1. Atheism, a positive pillar

Comment #285811 by PeterMcKellar on November 17, 2008 at 4:48 pm

decius - I would love some online links to some of your sources. I know only a little of N and almost nothing of CM.

I've read a little on early HS migration, urbanisation etc but not the pre-HS time immediately before.

I would favour a small number of quality links rather than an avalanche of corroborating evidence. Whilst I don't think you can live your life by a single book, choosing the correct ones tends to reduce the study load and avoids wasted time with "teach the controversy" crap. What, I have to listen to flat earth arguments before I can "believe" in a "worldview" of plate tectonics?

2. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #280533 by PeterMcKellar on November 7, 2008 at 5:44 pm

nairb - many thanks for that info.

Pope Joan - it must also be mentioned that those indulgences were only granted to crusaders that also donated all their worldly goods to the church in order to pursue the good fight on gods side. This was a reason that the templars grew so strong (note: I may be wrong on that particular 1095 crusade but it certainly applied to at least one).

The Children's Crusade was the "best" in my view - parents were convinced to send their kids off to war (and we are talking 6yrs up, some younger). The priests that organised it all marched them straight to the muslim slave markets and pocketed the profits. Charming.

Like Phil Rimmer, I too deplore *most* charities. The anglican church here in oz announced a couple of weeks ago that they were going to solve the country's problems by giving out 600,000 bibles. wow. that'll help feed and house people. I lived in Kings Cross for about 5 years and the parasites would make drunks and addicts sing (hymns) for their supper. I tried to get into a shelter with my son once to find that of 80 homeless shelters in Sydney not a single one catered for single MALE parents (we could have stayed in the "drunk" dorm run by just one charity, but not if I had my daughter with me, no-one would have taken us then).

I agree however that the main reason for charities is to shame governments and as an INITIAL rapid response to disasters. When governments fail, atheists must sometimes deal with the devil to achieve social progress. Giving career options to clergy that are closet atheists so they can continue community service may have some promise.

3. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #280457 by PeterMcKellar on November 7, 2008 at 2:31 pm

I would suggest posters read the full article and follow the link to the author's own work and findings. He thoroughly demolishes the whole fiction of "mean atheists" and puts the blame squarely on those theist in xtian dominated societies (eg USA) that marginalise and vilify atheists.

Where this doesn't happen, the diff between theists and atheists evaporates (eg Sweden & Denmark).

What isn't mentioned is the whole "outrider clipping" issue practiced by all groups but turned into a science by organised religions. christians are NOT nice to muslims. They also aren't all that friendly to jews (killed christ), atheists (pick any hate argument you want), hindus (ragheads like muslims). Then you can start on the christian warrior groups, the KKK, the temperance wowsers etc. This loose affiliation of predominantly christ deluded is possibly the most divisive, toxic, hate filled and meanest group in society. Throw in the excesses of the jihadists and the state sanctioned terrorism of the Israeli theocracy and it soon become clear who is "mean".

Piety = Poison

Good article

(Edit spelling. "Ten" changed to "Then", "of" to "on")

4. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #279033 by PeterMcKellar on November 5, 2008 at 1:42 pm

I am pleased both that these issues are being debated in public, but also that the interest is so high.

Any challenge to religion must be answered and the old rote response is no longer gaining traction. Just asserting "There are no gods" means that it must first be accepted by the brain, THEN discounted. The brain has trouble using nonsense to dismiss it (even though it may be rejected, it will still be there, niggling away with questions forever). Confront, challenge and perservere. Whilst Hitch is great, even a mediocre debater can open arguments in the audiences' minds, cause them to think. Often they will recognise an argument as lame and build a stronger one against their own beliefs before they realise.

I am just ducking out but will call by again in a couple of hours. Loved the line about shepherds not loving their flocks but fleecing and eating them instead :)

5. President Obama: Bad News For the New Atheists and Other Fundamentalists

Comment #278999 by PeterMcKellar on November 5, 2008 at 1:14 pm

This author is so typical of religious apologists and theists in general. A few quite unjustified smears are included in this article. I don't speak for other atheists and nor do they speak for me - and the author certainly does not, nor does his description fit me.

I love and embrace all the arts. This is what it means to be human, not being some slavering idiot to a censored, orthodox concept of "art". Atheists do not burn books, art or witches. That is the exclusive preserve of the theist - and not just the fundamentalist, but also the more "moderate" anti-stem cell (and anti-vaccination) nutters and the temperance looneys.

I see nothing in the New Atheist movement that would be challenged by Obama being president. Any move to separate State and Church must be encouraged - provided it also includes the right to free debate. Any group that accepts converts must also freely allow them to leave (something islam does not allow).

I would also suggest that the author have a look at some of these discussion boards - the non-theistic religions fare much better under the stark spotlight of reason, but do not escape unscathed, though somewhat better than the lame "give it up, you'll go blind" doctrines of the abrahamic religions.

This article was poorly thought out and its arguments were the typical straw dog stuff I've come to expect from xtian apologists. - FAIL

6. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #271491 by PeterMcKellar on October 25, 2008 at 6:06 pm

I think it important that both a positive message is given and if possible that a "no god" option be seen as a box that can be ticked, not just an opt out nihlistic thing.

The backlog of comments is huge, so apologies in advance if I have repeated any previous entries. I have also tried to use a bus theme. My suggestions:

"No free ride for gods
Tax religion NOW"

"2,000 Years Waiting for God?
A bus is quicker"

"Bibles don't feed children
Give Aid, not charity" (followed by a list of endorsed non-religious aid organisations)

or around the festive season:

"Eat, Drink and Be Merry
Aetheists Building Stronger Communities"

"Party - Don't Pray
Spend the time with Family and Friends"

7. Debate: Would We Be Better Off Without Religion?

Comment #255844 by PeterMcKellar on September 28, 2008 at 11:55 am

I saw this online when it first appeared a few weeks back.

The most ridiculous argument I heard put forward in this debate was "if god didn't exist then bad people like Hitler would not be punished (by god in some imaginary afterlife)". This can only be understood if you realise that the speaker is an idiot. He obviously lives in a fairytale of his own making that starts "Once upon a time in a galaxy far, far away" and ends with all the clean cut square-jawed heroes getting medals.

fyi: Richard Ackland is a regular opinion columnist with the Sydney Morning Herald. This was the first time I had heard him speak, but he writes quite well - and is never shy laying the boot into Ratzinger's local "Maintainer of the Hate List" - Cardinal Pell.

8. It's no wonder evangelical atheists need to shout so loud

Comment #238849 by PeterMcKellar on August 28, 2008 at 4:36 pm

Thanks for the kind comments, I guess maybe I shouldn't have been so gentle ;)

Agreed tho, I doubt it will get published either - hence the posting here (sorry about the length). It still gives me a chance to hone my arguments and ridicule and you guys will immediately point out any errors. Its a shame I ran out of steam before I could work in something about spit roasting Templars, but sigh, other opportunities will arise.

9. It's no wonder evangelical atheists need to shout so loud

Comment #238791 by PeterMcKellar on August 28, 2008 at 3:26 pm

Apologies in advance if my post has ignored anything obvious contained in this thread - I spent so long working on my letter to The Calgary Herald I haven't had time to catch up with all the posts.

This was the (lengthy) response I sent to the paper:

I found Barry Cooper's rant of 27th August 2008 - "It's no wonder evangelical atheists need to shout so loud" published in The Calgary Herald.

Clearly the Alberta educational standards have deteriorated if they hand out professorships in Political Science at the University of Calgary to semi-literate christian apologists like young Barry. Alan Harrison (University of Calgary), just because Barry can spell "existentially" doesn't mean he understands the word. I guess Stephen Harper is the price Canada has to pay when your Nation's political skills fall that low.

And Barry, how embarrassing that someone with a Ph.D should publicly expose his ignorance so proudly. But fools rush in where wise men fear to tread. You really should have done some basic research. The quote of Diderot's, wrongly attributed to Voltaire is more frequently presented as:

"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

although this is not the literal translation, it seems (to me) the closest semantic meaning in modern English. The form you used pre-dates Diderot's and is attributed to Jean Meslier (but only in derivative works and commentaries). Like Nobel Peace Laureate Mother Teresa, Meslier (born in 1664) was revealed in writings published post-humously to be a confirmed atheist masquerading as Catholic clergy. Since they stopped burning atheists as heretics we can now live amongst you as humans (with full voting rights). The Catholic clergy has to settle for harbouring pedophiles instead these days. Sigh.

Diderot tends to get attributed with the quote regardless. Sure, he was only a philospher and one of the first Encyclopediaists, what would he know? What again is it you do Barry?

I didn't quite understand how I became a Marx follower or dumped in as a "Darwinian", but I'm sure it must have made sense to you when you wrote it Barry. Hint: proof-read it before you hit the "send" button - better still have a sympathetic friend or your psychiatrist go over the finer details of its "reasoning" first. And stay on the medication.

This whole "Darwinian" thing is getting a little tedious. Darwin was mostly right, founded the study of evolution, described the process as Natural Selection but had no idea of DNA, genes or the outstanding work of Watson, Crick, Venter and so many countless individuals that have devoted their lives to building this science, fact by fact, atom by atom into a description of our world that is so verifiable and accurate that it permits not a single base pair to be claimed by your fictious sky fairy. Geneticists died for your spins.

Darwin isn't my god, a saint or some high priest, no matter how many times you say it. Like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris, I respect and admire Darwin, but in the dod-eat-dog, survival of the fittest world of academia, other researchers are scrabbling up their backs to stand on their shoulders for a better view. There is no dogma. There is no god. Scientists must state their case and provide evidence to support it, otherwise don't waste our time. Dawkins is as much a target as anyone else, scientist or not, to be torn down if their logic is shown to be flawed or their hypothesis is not supported by observation.

Having seen your novel description of cosmology and startling grasp of philosphy, history, theology and biology, why don't you take a crack at literature? That stream of unconsciousness you put your name to could be presented better without any spaces and sub-titled "A Homage to James Joyce".

I know for your parasitic theist leaders that the frocks, fetish collars and accessorising with all those funny hats is a lot of fun, but does that really justify tax exemptions, grants and an oft used "get out of jail free" card given to the pious? Maybe a government subsidised travelling drag show would be cheaper entertainment for the great unwashed? Professional Drag Queens also tend to put more care into matching shoes to the rest of the ensemble where the clergy favour drab black leather and never stillettos (in public). Banish the thought of rainbow colours dahling!

The thing I found most offensive about your article Barry, even more than villification of the "Selfish Gene", "End of Faith" and "God is Not Great" without actually reading or understanding the texts, is that you would call a quiet spoken gentleman like Dr Richard Dawkin's a shrieker. I suspect that you must have had the volume too high and running around in apoleptic rage may have doppler shifted the pitch up somewhat. Take a diazapan man, chill a little and....think (for-your-self).

And why do you fear crossing swords with the well known Transubstantiated Host Violator - PZ Meyers of the Pharyngula website? He has received numerous death threats and is cursed worldwide just for ritually abusing a confessional wafer. Surely he too is worthy of your contempt for re-nailing the bread product version of the latest incarnation of your Jesus zombie (as created by the magical waving of hands and mumbling of latin from the holy writ of God's Grimoire). It should be treated with respect and the ritual consumption of Jesus gobbets must be washed down with a good chianti (or whatever rough red the preacher has close at hand).

Labelling me an Aetheist (evangelical even) is just typical of the marginalisation applied by the deluded to the sane. Even you Barry, I suspect, are an a-Zeusian, a-Raian and possibly an a-astrologist. I checked the dictionary, and Aardvark wasn't followed by Aastrologist, so on the same basis A-theist is about as non-sensical as "a-fairyist". As a self-confessed reality denier are you also an a-climate-changist (the gullible often bunch in groups for mutual reinforcement and solace). What a shame god has to be proved on evidence rather than popular vote. Then again, with 2 billion heathen Chinese, even 1 billion Hindus in India wouldn't kick Vishnu over the finish line. Who would have thought all three of the "God" god team (the father, son and the holy ghost) fumbling the baton over to Abrahamic runners Yahweh and Allah still couldn't beat the "no god" non-contestant we atheists didn't enter in your race. And just because we weren't in the photo-finish goes to prove how awesome we are - your puny mind can't even grasp how omnipotent, omniscient or transubstantiated is the divinely revealed, epiphanous nature of the faith required to believe this fundamental truth (roflmao). I will hold out the option that the Flying spaghetti Monster altered the image with Its Noodly Appendage, but we will never know. Trust me.

And this tends to be the pivotal problem with the whole God Delusion to which you cling, it's a memetically transmitted and insidious mind virus. A most toxic pathomeme. It may have less dangerous forms, and certainly I doubt the Hindus, Buddhists and Moslems killed as many in the name of their various gods as the Maya and Incan gods. These worshippers tended to be the victims of Christians rather than the aggressors, but in fairness, most christians were killed by other christian sects and no single non-christian cult, mainstream or otherwise can claim a body count in the ten of millions as can christianity - but most haven't had a stranglehold on their civilisations for the last 2,000 years. Then again, the indirect numbers killed through famine and disease resulting from systematically destroying approximately 8,000 years of accumulated knowledge and science (setting humanity back about 1,200 years) can be counted in the hundreds of millions of dead. Maybe it was necessary to burn all those books and people, but why do stem cell researchers have to be damned to the flames of hell forever? Some of these people are my friends. Methinks all that time in Hitler's Youth, basking in the magnificient and ethical wisdom of Pious's reign went to Ratzinger's head and he now wears a brown shirt under his robes rather than the self-flagellate Opus Dei hairsuit vest of his two predecessors - versions 1.0 and 1.1 of the older model - John Paul (George and Ringo). What a magical mystery tour. Its almost gone full circle, a disinherited Egyptian prince trips out on local hallucinogens, thinks he's getting strangled in bed by god, lops the foreskin off his son and here we are two thousand years later sitting with Lucy in the Sky (one assumes with her gentials unmutilated). Maybe there is something to that papist circular bull.

We are at a cusp, walking a razor's edge with Dark Ages 2.0 on one side and Enlightenment 2.0 on the other and atheists are now claiming disease is a result of virii and bacteria rather than sin. Soon they'll be saying they prefer having polar ice caps, clean water and breathable air. So when we are up to our necks with rising ocean levels will the religious be praying for god to hit the 'smite-with-extreme-prejudice' button and finish the job on we sinners or will they be so enraptured in thrall to their god they are left behind while the rest of us get on with fixing things?

I don't get defensive when exposed to ignorant and uninformed ramblings like yours Barry, but it seems that we atheists are being profiled for every religion's personal hate list - again. And its crowded on that list next to gays, women, Jews, black and all the groups that have been singled out over the millenia. I know it may burst your sanctimonious bubble of supercilliousness, but its been 2,000 years. There is no god, Jesus never existed and sure won't be coming back. Lycurgus scammed the Spartans into stagnation and atrophy the same way - having learned the lesson it would do to pay it heed or degenerate and die as a civilisation like ancient Sparta.

Why are "New Atheists" so challenging when confronted with ignorant religious blathering? Look to this quote from Thomas Jefferson's (and like Diderot's above, it takes many forms, one is):

"Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligble propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."

(Barry - Thomas Jefferson was a politician, look back through your notes or google him).

So Barry, as you sit there smugly in your certitude remember, next time you have a "Job Day", hair a mess, wife has left you, the dog died and the kids have been slaughtered, as earthquakes shake the ground, tsunami's wash over you followed by pestilence, plague and famine, these Acts of (your) God are his way of saying he's your own personal god with a water-boading schedule tailor-made just for you. After all, he loves all his mindless sheep. And after its all over he can replace the family with another. After all, aren't all kiddies born as evil sinners and interchangable if god sees fit (in his infinte wisdom) to kill one he particularly likes?

I pity those members of my family still living in Calgary, such a beautiful city to have fallen so far.

And to the adminstrators and faculty of The University of Calgary, no longer do I have any regrets about not applying to study there at the end of 1976 - the career choices I made, culminating in my now being a self-made unemployed goatherd were obviously far better than being whined to by a religious obsessive from the lecturer's pulpit. Considering your lax academic standards I suspect I am more qualified than your graduates. Barry Cooper has the analytic wisdom of pebbles and short pieces of string.

Contemptuously
Peter McKellar

10. Religions thrived to protect against disease

Comment #221626 by PeterMcKellar on July 29, 2008 at 11:24 pm

I like the last bit about their previous work.

Blame all this trouble and godlessness on giving women the vote!!!

Of course infection rates tend to drop when the community binds together and burns any infidels and heretics that show signs of disease - after all, they MUST be evil for god to punish them that way.

Slaughtering your neighbours tends to be the habit rather than isolating them. Having god on your side always makes you feel better (with god on both sides the winner always gets to claim more piety). This makes for spreading religion not banding together to develop stem cell research and vaccines - but instead to find a common scapegoat and to facilitate the formation of vigilante groups clipping outriders (heretics). Bad governments that "tolerate" religious nutters end up with poor medicine and lots of religions, but the citizens are generally convinced they are right and the obvious evidence of disease around them is just dismissed as their inability to completely get rid of non-believers. Propaganda indicates that they have had success, evidence shows otherwise and the reinforcement just makes it worse again still.

11. Religions thrived to protect against disease

Comment #221624 by PeterMcKellar on July 29, 2008 at 11:06 pm

More shonky non-peer reviewed statistics being carried by tabloid media.

Gee, I wonder if education level and literacy rates are related to the number of religions?

12. Toward a Type 1 civilization

Comment #219909 by PeterMcKellar on July 27, 2008 at 6:40 pm

A couple of thoughts on this article. Firstly, the energy scale (the formal Type 1 classification) is quite separate to the proposed political equivalent or "facilitating" political systems detailed in the article. The first is quite objective and quantitative. The latter is not and seems to be the Sherman's own scale for a political based scale to parallel Sagan's.

Having made the distinction, I tend to agree with the author. I also see this as being one of the most visionary statements I have ever seen in the popular press. Maybe it is pretty high level and offers no solutions, but at least it provides a necessary framework and indicates some directions.

Also, when looking at the Type 1.0 definition I see no real indication of any USA style democracy, nor does it preclude some form of democratic communism, socialist democracies or any of these melded systems. To me I see it more like an "ethical anarchy" with little central control but a high level of legally enforcable consensus.

As for the New World Order, it is there, but in the evolutionary sense that Malthus described. It isn't some club with a secret handshake but the general thrust of a bunch of greedy people trying to out-compete each other. They reinforce their own hates and agendas and use these to justify and finance the next corporate take-over, suppression of competitive ideas, scapegoating and war. Its not even limited to any particular religion but just to the self-appointed "right-thinking people".

I too must agree with Fredrik Svanberg. Things are far from lost. We are walking a cusp, on one side is the slide into another Dark Ages, the other is a potential golden age with local automated food and biofuel production, plenty of fresh water, non-polluting sustainable systems and a flourishing and diverse ecosystem (albeit somewhat warmer).

Nations will remain as political and cultural entities - some functions are still required, but control will be in the hands of individuals working together to forward the win-win zero-plus model, rather than banding together in tribes to gain advantage over the next guy. The EU is an emerging example - each country still exists but most trade and travel restrictions have been removed. The internet can make any cottage industry an multinational business. Today anyone can become a media outlet. As we take on more and more of the high level political and legal systems as individuals, the need for centralisation is decreased. This would tend to favour smaller communities and more diversity - with a central focus and general set of social rules derived from a values derived from the wider community (probably via high speed internet debate and vote).

This is my vision of the future. One with hope, not Shaka's hopelessness. Big Die-offs may happen, but that doesn't mean they must, nor does it mean they are desirable or that the end result produces a generally fitter species. Neither Darwin or Malthus really provide any insight into which way it goes, just that evolution will respond to the conditions, no specific predictions are claimed for what the environment will be at any given time or place or what quirk evolution takes to meet the demand - frequently significantly different from what we would have predicted, sometimes totally unexpected. Good, bad, progress etc don't come into it. If we desire a certain outcome, we must expend energy to reverse the effects of entropy (or let them take off and experience a die-off).

13. Losing Sight of Progress

Comment #215972 by PeterMcKellar on July 22, 2008 at 4:01 pm

Apologies - this post is OT.

I just read a quite funny article in the Sydney Morning Herald re the recent World Youth Day paedophile smorgasboard.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/cutest-little-nipper/2008/07/22/1216492442112.html

What do those wet-blanket aetheists want??? ;)

14. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211311 by PeterMcKellar on July 15, 2008 at 6:26 pm

"Fathers Little Helper" could sell well to parents and maybe boost the numbers of little boys being pushed into "helping" the fathers prepare for communion, alter services and choir practice.

15. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211309 by PeterMcKellar on July 15, 2008 at 6:23 pm

ahhhh, the bliss.

sitting around the rectory's open fire at night, wine and wafers in one hand, a winning hand of "sin-card" strip poker with a few favourite alter boys......

16. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211306 by PeterMcKellar on July 15, 2008 at 6:15 pm

each pack of wafers comes with a "sin" collector card. If you get the whole collection, they can be "redeemed" for a pre-bought "indulgence". Maybe the manufacturer could do a deal with the pope and buy indulgences in bulk cheaper?

anyone considered a kosher or halal wafer just to show we aren't religiously discrimatory? I'm thinking we may need to go with mock-pork though.

Maybe a line of "Christ-Blood" rough red? we could label it "Papal Indulgence" and you could wash down the wafers with it.

17. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211292 by PeterMcKellar on July 15, 2008 at 5:47 pm

Counterfeit Christ Crackers?

thats one way to devalue the currency. Legal, maybe money in it and makes going to confessional on sunday the more expensive alternative? hehehe

18. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211282 by PeterMcKellar on July 15, 2008 at 5:35 pm

In response to elad-usa (and the other many fine posts that always appear here), I would like to give limited support.

As a professional you have provided excellent input here - and the thrust of effective change must come from a self-realisation within the deluded. The one advantage that the clinical environment provides is that the patient is isolated (at least for the period of the session) from delusional reinforcement from peers. Repeated sessions, especially if structured with a goal and strategy can be delivered in a targeted and precise manner.

In dealing with groups rather than individuals, confrontation is the only effective way (I have yet seen) to bring flawed worldviews into focus where they can then be challenged. This is a focussing process, not the challenge. Groups send out champions, authority figures armed with their deadliest memes then do battle (GO DAWK!!). Poisoned rapiers to the groin seem legitimate to the religious - so wear protection (god's magic underpants?). And just because they are playing by the Marquis de Sade rules instead of Queensbury doesn't mean we can't take photos, post them on the net and ridicule their hypocrisy in public.

Society has a number of reinforcement "call-back" routines - Xmas Day, Easter and Thanksgiving. These are the legal, government sanctioned calendar based processes. Within the peer groups of the deluded there are others - mosque on fridays for muslims and church on sunday for xtians. Without quarantine (available in a Mental Health Facility), the individual is reinfected. Like any disease, unless we interfere with the reinfection process (peer reinforcement, call-backs etc) we are fighting a losing battle. Build up immunity (in the victim), but we must also reduce the reinfection from the general population.

The money governments shower on their pious parasites is just like feeding a tumour - and powerful religions tap into the arterial cash flow to ravage their hosts. Just as the genes an HPV virus injects into our genome manifest in the macro world as the tissue mule we know as cancer, Catholicism, Protestenism, Islam, Judeaism and Terrorism are just different cancerous manifestations on the body humanity. The various sects are just like the various forms of cancer - leukemia, melanoma or a terrorblast, with their various morphologies of grotequesness and pathology - with the term 'Cancer" synonymous with "Religion"

It is a two level approach (at least). Treat the patient with compassion and understanding - but they must first be made aware they are infected. A patient hiding in the community, untreated, unaware they are a carrier is just as deadly as Typhoid Mary. No patients can receive treatment and gentle ministrations until they are diagnosed and admitted. Understanding the disease and its effects on the population in general dictates how best to treat individual patients - but we also need a "community health" programme. Keep challenging, questioning and confronting, quietly, loudly - whatever it takes.

my 2c worth ;)

cheers
peter

19. On this Day: Galileo Sentenced for Believing Sun Is Center of Universe

Comment #198047 by PeterMcKellar on June 23, 2008 at 5:27 am

My estimate was 1200 years ahead of now, but I was extrapolating on linear growth - the 1400yrs is probably closer.

Whilst I recognise Cartomancer's defence of the period, I tend to regard it as irrelevant to this argument. Its what came before - and where we would be if that whole christian catastrophe had never happened. Imagine if Copernicus and Galileo never had to go and reinvent all this again and we had a contiguous meme? My estimates put the discovery of Ice on Mars at around 808 CE and the first Martian Colony in 837 CE on the alternate, non-christian timeline (long before either). Who knows, maybe the first interstellar colony around 1000-1100 CE?

All previous civilisations began roughly where the previous civilisation ended (technologically). The knowledge growth rate trended steadily up through Egypt, Greece and Rome. Then a hole is gouged out where the libraries where burned and all the free-thinkers executed. Regardless of if we were still speaking latin or under some other national flag, christianity is a ghastly anomaly, a blight upon humanity.