civil unions for all!</p>

653

<p>i think the christian defenders on this site have already demonstrated that "Christian ideals" are not particulary those which contemporary society finds moral.</p>

<p>Imagine a country ruled by christian law. I believe corinthians says something to the effect of "slaves obey your masters as if he were jesus himself" (the verse can be found on request). We could always stone people for working on the weekends and eliminate usury.</p>

<p>Did i mention that if the latter two were done away with, (especially interest), a large scale economy would be impossible. It is not in accordance with economics.</p>

654

<p>
[quote]
Heard of the new law the UK just passed?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Do you know how many nations in the world prohibit gay marriages and even homosexuality itself?</p>

655

<p>A country ruled by Christian law! I think I'll have nightmares tonight just thinking about it.</p>

656

<p>Imagine a country ruled by atheistic ideals LOL. All I can think of is Communist China.</p>

657

<p>"He also said that the renaissance art lacked complexity and 3D perspective compared to pre renaissance art...that is how this whole thing came about."</p>

<p>I didn't read that. That idea is absolutely and holistically ludicrous.</p>

<p>Renaissance art surpassed Grecian/Roman art, even in sculpture--with the exception of Phidias, the ancient Greek whose work is arguably the most perfect.</p>

<p>"There is no doubt that Christianity has a tendency of equalizing society; placing equal value on all. though this seems good in principle, it serves to hold the wealthy and fortunate in bondage by forcing them tp uphold the weak in society. This does not seem consistent with human nature of rational self interest."</p>

<p>The key fact is that it tries to equalize... it never does. There will be more people with more money, more intelligence, more common sense and vice versa. Nobody has the same potential, ergo, nobody will act in the same way given a common motivation due to different circumstances and bredth of "belief."</p>

<p>Pro-Renaissance and early Renaissance are the same thing in my opinion. There is no definite year which the Renaissance came, though many say it was 1305 in regards to painting. I'm quite sure another painter has painted a blue sky before Giotto. (S)he just didn't do it on all over the walls of an entire chapel.</p>

<p>I wholeheartedly agree: morals derives from society. Society is NOT derived from religion. Take ancient Eastern Asia, for example. No belief in one supreme "higher being," yet ridiculously successful. It would've halted the growth of Europe and probably Christianity were it not for China's xenophobic tendencies and closing off after the reign of the Mongols.</p>

658

<p>Unfortunately yes I do, many of those are religious in nature. </p>

<p>I prefer a secular country. I have no interest in the Church or its leaders governing my life and my choices.</p>

659

<p>"Imagine a country ruled by atheistic ideals LOL."</p>

<p>Hm. I imagine at large America and the UK and the Republic of China and Ancient Rome and Greece.</p>

<p>Better than the medieval ages when the Church basically ruled, I say.</p>

660

<p>rotf @ Killerangel.</p>