Re: virus: The dangers of Ignorance (was: The dangers of God)

Bill Roh (sodom@ma.ultranet.com)
Fri, 14 Aug 1998 11:23:16 -0400


I think this strw man is a bit tougher than yours, you neglect also so mention
that the disease spread largly due to the practices of the Europeans and others
in the areas (Most of whom where Christian) in the first place. China and India
do not record disease of that nature - neither does America, but the spread of
disease can be directly traced to the conquest and spread of Catholocism. I dont
think it is a straw man with this amount of evidence. There is no doubt in my
mind that there were also other issus that effected life there, but throughout
the time you mention China and the Middle East were the most advanced people in
the world, and gaining.

As for not speaking Chinese or Indian, perhaps you have not looked at
demographics lately, but most the world does speak Chinese or Indian.

Bill Roh

Tim Rhodes wrote:

> Sodom wrote:
>
> >This record is awesome, however, even you must admit that this hardly does
> >justice to the events of a single day, much less a 1000 years. This does
> covr
> >many events that did happen, but does not deal with causes, or
> >complications.
>
> I attempted to highlight some basic causes often neglected in the standard
> history text: Famine, population pressures, disease, and medical and
> agricultural advancements.
>
> >In
> >fact if I didnt know better,I would say that you deleted all mention of the
> >inquisitions, the causes of wars, the crusades - in fact, by the neglect of
> >mentioning these vitally important issues, how many others are excluded?
>
> You already know the history of wars, the inquistion, and the crusades. In
> fact most of our traditional history is simply a chronicle of battles,
> primarily because those were the only topics written about by the early
> historians. If I had chosen it include that material, not only would it
> prove redundant to your existing knowledge, but the list would be 200K long
> rather than 20K, and I'm just not that good a typist.
>
> My point was to refute your and Nate's erronious assertions that it was
> religion (Christianity in particular) which slowed progress. An assertion
> which neglects to recognize that changes in food production and distribution
> made possible widespread and devistating bouts of famine and disease, two of
> the largest impediments to the progress of civilization known to man. A
> starving man does not devote time and resources to science, in any age.
>
> BTW, boyz, if Christianity during the Dark Ages was the sole force which
> held back progress and set back the West's quest for knowledge, why aren't
> we simply writing this in Hindi or Chinese right now?
>
> Your strawman is very old and worn, maybe you should try to find a new one.
>
> -Prof. Tim