If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   The 100 most influential people in history and their religions   (adherents.com) divider line 427
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

38758 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 May 2006 at 2:31 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



427 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-05-23 03:10:12 AM
ChickenAndRice: How is Gandhi not on this list?

That's a good question. But, it's just a book/list after all. The book was first published in 1978, so it's a bit dated.
 
2006-05-23 03:12:03 AM
On the Occums Razor argument:

We know that a lot of people were writing about some guy named Jesus roughly around the year 100. Many of those people had different viewpoints about exactly what this Jesus guy was (in addition to the canonical Gospels/letter you have lots of Gnostic texts that can have quite different takes on Jesus). Regardless, its hard to explain how all these people who didnt really have anything to do with each other were writing about this guy at around the same time if he never existed. Yeah, it can be done, but its a lot simpler to say that some historical guy stirred up some trouble and lots of people had different views on it than to say that lots of people had different religious views on some guy that was made up in the first place.
 
2006-05-23 03:13:50 AM
I don't understand the poing of ordering these kinds of lists. Werner Heisenberg shouldn't break the top 50. He was brilliant, but he is not "influential" outside of quantum mechanics (and matrix) mechanics. I didn't see a single Hapsburg on the list, which seems odd to me. Pope Urban II is in the lower 50?

I'm a chemist, and I generally think that scientists get the short end of the stick on these kinds of lists, but there are too many here. Rutherford has no business being above Jefferson, Cortes, or Stalin.

All in all, I guess the top 11 isn't too bad, thought the order itself could be picked at. Pasteur did some amazing work, which I would argue is more influential than Einstein's concerning the flow of human history. Then again, Einstein did write FDR a letter outlining the importants of a nuclear program.
 
2006-05-23 03:16:53 AM
No man: Why do you think that? Don't you think the study of historical figures is important? Just asking.


The study of historical figures is very important. Arbitrarily carving down the millions of people who have changed the course of history, putting them in numerical order, and then specifying their religion seems like a gimmick to sell books. The psychology of the author is more on display than real history. Just my opinion...
 
2006-05-23 03:17:13 AM
Krazikarl

But even so, that doesn't substantiate a belief in such a figure's existence or the actions attributed to him. If there's so many versions of the story, perhaps these were multiple 'Jesuses' and the stories were adapted to fit together.
 
2006-05-23 03:17:40 AM
Also gotta agree with ChickenandRice about Gandhi. Yes, I am Indian. Yes, I think Martin Luther King Jr. was an incredible person and deserves to be recognized, but he himself cited Gandhi as his primary influence throughout. Also, consider the extent of their respective influences. I'm not saying civil rights is a small issue, but India is the world's biggest democracy, and that's kind of a big deal, unless you're completely Western-centric in your thinking. Oh wait....
 
2006-05-23 03:17:42 AM
2006-05-23 03:09:21 AM Ishkur

So what the hell happened to them?
 
2006-05-23 03:18:49 AM
Zoroastrians Represent!

Actually, there were only two of em on the list. And normally I don't like to make a big deal out of religion.

But when you're a member of a dying religion, it's nice to see it referenced somewhere.
 
2006-05-23 03:19:37 AM
PS to my last comment:
Yes, I did skimTFA and I do realize MLK is not on the list. Apologies if my post implies otherwise.
 
2006-05-23 03:21:27 AM
Amazing. No Leonardo DaVinci in the top 100.
And JFK IS on the list? Stalin ONLY #66? How many millions of people died because of him?

I disagree with the list.
 
2006-05-23 03:21:52 AM
ChickenAndRice

Eh? Gandhi was a proponent of peaceful processes in all parts of life. It's clear that here in the "west" noone has even heard of this philosophy, bucause they're all farking assholes!

Ergo, Gandhi has very little impact on the world.

/I kid, and agree with you. Aside from me he was the most glaring absence from the list.
 
2006-05-23 03:22:12 AM
Ishkur

looks like the lands of islam had a huge case of
leo.customer.netspace.net.au
 
2006-05-23 03:23:06 AM
Confucius, founder of Confucianism. Calvin, founder of Calvinism, Marx, founder of Marxism. Why is it no-one talks about the prophet Hotji?
 
2006-05-23 03:25:46 AM
Krazikarl: The gist of it is is that although some people do believe that Jesus didnt exist historically, the VAST majority of historians do believe that he existed as a person.

I understood your "gist", however, just because the VAST majority believe it does not PROVE it. Read this website (very biased, but well documented)

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Occums Razor indeed!
 
2006-05-23 03:32:16 AM
Erm - Marxism is a relgion?

But the rest of the site - wow! Did you know George Washington is a more influential military leader than Ghengis Khan, Napeoleon, or Attila the Hun? Right...
 
2006-05-23 03:32:32 AM
Any list that claims Hitler was not a Christian is instantly voided. Though I do love the reasoning that he was just a Nazi who hated Jews..... good one, that!
 
2006-05-23 03:33:08 AM
I found this quote from Albert Einstein from the reference from his listing on the page.

"Mere unbelief in a personal God is no philosophy at all."

Unfortunately, I am unable to locate the context of the quote. As I know that Einstein did not believe in a personal deity, I suspect, but cannot prove, that the quote is taken out of context and misused by many theists. Does anyone have a reference to the full text of the letter?
 
2006-05-23 03:33:16 AM
Ishidan: So what the hell happened to them?


Like the Romans: Invasions. Lots of them. From all sides. From everybody. First, there was the ride of a new Persian aristocracy who wanted to restore the old Persian empire, and moved the capital to Baghdad so the empire could be more Persian-centrid. This didn't sit well with the North African provinces, and so the empire split in two, between the Umayyid-favored Egyptian caliphs and the Persian controlled Abbasids.

So they hired mercenaries to fight this civil war (because there was a statute that no muslim is allowed to kill another muslim), and then the mercenaries turned on them. They created a warrior slave class, and they rebelled too. To make things worse, out of farking nowhere come these annoying nomadic step-hunters from the east who just sacked everything in sight.

AND THEN on top of all that going on are these annoying, yellow-haired heathens from the west who kept showing up in the holy land every 100 years or so, slaughtering everyone they met.

Suffice to say that when the dust settled 300 years lat...no, wait. 500 years later.....actually, 800.....okay, the dust hasn't really settled.
 
2006-05-23 03:35:46 AM
No Edward Teller, father of the H-bomb and the "Star Wars" system, as well as a major force behind the massive arms buildup during the cold war?

I'd think the guy who's largely responsible for the fact that there's *still* almost 20,000 nukes on the planet should get a mention.

meh.
 
2006-05-23 03:36:17 AM
Double-planet hypothesis

Several characteristics of the Earth-Moon system distinguish it from the satellite systems of most other planets in the Solar System, including the unusually large relative size of the Moon, its great orbital distance from Earth, and the fact that the Moon's path around the Sun is always concave to the Sun, like that of the Earth (but unlike that of most other satellites in the Solar System). As a result, some observers hold that the Earth-Moon system is a double planet rather than a planet with a satellite. For more information on these alternative views, see the double planet article.

/The More You Know
//I still think the article is bunk.
 
2006-05-23 03:37:26 AM
king cranium maximus IV: looks like the lands of islam had a huge case of

You have no idea.

They had it all, but like all empires, got greedy with their gains, and in the end wasted their energy infighting while other civilizations mobilized and surpassed them.

I can see this same pattern happening right now in America.....while red staters and blue staters polarize the country, China is racing forward....
 
2006-05-23 03:41:10 AM
Ishkur
I can see this same pattern happening right now in America.....while red staters and blue staters polarize the country, China is racing forward....

So what next? The Canadians are going to sweep down from the tundra with their muskets from 1812?
 
2006-05-23 03:42:12 AM
Krazikarl

The Jesus Mysteries is an excellent read as well. Sort of related to the occam's razor argument, so I thought I would throw it in.

The Jesus Mysteries (no pops)
 
2006-05-23 03:46:08 AM
Kurmudgeon

Actually, the writer of that tidbit probably saw Battlefield Earth several times, like any good scientologist. Any time you see our-home.org, think scientology shill unless proven otherwise.
 
2006-05-23 03:47:54 AM
Krazikarl: Any fool knows better than to stick anything related to religion into google and expect good answers

And then you followed that up with a reference to Wikipedia?

Hm...

Dimensio: Unfortunately, I am unable to locate the context of the quote.

The above notwithstanding, Google is your friend. That quote is from a letter Einstein wrote to an Iowa student, who asked him what is god? However, I can't find the exact context or a fuller quotation.

But, another Einstein quote on the subject perhaps illuminates what he was trying to say:
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."
 
2006-05-23 03:51:16 AM
#26: George Washington. First president of the United States.

WRONG!

#26 George Washington. First ELECTED president of the United States.

Correct.
 
2006-05-23 03:54:14 AM
Ishkur

the gist of this:
www.tshirthell.com
is pretty much right with the islamic world.

/i'm a jerk
//sorry
///i'm drunk
 
2006-05-23 03:54:24 AM
The moon belongs to America.
--------------------------------------
Correct. Going to bed. Try to read the rest of the thread tomorrow.
 
2006-05-23 03:59:15 AM
The problem with any such list is that it's easy to tell what impact religious leaders and warlords have had. The impact of scientists, while quite large, is usually so subtle and abstract that it's very hard to rank them. Sure, you can throw in Newton and Galileo and Einstein, but who do you even put down for discovering DNA, and how do you rank any of them in respect to anyone else or even each other? And forget even trying to put artists and poets/playwrights/fiction writers in; you've got maybe Shakespeare and DaVinci, and then you get into arguments all over the place.
 
2006-05-23 04:01:25 AM
Abraham was far more influential than Mohammed or Jesus.

There are 3 religions and 3.5 billion followers who base their beliefs on him. I somewhat think this is note-worthy
 
2006-05-23 04:02:55 AM
Ishkur
I'd say they started going down at about the "hired mercenaries" point on the list. That's where the real hair splitting "I can't kill another Muslim, but if I pay this infidel to do the killing, it's all good. Never mind that I commissioned it, I didn't do it myself so I'm fine." seems to begin.

2006-05-23 03:18:49 AM Persepolis
But when you're a member of a dying religion, it's nice to see it referenced somewhere.

So, does Vilma still shave the genitals of her disciples?

/nothing like a shorn scrotum
//it's breathtaking
///I highly suggest you try it
 
2006-05-23 04:05:12 AM
king cranium maximus

Native Americans: Should have fought harder, you pussies"

Well, if you know your history, they did fight pretty damn hard, against staggering odds, but when your enemy is sending troops in to murder women and children after luring the warriors away, and giving smallpox-infected blankets to you as a "peace offering", and is following a schedule of genocide, and has a slight technological advantage in that your people are still basically at the edge of the stone age while the enemy is on the cusp of the industrial age... Well, there's not much hope no matter how hard you fight.

The Muslims are in a very different situation. They're not as trusting as the Native Americans were, and they are roughly even (or at least close) when it comes to technological capabilities.

/part Cheyenne
//If I'd been there, we'd have kicked whitey's ass.
 
2006-05-23 04:06:56 AM
C-Nut: An uninterrupted string of guys moving into a leadership role and changing their name to Moses whenever the old Moses kicked the bucket.

Moshe was not a The Dreadful Pirate Roberts.

We have a clear succession lines of who received Torah from Moshe to Today. The list of all the official rabbis of every generation. We are very meticulous about it.

Dead Farker Walken: because traditional Judaism rejected and aided in the crucifixion of Jesus, so what gives?

whoa whoa whoa there. "The jews killed Christ!1!" much?

The Romans, not the jews, killed Jesus and Judaism had nothing to do with that.
 
2006-05-23 04:09:38 AM
I would've put Ghengis Khan a lot higher myself. He's got something like 16 million male descendants alive today. Without even mentioning his other considerable achievements, that's quite an influence.
 
2006-05-23 04:10:13 AM
Holly_Wight: Well, if you know your history, they did fight pretty damn hard, against staggering odds, but when your enemy is sending troops in to murder women and children after luring the warriors away

I hate the revisionist "The NA were peaceful, loving people who were all murdered by the evil White Man"

Native Americans were a bunch of butchers. They were very bloody and extremely violent and had no qualms about killing women and children, probably even more so than the White Settlers.

They did far more horrible things, too (scalping, anyone?)


Not saying that the Settlers acted in the right way, but the indians were not even close from being peaceful and nice, relaxed boys
 
2006-05-23 04:10:15 AM
2006-05-23 04:05:12 AM Holly_Wight
Well, if you know your history, they did fight pretty damn hard, against staggering odds, but when your enemy is sending troops in to murder women and children after luring the warriors away, and giving smallpox-infected blankets to you as a "peace offering", and is following a schedule of genocide

America.

We fought dirty to get this powerful. Genocide, biological warfare, crooked deals, guerrilla warfare, you name it.

Now that we're here, we insist you fight standing up, where we can whip you.

Ah, yes. Rules are great so long as they are for somebody else.
 
2006-05-23 04:15:12 AM
Tatsuma: Abraham was far more influential than Mohammed or Jesus.


Is there any (secular) doccumentation or evidence that Abraham actually existed?
 
2006-05-23 04:17:53 AM
So a pedophile shyster came in at #1 and a hypothetical half-man, half God made number 3?

If this list is going to be so biased towards religious figures it might as well have put Moses, the original magic mushroom man, above the johnny come lately copycats Mohammed and St Paul. I mean, Mohammed carved out an empire for the religion of peace(tm) by raping and pillaging countless indigenous faiths and people from the map. St Paul made me waste a couple Sunday mornings in Church.
But instead Moses ranks above... Darwin?

/Fell for ultimate flame thread. Don't make the same mistake I did.
 
2006-05-23 04:18:11 AM
2006-05-23 04:10:13 AM Tatsuma
I hate the revisionist "The NA were peaceful, loving people who were all murdered by the evil White Man"

Snnrrrk. I get that too, with the Native Hawaiians. Horse puckey, Native Hawaiians had wars just like everybody else.

I especially like when they bring up Kamehameha. Kamehameha the Great united the islands!

No, he CONQUERED the islands. His warriors slew the local chiefs, eventually chasing them up the side of the mountain and THROWING THEM OFF.
 
2006-05-23 04:19:33 AM
Holly_Wight

human movement and conquering are part of the history of our species.

suck it up. you got pwnt.
 
2006-05-23 04:21:18 AM
Smarshmallow: Is there any (secular) doccumentation or evidence that Abraham actually existed?

*snort*
I first thought you were referring to Lincoln.
/going to bed
 
2006-05-23 04:21:24 AM
Smarshmallow: Is there any (secular) doccumentation or evidence that Abraham actually existed?

It goes both way, actually. Some say there are proofs, others say that there is not, point is:

It's very hard to determine if one particular man who was not a king really lived 18th Century BCE
 
2006-05-23 04:22:09 AM
Smarshmallow: Is there any (secular) doccumentation or evidence that Abraham actually existed?

Is there any secular evidence of anyone besides Egyptians from pre-Greek eras? Not much of anything.
 
2006-05-23 04:22:43 AM
Tatsuma: They were very bloody and extremely violent and had no qualms about killing women and children, probably even more so than the White Settlers.


Tatsuma, while I agree that the Native Americans are put in an overly glorified, your statement is an equal exaggeration.

It looks to me like you're threatened by the fact that some other ethnic groups have had it harder than the Jews.
 
2006-05-23 04:23:56 AM
C-Nut: I like the guy who's brave enough to write in that Moses probably never existed and as such, probably shouldn't even be on the list, much less #15 of 100. I agree since we all know no one can live for 900 freaking years!

Moses didn't live 900 years. That was Mathuselah. Moses lived 120 years, which is still a lot, but possible. Truthfully they prolly didn't know how long he lived since calenders were rather primitive. We don't really know what a 'year' was to them.
 
2006-05-23 04:24:06 AM
DamnYankees: Is there any secular evidence of anyone besides Egyptians from pre-Greek eras? Not much of anything.

Tatsuma: It goes both way, actually. Some say there are proofs, others say that there is not, point is:

It's very hard to determine if one particular man who was not a king really lived 18th Century BCE



So not really.
 
2006-05-23 04:24:13 AM
no charles martel on the top 100 or runners up. crazy. this post might have been in arabic if it weren't for the battle of tours.
 
2006-05-23 04:24:52 AM
Ishidan: Snnrrrk. I get that too, with the Native Hawaiians. Horse puckey, Native Hawaiians had wars just like everybody else.

I especially like when they bring up Kamehameha. Kamehameha the Great united the islands!

No, he CONQUERED the islands. His warriors slew the local chiefs, eventually chasing them up the side of the mountain and THROWING THEM OFF.


yes, of course

"Oh, everyone where barbarians.. but us!"

I won't deny our history, we wiped out the Amaleks and other tribes who attacked us. I'd love if it we could have lived peacefully, but new-age, flower power ideas of "let's get along, everyone" was not exactly the staple of 1000 BCE.

You had to defend yourself and your territory. That's what we did. Others did less, others did more, thing is, we're not back then and we can only move on. To sugarcoat it and say we did nothing wrong is just a lie when history/texts brings proof that it wasn't the case
 
2006-05-23 04:25:41 AM
Smarshmallow: Tatsuma, while I agree that the Native Americans are put in an overly glorified, your statement is an equal exaggeration.

It looks to me like you're threatened by the fact that some other ethnic groups have had it harder than the Jews.


Not really - the idea of the "noble savage" is just BS. The Europeans were brutal, and the Indians were brutal. There are alot of ways in which Indians were much more brutal and vicious according to our standards. Look into the Crow method of battlefield mutilation - it's pretty farking sick.

Neither group was particularely civil.
 
2006-05-23 04:27:20 AM
DamnYankees: Not really - the idea of the "noble savage" is just BS. The Europeans were brutal, and the Indians were brutal. There are alot of ways in which Indians were much more brutal and vicious according to our standards. Look into the Crow method of battlefield mutilation - it's pretty farking sick.

That's not exactly the same thing as having "no qualms" about killing women and children. My point is only that exaggerating history in either direction is equally wrong.
 
Displayed 50 of 427 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report