As you aren't making any counter-arguments, in regards to the morality issue, I take it that you agree that you were wrong, there?
...just unwilling to admit to your error, due to too fragile an ego?
Quote from Transdude1996
because they did have the knowledge and brain-power that far exceeds what they should have been capable of at the time, especially considering their limited understanding of the universe?
I never said anything that comes anywhere close to that.
I said they did well, considering the limitations.
That they sometimes (not always) did relatively
suggested that they exceeded
Also, I never said anything about brain-power.
Brain-power is completely irrelevant, to these issues. (and has not really changed, to any significant degree, since the stone age. Well, not at a genetic level, but there are
some other factors that have actually notably improved, since ancient times ...but either way, that's not really relevant).
Also, are you still maintaining that they were accurate?
...and that most of their "knowledge", wasn't preposterously, laughably, wrong?
A video that is literally "You're wrong, I'm right"? Seriously, do you have a better argument than that.
If that's what you think the video says, or is about, then you clearly didn't watch the video.
If you did, and still only got that, out of it, then you are hopelessly
You're right, every single society had some belief in their origins and spirituality.
No, not all.
But a whole lot of them.
Countless ones (the vast majority, in fact), far predating judaism, or the introduction of an Abrahamic faith to that region.
However, look at how many of them are still around?
That is completely irrelevant.
You said that humanity only got religion, thanks to judaism.
All religions that have died out, are perfectly valid examples of religions that disprove that notion.Especially
those that died out, due to conversion to judaism, christianity, and/or islam.
The only one you can really point to is Hinduism.
There is also (and this is a woefully incomplete list):
Hinduism, buddhism, jainism, zoroastrianism, confucianism, taoism, various African religions (maybe 20-30 different ones, at least. Can't be bothered to look into it, all that deeply), Chinese folk religion, shinto, Ainu religion (most modern Ainu have abandoned it, but not all), Korean shamanism, Ryukyuan religion...
I could probably find a whole lot more, if I tried. These are just the ones I could find, quickly and easily.
Note that I limited myself to religions from around the time of the founding of judaism and older, that still survive.
Excuse me, how does 84% of the world's population believing in A religion equates to half?
We're not talking about A religion, but specifically an Abrahamic
You mean to tell me that Francis Bacon, William James, George Washington, Carl Jung, Alexis Carrel, Henry C. Link, Gandhi, and the thousands of people Dale Carnegie (A man who admits that he's still skeptical about religion) has interviewed, received letters, and read works from ARE ALL WRONG IN THEIR ASSESSMENT?
Whether they are wrong or not, is completely irrelevant.
I could easily give a long list of people who are at least as impressive (and some of the people in your list, are far from being all that admirable or great. I could easily make a much
better list of great people, who think religion is good), who say that religion is negative, but that list would be as useless as yours.
More importantly, however:
I told you that I'm not going to debate whether or not religion is good, bad, or neutral, as this isn't the place for that.
What I will
point out, is that it is NOT
a universally agreed upon thing, that religion is good.
Hence including it, among clear positives, is foolish.
One, you shouldn't have said anything then if you didn't want this discussion to continue any further.
I don't mind this discussion continuing
...but I'm not having the separate
discussion, about whether or not religion is good or not. That is an issue that is beside the point, and cannot possibly be settled with a discussion between two random guys on a forum (it'd be unlikely for either of us, to convince the other, in just a single discussion, but even if we did, that wouldn't change the fact that it still a very debatable issue. It would just make it so that a mere two specific people
, no longer disagree about it).
Oh, so you do agree with my assessment. Thank you.
If you think that including a similar theme, makes something a remake, then EVERY WORK EVER
(aside from a few absurdly early ones) are remakes.
Thus rendering the term "remake", essentially completely devoid of meaning.
It becomes completely useless.
Also, that means that your idea of what a remake is, has absolutely no connection, with how the word is used by any one else.Last edited by zarlan at 11:39 am, Feb 28