Thread:CommanderOz/@comment-30924651-20170310213236/@comment-30924651-20170605150818

CommanderOz wrote: What a way to ruin the storyline, and you happen to spend more effort than I did, unless you recycled it from your other responses.

Anyway...

I don't know how you or any organization is going to remove globalism in real life. And thanks to the internet (that made this very wiki possible), it's near-impossible to bring down in practice. Might as well start exposing the more shady businesses.

The various indigenous peoples who are practicing their harmony with the natural world would like to differ in regards to Christianity's effects (typified by the Spanish conquests). In addition, the witch-hunts, and the infamous trial against Galileo also highlighted the religion's dark side. What I personally took offence at is the church's other trial against Giordano Bruno, the first notable man who came up with the idea of exoplanets (given I like astronomy), but his case is just one of many.

Science, as important as it is, must not be used for propaganda. If an invention or discovery contradicts with commonly-held beliefs, and is verified by repeated experiments, then possibly 90% of people are wrong, even fractally wrong. Which makes the combined goals of Science and (fundamentalist) Christianity questionable at best.

Traditional values? That's vague-ish and possibly misleading. If its the traditional values of an enlightened, modern, logic-focused, progressive society then I'm fine. If it's of a barbarian state in the Middle Ages then we have a problem.

...but even then I don't know how progressive you are, given you're not American (and this wiki is diverse). > I don't know how you or any organization is going to remove globalism in real life.

Ba'ath, Eurasism, Alt-Right.

> And thanks to the internet (that made this very wiki possible), it's near-impossible to bring down in practice.

Well, there is a difference between destroying any thing that is keeping world together and fighting globalism.

> The various indigenous peoples who are practicing their harmony with the natural world

"harmony with nature"

> In addition, the witch-hunts, and the infamous trial against Galileo also highlighted the religion's dark side. What I personally took offence at is the church's other trial against Giordano Bruno, the first notable man who came up with the idea of exoplanets (given I like astronomy), but his case is just one of many.

At first no man or woman was ever executed by Church. It was the State that executed them. Only thing that Church did was telling that someone is heretic and why. And the State could decide thet they dislike heretics and want to kill them. Not Church. The State. At second many of executed by kings and dukes poeple were really dangerous people and they had a lot of dangerous belifes. That was a time of occultists and alchemics who simply could just start sacraficing babies or paing women. And is someone uses some strange instruments to have "a knowledge about things that are OUTSIDE..." and starts yelling "There is no God!" and "There are giant stone balls in the air" after it of course they will think he is occultist. What was such an age. At third those were concrete cases in concrete places and you cannot condem whole Christianity for exacution of one man. At fourth I'm Orthodox and Byzantium was a center of science and culture, so that's not related to me.

> Science, as important as it is, must not be used for propaganda. If an invention or discovery contradicts with commonly-held beliefs, and is verified by repeated experiments, then possibly 90% of people are wrong, even fractally wrong. Which makes the combined goals of Science and (fundamentalist) Christianity questionable at best.

Only thing that I understood from that is that you want to say that Christianity is wring because many people in the world are wrong. Right? I'm just bad in English, maybe you meant something other.

> Traditional values? That's vague-ish and possibly misleading.

Okay. Lets say Christian values and these traditional values that are not against basic human morality and Christian values.

> If its the traditional values of an enlightened, modern, logic-focused, progressive society then I'm fine.

Give definitons of those terms. From some viewpoint ISIS is  an enlightened, modern, logic-focused, progressive society too.

> If it's of a barbarian state in the Middle Ages then we have a problem.

Well, Byzantium wasn't barbarian.

> ...but even then I don't know how progressive you are, given you're not American (and this wiki is diverse).

Once again, give me a definition of "progressiviness". "Progress" means changing. In which way should my values be changing to be "progressive"?