• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What is the most significant event in the history of mankind

Eliot Wild

Irreverent Agnostic Jerk
That reminds of living in Baltimore, MD in the 70s....blue laws made it illegal for all but the smallest stores to open on Sundays.


Yep, still that way here in the buckle of the bible belt. It comes up for referendum vote every four or five years, to amend the blue laws. But the biblers and the bootleggers keep voting it down . . . the up side to this is that these two opposing groups have at least found something to agree on. Ah, hell, who am I kidding; they're probably the very same people.
 

Jeremiah

Well-Known Member
Why do atheists even care what the Bible says? What is the point of debating the meaning of something you don't believe?

Why do you care what atheist say? What is the point of debating the meaning of something you don't believe in?
 

javajo

Well-Known Member
I'm a Christian and I don't like that I cannot buy vodka on Sunday, but at least I know I have a better chance of making it to work on Monday. And I can't smoke weed either unless I break the law and risk losing my job, and I have to stand 25 feet from the entrance to my plant if I want to smoke a cigarette. They are all probably good for me, and other people whom I may affect, but they are a bit of an inconvenience to say the least. Well, they keep me somewhat accountable I guess, since I lack considerably in that department. Anyway, I know drinking or what have you is not a sin, but drinking in excess is so I try to refrain from that. Same with smoking, don't much care for it anymore, rarely smoke a cig nowadays. I do my best not to sin, not to get saved or keep saved, but just because I am freely saved forever because of what Christ has done. I don't know what he thinks of all these prohibitionist laws, I read he will rule with a rod of iron in the Millenium, so I just have to see how that plays out. Anyways...I guess there will always be laws some of us won't like so much, never cared for 'morality' type laws myself, as you can't legislate morality. And people are gonna do what they're gonna do anyways although the laws do keep some people from doing some things, like me and weed, I don't wanna go to jail and I need my job, so, no weed for me, and I have a wife and three kids, so its no great sacrifice. At least that's what I tell myself. I even half believe it. and my lungs feel great...yeah...oh, well...la la...de...da...
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
I was reading an article and the author said that Christmas was the the most significant event in the history of mankind. I found that to be a bit arrogant and I disagree. Certianly the birth of Christ could be considered the most significant event for Christians but I doubt the rest of the world would consider it so.

So, what do you consider the most significant event in the history of mankind? I'm curious how many folks select a religious event and what that means to people of other faiths.

The moon landing.

In the future it will be 100% necessary for continued survival to use space travel to find a new home (or new homes). The moon landing proves that it's possible in principle if we put our noses to the grindstone and get working.

The first responsibility humans have as one of the only known sentient beings is -- if we value sentience -- to protect it. It's a fact that sooner or later (hopefully later) something will render this planet uninhabitable. We have the same sort of duty to ensure our descendants' survival as we do to protect our current selves with laws against things like murder and rape.

Failing to work our way towards space ensures our extinction and is equivalent to negligent homicide of the entire human species and the other species we share this planet with.
 

Midnight Pete

Well-Known Member
Political motivation was a huge factor, but I'd say leaving the planet and visiting a heavenly body in person was a gigantic scientific achievement. One giant leap for mankind, eh? :)

Yes, but what did they actually do on the moon once they were there? They drove around in dune-buggies and played some golf. So the whole mission was about just getting there and doing nothing important. :D
 

crimsonlung

Active Member
I say the most significant event would be the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It shows the true power and evil of human nature.
 

gnomon

Well-Known Member
The most important event in the whole history of humankind?

When the human species evolved from our immediate primate ancestor.
 

crimsonlung

Active Member
The moon landing.

In the future it will be 100% necessary for continued survival to use space travel to find a new home (or new homes). The moon landing proves that it's possible in principle if we put our noses to the grindstone and get working.

I don't think this is true, we have many renewable resources, like water, fruits, vegetables. plants, etc. The only reason we would need to leave is if the Earth was exploding or if a meteor we couldn't stop was heading our direction. Over population can be considered an obstacle but we can easily control population if it gets to be out of hand.


Failing to work our way towards space ensures our extinction and is equivalent to negligent homicide of the entire human species and the other species we share this planet with.
Why is it so important to preserve humanity? Once you leave this Earth, you wont be part of it again. So why do you care what happens to the planet once you die?
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
I don't think this is true, we have many renewable resources, like water, fruits, vegetables. plants, etc. The only reason we would need to leave is if the Earth was exploding or if a meteor we couldn't stop was heading our direction. Over population can be considered an obstacle but we can easily control population if it gets to be out of hand.

But that's exactly what I'm talking about. All it takes is one meteor, one bioweapon "accident," one gamma ray burst, one rogue planet/black hole.

At any given time we only watch something like 3% of the sky, less than the size of the sky than if you held a dime out at arm's reach against it.

Since we've begun to keep track of meteors/asteroids/comets, there have been several times where objects have passed so close to Earth that they were between the distance of Earth and Luna. The scary part? Most of the time we didn't know about them until they'd already passed or with only a few days to spare; far too little time to conduct an Earth-saving operation. One would think that these close calls would be a wakeup call to the nations of Earth but no; just because we've been lucky so far most leaders never spend even a day in office considering how we could initiate a program that could potentially save Earth from an impact.

A gamma ray burst would end life as we know it -- in fact it's hypothesized that some of the mass extinction events in Earth's past were from a gamma ray burst. They're thought to occur when a star goes supernova and extremely powerful gamma rays are shot from the polar ends of the star. Yes, the odds are low that any individual stars' poles are pointing straight at us but there are 400 billion stars in this galaxy.

In fact, there is at least one known star system -- called WR 104, a binary star system -- that indeed has its poles pointed nearly directly at earth. Do we know when it will go nova and blast its gamma rays right at us? Our best guess is in hundreds of thousands of years, but we really don't know. It could really be at any time, and then the only thing between us and extinction is the 8,000 light years of distance between us. But guess what? As far as we know, it could have already gone nova 7,999 years ago and the invisible, deadly gamma ray burst could be reaching us next year!

I'm not a doomsday theorist, I'm just saying that the universe is a dangerous place for a planet. Consider Mars, which used to be Earth-like until some sort of catastrophe stripped it of its atmosphere and turned it into a barren wasteland... or Venus, which had an out-of-control greenhouse gas event that's turned the surface so inhospitable that even lead melts. There are things which could literally happen at any time -- tonight, tomorrow, next year, in 10 years -- that we would never know is coming until it's too late.

We shouldn't panic about it, but we should be preparing for the absolute worst by putting our eggs in more than one basket. At the very least we have a few billion years before Sol enters its red giant stage, at which Earth will become absolutely inhospitable to life. Before that even happens, the Andromeda galaxy (which is on a collision course with our smaller Milky Way galaxy) will collide with our galactic neighborhood -- though the odds are low that Sol or its system of planets will be disturbed during this event (galaxies are mostly empty space) it's still an alarming threat that needs to be prepared for. We may laugh and say "Oh let them worry about it in a few billion years," but no one will be laughing when something rears its ugly head and it's too late to do anything about it.

crimsonlung said:
Why is it so important to preserve humanity? Once you leave this Earth, you wont be part of it again. So why do you care what happens to the planet once you die?

Because I cherish being alive... I cherish that I was born at all to experience this life, with all its good and bad. Out of all the "potential people" that were never able to be (all the trillions of sperms and eggs which never met), somehow against phenomenal odds I was given the opportunity to experience... well, anything at all. Of all the never-have-beens, I and the other 6 billion people alive right now have against all odds been given the incredible gift to experience being alive.

That's a gift we give to the next generation, and the generation after that. That is, to me, why we should try to leave this world a better place than when we entered it in any way that we can -- in our own way. Part of that gift includes securing the possibility of a future at all for more humans to experience this incredible thing we call life and the universe. In my opinion it should be a top priority to give a future to future humans; I take the philosophy that we are all caretakers for the next caretakers who are caretakers for the next ones.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Why? ... (dots because otherwise my post is too short)

It seems to me to be a natural progression from valuing life and desiring to be altruistic. For someone who doesn't value life or altruism they might not understand my point of view; but for someone who does I think it becomes obvious when reflecting on the ramifications of these values.

A lot of morality is based on valuing life: most of us consider it a terrible thing if someone murders someone else or otherwise diminishes the quality of their life (theft, rape, oppression, etc.) So, I can reasonably assume that a great many of us value life. That in itself should be enough to strive to enable the lives of future humans; it becomes equivalent to negligence/manslaughter to take actions which make future lives impossible.

This is compounded by the fact that I value altruism. This one's trickier in terms of determining whether many people share this value or not -- I'd like to hope so, but at least some people seem to do good deeds only because it gives them personal gain. I value altruism in the sense of doing good deeds for the sake of doing good deeds -- yes, it's nice to get something in return but I value altruistic deeds that don't necessarily have a benefit because I like to remind myself that other sentient beings are like me: they don't like to feel pain or suffering, they like to have basic necessities, and given the right environment I'm sure they very much like being able to experience anything at all.

Because I value this altruism, it would give me great joy to give future generations the gift of experiencing life even if I don't gain anything from it. I'm a lesbian, it's unlikely I'll be continuing my genes unless I donate eggs (which may be a possibility), so it's not even about that. My girlfriend and I plan on maybe adopting someone and giving them a good home and putting a good future within their reach. I don't get anything out of that unless we're going to consider the joy of giving to be a "personal gain."

----
Edit: At the same time, I've never understood the mentality of avoiding harm and doing good deeds "to get into heaven" or "to avoid hell." It doesn't seem very virtuous to me to behave only for a reward or in fear of a punishment. The best sort of good in my opinion is good that's done simply because it's good and the person doing it simply desires to do good.
 

lunamoth

Will to love
It seems to me to be a natural progression from valuing life and desiring to be altruistic. For someone who doesn't value life or altruism they might not understand my point of view; but for someone who does I think it becomes obvious when reflecting on the ramifications of these values.

A lot of morality is based on valuing life: most of us consider it a terrible thing if someone murders someone else or otherwise diminishes the quality of their life (theft, rape, oppression, etc.) So, I can reasonably assume that a great many of us value life. That in itself should be enough to strive to enable the lives of future humans; it becomes equivalent to negligence/manslaughter to take actions which make future lives impossible.

This is compounded by the fact that I value altruism. This one's trickier in terms of determining whether many people share this value or not -- I'd like to hope so, but at least some people seem to do good deeds only because it gives them personal gain. I value altruism in the sense of doing good deeds for the sake of doing good deeds -- yes, it's nice to get something in return but I value altruistic deeds that don't necessarily have a benefit because I like to remind myself that other sentient beings are like me: they don't like to feel pain or suffering, they like to have basic necessities, and given the right environment I'm sure they very much like being able to experience anything at all.

Because I value this altruism, it would give me great joy to give future generations the gift of experiencing life even if I don't gain anything from it. I'm a lesbian, it's unlikely I'll be continuing my genes unless I donate eggs (which may be a possibility), so it's not even about that. My girlfriend and I plan on maybe adopting someone and giving them a good home and putting a good future within their reach. I don't get anything out of that unless we're going to consider the joy of giving to be a "personal gain."

I agree with all that you say about valuing altruism and valuing life. But why, rationally, do we value these things?

Do we value these things because it is simply satisfying and reassuring to think we are doing good, helping others, easing suffering, and perhaps even helping to ensure the future survival of the human race?

If it is not the selfish gene, is it simply comforting to feel good about doing good?


----
Edit: At the same time, I've never understood the mentality of avoiding harm and doing good deeds "to get into heaven" or "to avoid hell." It doesn't seem very virtuous to me to behave only for a reward or in fear of a punishment. The best sort of good in my opinion is good that's done simply because it's good and the person doing it simply desires to do good.
No argument from this corner.
 

crimsonlung

Active Member
Gotta say, very interesting stuff about the gamma rays and the intergalactic doomsday device that is our solar system, are you studying astronomy?

I and the other 6 billion people alive right now have against all odds been given the incredible gift to experience being alive.

But if they were never alive to begin with, what would they be missing?
 

kai

ragamuffin
the taming of fire! it led to all sorts of advancements such as metal working,cooking,pottery kilns etc.
 
Last edited:
Top