Conquer Club

Posted: **Sun Jul 01, 2007 6:09 am**

Balsiefen wrote:
Caleb the Cruel wrote:At this moment I think that Islam is the most destructive human creation.
hmm, i would actually think its closer to christianity, the crucades and inquisitions in the middle ages did hugely more damage than modern terrorism, and they were supported by every major gouvernment in europe. Islamic countries however were peceful and tolerent to other religions. The ruler of egypt while being a shiite (sp) Muslim had a gouvernment made up of Suni's, Jews, Catholics and Orthadox. In all the european kingdoms you were the religion of your king or dead.

However it is not fair to single out any religion as the most destructive human creation. Religions a whole, possibly, but no single religion is worse than the next

This is true. You cannot blame Islam. You can blame Extremism, of all forms, but not the religion itself. There are extremists from all walks of life, it just so happens Islam is in the state where those extremists are driven to do things like suicide bombing, just as the situation in Northern Ireland drove people to blow up shopping centres... Irish people are not inherantly violent, nor are Muslims.

Posted: **Sun Jul 01, 2007 8:33 am**

THE most destructive invention of ALL. It's not modern, was invented centuries ago:

Money.

Money make the world go round, greed makes the wars and destroy the world.

Posted: **Sun Jul 01, 2007 8:37 am**

freezie wrote:THE most destructive invention of ALL. It's not modern, was invented centuries ago:

Money.

Money make the world go round, greed makes the wars and destroy the world.

Chimps wipe out other groups of chimps. They don't have money.

Posted: **Sun Jul 01, 2007 8:38 am**

Guiscard wrote:
freezie wrote:THE most destructive invention of ALL. It's not modern, was invented centuries ago:

Money.

Money make the world go round, greed makes the wars and destroy the world.
Chimps wipe out other groups of chimps. They don't have money.

Doesn't mean greed doesn't destroy from inside either.

Posted: **Sun Jul 01, 2007 8:40 am**

freezie wrote:
Guiscard wrote:
freezie wrote:THE most destructive invention of ALL. It's not modern, was invented centuries ago:

Money.

Money make the world go round, greed makes the wars and destroy the world.
Chimps wipe out other groups of chimps. They don't have money.
Doesn't mean greed doesn't destroy from inside either.

Exactly. Greed is different to money.

Posted: **Sun Jul 01, 2007 8:42 am**

Guiscard wrote:
freezie wrote:
Guiscard wrote:
freezie wrote:THE most destructive invention of ALL. It's not modern, was invented centuries ago:

Money.

Money make the world go round, greed makes the wars and destroy the world.
Chimps wipe out other groups of chimps. They don't have money.
Doesn't mean greed doesn't destroy from inside either.
Exactly. Greed is different to money.

Money is good when people can moderate it.

But money is what people want, and will do anything to get it. That's greed.

Posted: **Sun Jul 01, 2007 10:31 am**

Guiscard wrote:
freezie wrote:THE most destructive invention of ALL. It's not modern, was invented centuries ago:

Money.

Money make the world go round, greed makes the wars and destroy the world.
Chimps wipe out other groups of chimps. They don't have money.

imagine that a chimp who's a contract killer

Posted: **Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:06 pm**

Ive never seen a chimp behead another chimp,fights maybe?(monkey see,monkey do.)
Never seen a Chimp read the bible either(if only christians accepted evolution

)

Money is a creation of property. Guiscard what are the monkeys fighting over?

Posted: **Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:49 pm**

Anarchist wrote:Ive never seen a chimp behead another chimp,fights maybe?(monkey see,monkey do.)
Never seen a Chimp read the bible either(if only christians accepted evolution )

Money is a creation of property. Guiscard what are the monkeys fighting over?

Food and land, I imagine.

Posted: **Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:40 pm**

Guiscard wrote:Chimps wipe out other groups of chimps. They don't have money.

isn't that SUPPOSED to happen? it's natural competition, for resources, such as food. humans are not that primitive, as mass slaughter doesn't happen daily.

Posted: **Sun Jul 01, 2007 11:26 pm**

Hitman079 wrote:
Guiscard wrote:Chimps wipe out other groups of chimps. They don't have money.
isn't that SUPPOSED to happen? it's natural competition, for resources, such as food. humans are not that primitive, as mass slaughter doesn't happen daily.

I think I agree with you, since we are the higher species shouldnt we attempt to evolve? maybe the monkeys will follow are example and stop throwing eachother in ovens..?

Posted: **Sun Jul 01, 2007 11:34 pm**

More humans.

Posted: **Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:06 am**

i think that the inventions we are discussing (guns, money, etc.) had to be "invented" sooner or later. as mankind evolves, so will weapons, from primitive melee weapons to the most advanced guns today. i mean, we can't just stick to the sword and bow and arrow forever. money is a result of the inadequacies of trading and bartering, if we traded resources forever, that'd be pretty impractical, wouldn't it? most of our inventions were created to ease life, and, if not, innovations of more ancient prototypes.

Posted: **Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:11 am**

i'd and agriculture but first let explain

although it has provided enormous benefits you cant deny it science allows us to create increasingly destructive weapons (stones>clubs>swords>guns>cannons>high explosives>atom bomb>h-bomb>???), machines although it was not intended (cars for example kill millions a year), and many other things without the birth of science we would not be nearly as close to where we are now.

also writing an idea could be spread and copied quickly and influence many people relatively quickly. without writing ideas, discoveries, orders and many more documents could not be delivered. everything would have to travel by word of mouth. messages would be changed either on purpose or accidentally. also without writing science would have little success as it would take several hundred years for discoveries to be made and spread thus each scientist would have to start from square 1. thus as science flounders travel will be slower and if a messenger even intended to deliver a scientific (or any) message correctly, memories will fade from many months of travel and messages will be lost

the invention of agriculture lead to these inventions as surplus food meant not everyone had to work as a hunter gatherer thus writing and science formed from the civilizations who had the best agricultural advances
without agriculture population would be dramatically less and life would be very similar to the hunter gatherers of the past

Posted: **Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:41 am**

Guiscard wrote:
Balsiefen wrote:
Caleb the Cruel wrote:At this moment I think that Islam is the most destructive human creation.
hmm, i would actually think its closer to christianity, the crucades and inquisitions in the middle ages did hugely more damage than modern terrorism, and they were supported by every major gouvernment in europe. Islamic countries however were peceful and tolerent to other religions. The ruler of egypt while being a shiite (sp) Muslim had a gouvernment made up of Suni's, Jews, Catholics and Orthadox. In all the european kingdoms you were the religion of your king or dead.

However it is not fair to single out any religion as the most destructive human creation. Religions a whole, possibly, but no single religion is worse than the next
This is true. You cannot blame Islam. You can blame Extremism, of all forms, but not the religion itself. There are extremists from all walks of life, it just so happens Islam is in the state where those extremists are driven to do things like suicide bombing, just as the situation in Northern Ireland drove people to blow up shopping centres... Irish people are not inherantly violent, nor are Muslims.

So, Islam's bloody expansion from the 7th century to the 16th wasn't somehow the fault of the religion it's self? The Crusades, compared to the terror unleased by Mohammad, were nothing. In fact, the Crusades attempted to reclaim lands the Byzantines lost to the Muslims, land that NEVER belonged to them in the first place. How about the Moors (again, Muslims) when they murdered the Visigothic Kingdom in Spain and proceded to then invade France. Sicily? Greece? The rest of the Balkans? Indonesia? Sub-Saharen Africa? The list is a long one.

Posted: **Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:51 am**

Anarchist wrote:Ive never seen a chimp behead another chimp,fights maybe?(monkey see,monkey do.)
Never seen a Chimp read the bible either(if only christians accepted evolution )

Money is a creation of property. Guiscard what are the monkeys fighting over?

Well, if I accept evolution, then money is part of the logical progression from property. Sort of completely turning man's natural, evolutionary instincts, there is now way to overcome this simple fact of life. And any, and I mean any, attempt to do so results in totalitarianism. It was happened before, everytime a high-minded but well-intentioned individual is given or earns the power to make the changes.

I should note, I really don't care what the current theories are on man's origins. Doesn't help me pay the bills, love my family and friends or keep me sane or moral. Kinda pointless, in the end if it can't help improve the human condition, I think. Don't get me wrong, science is some cool stuff. String Theory, especially.

Posted: **Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:34 pm**

Jenos Ridan wrote:So, Islam's bloody expansion from the 7th century to the 16th wasn't somehow the fault of the religion it's self? The Crusades, compared to the terror unleased by Mohammad, were nothing. In fact, the Crusades attempted to reclaim lands the Byzantines lost to the Muslims, land that NEVER belonged to them in the first place. How about the Moors (again, Muslims) when they murdered the Visigothic Kingdom in Spain and proceded to then invade France. Sicily? Greece? The rest of the Balkans? Indonesia? Sub-Saharen Africa? The list is a long one.

OK, as a historian who studies this period I'll try and answer these professionally... You really are being very religiocentric(?)

The crusades were very much on a par to the upheaval created by early Islam. They were not nothing, they were significant military and cultural attacks in which a roughly comparable number lost their lives, the crusades more so in fact when we take into account the thousands of innocent pilgrims, including many women and children, who died trying to fulfil the quest for redemption preached by popes at the time. A good volume to begin with, if you're interested, is Mayer's 'The Crusades' - an fairly brief treatment, but competent nevertheless which should give you a more informed view than the fairly bigoted one you seem to hold at the moment.

I'll make too general points, then:

Firstly, from a historical perspective, the crusades aimed to conquer land which had been in the hands of Arabic peoples, newly Muslim but native non the less, for centuries. How do we define who IS native? You speak of the Iberian peninsula, but the Visigoths and other tribes conquered that from other peoples centuries earlier, pushing tribes elsewhere... Tribes moved down into the Italian peninsula at the fall of the Roman empire and raped and pillaged, finally settling and becoming what we view as part of Christendom. You should in no way think that the Christian peoples had somehow either peacefully taken over from the old peoples of whatever region we discuss nor should you think they had always resided there. The land of the Byzantines was conquered as part of the eastern Roman Empire. THAT never belonged to THEM in the first place, but somehow their Christianity gave them some sort of divine right? That point is by the by, however, as the reconquest of Byzantine land was really a minor part of the crusades, serving more as a political bargaining tool than as any real motivation. Byzantine lands were only surrendered by the crusaders when absolutely necessary (the politics of the Holy Land after the first crusade is a prime example of this). The fourth crusade, although 'officially' targeted at Egypt, quickly became an almost full-scale war on Byzantium itself, spelling the end of the Empire for good. When Constantinople fell the city was raped and pillaged and reportedly a prostitute was set upon the Patriarchal throne (Umberto Eco's Baudolino is a brilliant novel set in this period). Nothing was being 're-claimed'. What was preached was holy war against the infidel, and thousands lost their lives in the carnage.

This leads me to my second point, in that the Muslim world at the time, when compared to the edges of Christandom where the borders were drawn, were more civilized, more peaceful, tolerant and generally held in sharp contrast. Both in Spain and in the Holy Land, Muslim masters both tolerated and protected other religions, both Christianity and Judaism (the same Judaism, remember, that had been victim to numerous pogroms and slaughters by Crusaders on the way, and I can cite many examples if you doubt that). Freedom of expression was generally higher than under Christian occupation (in terms of foreign texts, religious proclamations etc. etc.) When the first crusade conquered Jerusalem there was a massacre. Whilst it would be false to say the Muslims acted entirely peacefully (certainly many were executed), they permitted the worship of all religions and gave Christian pilgrims free access to their holy sites. I am in no way trying to prove this period of Islamic history as innocent and peaceful, but it is important to note that the Crusaders were no better in terms of violence and slaughter. Their motives were just as dubious, if not more so. Travelling to the Levant to fight the infidel was guaranteed to absolve your sins and allow you to enter heaven. How is that different to martyrdom bringing eternal paradise?

Peoples conquer other peoples, and always have done. Islam had a violent birth, but to no greater extent than the crusades in real terms, and in reality the wars and death wrought by Islam is probably comparable to that brought about by similar religiously motivated wars within Christendom. We conquer them, they conquer us. Get off your high Christian horse and wake up to historical fact.

Posted: **Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:02 pm**

Jenos Ridan wrote:
I should note, I really don't care what the current theories are on man's origins. Doesn't help me pay the bills, love my family and friends or keep me sane or moral. Kinda pointless, in the end if it can't help improve the human condition, I think.

“After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with color, bountiful with life. Within decades we must close our eyes again. Isn’t it a noble, an enlightened way of spending our brief time in the sun, to work at understanding the universe and how we have come to wake up in it?"
Richard *cough* Dawkins

Sorry to interrupt Guiscard's post, as it were, cos it's a good 'un.

Posted: **Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:51 pm**

Twinkie's and High Fructose Corn Syrup

Posted: **Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:12 pm**

as a minister's son i would like to thank guiscard

Although the crusades were portrayed by the Vatican as a "holy war" the catholic church and the crusades were a perversion of Christianity. Jesus taught that we can worship anywhere not just Jerusalem. There are very few holy items in the Bible and only one of these is a tangible object (communion) Jesus would never tell anyone that they must conquer the "holy" land. the crusades and the catholic church were solely to extend the power of the pope.

the catholic church was equally bad but dont get me started

Posted: **Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:26 pm**

Anarchist wrote: Never seen a Chimp read the bible either(if only christians accepted evolution )

For the record, most Catholic Christians do.

Although the crusades were portrayed by the Vatican as a "holy war" the catholic church and the crusades were a perversion of Christianity. Jesus taught that we can worship anywhere not just Jerusalem. There are very few holy items in the Bible and only one of these is a tangible object (communion) Jesus would never tell anyone that they must conquer the "holy" land. the crusades and the catholic church were solely to extend the power of the pope.

I challenge you to give me one organization (religious or otherwise) which has never ever done a bad thing. Or one minister who has never sinned.

As to your theological points, I'd like invite you to the Jesus Freaks where we discuss stuff like this on a regular basis.

Posted: **Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:27 pm**

Sackett58 wrote:Twinkie's and High Fructose Corn Syrup

Twinkies are awesome

Posted: **Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:55 pm**

OnlyAmbrose wrote:As to your theological points, I'd like invite you to the Jesus Freaks where we discuss stuff like this on a regular basis.

That's a hidden forum. You have to get permission from Caleb the Cruel before going in there.

Posted: **Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:07 pm**

n8freeman wrote:me

im am the most destructive invention known to man

Posted: **Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:40 pm**

mushin wrote:I've been reading about the Luddites, and have a sinking suspiscion that The Industrial Revolution was the most revolting human creation of all time. Western capitalism and the machine have probably destroyed more humans than all the wars of the world combined. Plus it has made us crazy. Isn't it funny how a hunter/gatherer works about 8 to 12 hours a week, and we now do that in a day. I'm not saying that it's all bad, but the way humans have implemented industrialization is sick.

Any thoughts?

I don't know where you got 12 hours a week from, but that's wrong. It was less then it is now, but its not because of industrialization, its because our population is so large and we've had to find ways of producing food, that require more energy then simply picking berries off a bush. Back then they didn't have to produce tractors, build irrigation pipes, or anything other then their stone knives or whatever. The reason it takes more time to live nowadays, is because we live in more luxury. If you were faced with a choice of living in a damp cave, or in your nice warm house, I'm pretty sure I know which you'd pick. It only seems worse now because we're spoilt with all our luxury and don't appreciate it, I'm sure you'd rather live in the modern era then back then.

If you look at the middle ages, serfs were forced to work 16 hour days (it's something to that extent, but remember, serfs didn't make up the entire population, just a large portion of it), and had no rights whatsoever, if a serf was killed, the killer would maybe have to compensate his lord for the lost productivity. Desease was also common back then and modern medicine shouldn't be taken for granted.

And capitalism hasn't killed more people then all the wars combined. Capitalism is a economic philosophy, it can't kill people, peoples own greed kills people, and 'greed' is existant in every species. If a bear see's some food that another bear has, and he was stronger then the other bear, then he'd fight the other bear for it, much like the way a large nation will annex a smaller one for resources. This is the same for microorganisms, bacteria kill each other for food, greed is universal and necessary to survival, because without greed, no one would do anything, in fact, I'd argue that greed is actually the will to survive and better yourself, nothing wrong with that.

And also, if you take into consideration that values are not universal, that what you think is wrong, others may think is right and vice versa (suck as canibalism), you could say that there's nothing with people suffering, if it prolongs the species and ultimately leads to future survival (because survival is universal and is part of our instincts).

Your argument is flawed, as an instinct can't really be a creation, and even if it was its used to loosely and I could just say that children are the most destructive creation, simply because every generation grows up, uses resources which could support other organisms and either ends up killing people or dying themselves.

The most destructive human creation would be some type of WMD, we have enough nuclear weapons to destroy our planet multiple times and viruses that can wipe out a large portion of our population, these are potentially very dangerous weapons, and 'greed' is the only thing stopping us from using them (as we don't want to compromise our futures, even though we're causing harm to each other and the environment and our deaths would stop this destruction, which could be seen as greed)

Conquer Club

What was the most destructive human creation?

Re: What was the most destructive human creation?