Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

38763 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 May 2006 at 2:31 AM (9 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 04:27:38 AM  
Smarshmallow: So not really.

The idea is that the question is pointless. To ask "did X exist" about anyone before the modern era, excluding Roman times, is a pointless question which doesn't prove anything.
 
2006-05-23 04:28:30 AM  
Smarshmallow: Tatsuma, while I agree that the Native Americans are put in an overly glorified, your statement is an equal exaggeration.

Absolutely not. I don't consider any culture which had routine scalping of children who were still alive as a warfare routine way to show your borders to be bloodless and gentle.

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

sorry, it's not a contest, but I definitely wouldn't say they had it worse than the jews either.

DamnYankees: 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.

Nimrod, too. And again, yes, Moshe lived 120 years, but how many days were a "year" for the old hebrew? There is a discrepancy between our history and modern history of about 126 years, especially during the babylonian era.

Smarshmallow: So not really.

see 2006-05-23 04:22:09 AM
 
2006-05-23 04:28:51 AM  
Smarshmallow: 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.

Well, they probably had qualms, but no more or less than Europeans. In war, each side did what they did. Indians killed women and children as much as any European.
 
2006-05-23 04:28:58 AM  
hello? Adam? I mean if you're gonna put Moses and fricken Jesus on the list, why not the one guy who started it all?
 
2006-05-23 04:29:59 AM  
DamnYankees: The idea is that the question is pointless. To ask "did X exist" about anyone before the modern era, excluding Roman times, is a pointless question which doesn't prove anything.

Agreed, but if you're going to make a list of influential people, it loses some oomph, in my opinion, when you include religious figures who may or may not be completely imaginary. Why not list Adam, since he was the first man? That's pretty influential.
 
2006-05-23 04:30:28 AM  
Smarshmallow: 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.

oi, did you study native americans? They were butchering farkwads. So were the european settlers. so were the muslims.

So were pretty much farking everyone in a position of relative power even up to TODAY.

Western civilization ideas of ethics and morals is a thing of post-WW2 mentality.
 
2006-05-23 04:30:59 AM  
Tatsuma: Nimrod, too. And again, yes, Moshe lived 120 years, but how many days were a "year" for the old hebrew? There is a discrepancy between our history and modern history of about 126 years, especially during the babylonian era.

Currently, the lunar (Jewish) calender is 354 days. 120 years of 354 days is 116 years in the solar calender, but then again, we don't know if they had an accurate lunar calender either.
 
2006-05-23 04:31:42 AM  
DamnYankees: Well, they probably had qualms, but no more or less than Europeans. In war, each side did what they did. Indians killed women and children as much as any European.

Although I'd disagree with the "as much" part, since we decimated entire peoples, and they didn't, I'd say yes, both groups were equally human, flaws and all.
 
2006-05-23 04:32:00 AM  
Woooah! what the hell is St Paul doing above Augustus? One guy brought a message of a religion, another brought civil order and repect back into the Roman Empire (greatest ever IMO) and why do people keep thinking Julius Caesar was an Emperor? Augustus was his son (adopted) and the first Roman Emperor, Caesar was just a dictator that never truly established his rule before he was killed.

/gets me so mad
/I blame stupid tv shows like Empire etc
/time for a pot of tea
 
2006-05-23 04:33:34 AM  
I'm with C-Nut. Any list that conflates Shakespeare & de Vere is horse poop.

Tatsuma & Ishidan That's the trend: Everyone was nice & sweet, holding hands & singing 'Kumbaya' while painting flowers on their bodies to show their love of Nature Goddess.

Until the Evil MEN came (it's always men--usually white & Christian) and slaughtered the gentle earth people!

Because before then no one EVER got into any fights because everyone was cherished and loved and sacred and special and no one killed because everyone believed killing is bad and women had all kinds of rights and really ruled while the children ran naked in the sun.

/I hate revisionists
 
2006-05-23 04:33:50 AM  
Smarshmallow: Agreed, but if you're going to make a list of influential people, it loses some oomph, in my opinion, when you include religious figures who may or may not be completely imaginary. Why not list Adam, since he was the first man? That's pretty influential.

Not quite the same. In reality, there was an "Adam." There was someon creature who was the very first homo-sapien. But his existence didn't change the way anyone lived or inspire anyone, really. He just exisited and made is node on the timeline. Jesus, Moses, Krishna, and the rest were men with ideas, morals, and lessons which directly affected people and people still look to.

Adam isn't that. He's just a guy who came along. In the terms of philosophical logic, Adam was a necessary condition to human change. Jesus/Moses/Muhammed were sufficient conditions.
 
2006-05-23 04:33:56 AM  
Smarshmallow: That's pretty influential.

No it's not. What did Adam do? Ate some apple and had sex with Eve.

Not exactly as influencial compared to Moshe, Avraham, JC or Mo'.

Then again, I guess lots of people today ate apples AND have sex, so I could see where you are coming from


DamnYankees: Well, they probably had qualms, but no more or less than Europeans. In war, each side did what they did. Indians killed women and children as much as any European.

sure some individuals might have had qualms about it, but probably nothing that couldn't be dealt with a nice steak and some fur you stole from the fallen
 
2006-05-23 04:33:57 AM  
well, WWJD i say
img132.imageshack.us
 
2006-05-23 04:34:28 AM  
Tatsuma: oi, did you study native americans? They were butchering farkwads. So were the european settlers. so were the muslims.

So were pretty much farking everyone in a position of relative power even up to TODAY.

Western civilization ideas of ethics and morals is a thing of post-WW2 mentality.


Again, there's a difference between doing horrible things, and having no qualms about doing horrible things. If people were settling on my land and killing my people, I'd do horrible things to them too, but I'd likely feel pretty aweful about doing them.
 
2006-05-23 04:34:55 AM  
Smarshmallow: Although I'd disagree with the "as much" part, since we decimated entire peoples, and they didn't, I'd say yes, both groups were equally human, flaws and all.

Well, then that's just a question of who had more firepower. I don't think the Europeans being stronger made then any less moral. Losers just can't be oppressors.
 
2006-05-23 04:36:26 AM  
How is Leonardo DaVinci not on this list? And where is Mozart? Mozart challenged and broke every rule in music of his time- more so than Beethoven or Bach in their time. Not saying those two should not be on the list, but not w/o Mozart.
 
2006-05-23 04:36:38 AM  
DamnYankees: Currently, the lunar (Jewish) calender is 354 days. 120 years of 354 days is 116 years in the solar calender, but then again, we don't know if they had an accurate lunar calender either.

oh, i know about that, what I'm saying is: did they even have a correct 354 days calendar?

It must have been really difficult to keep track, especially while in Exile.


Khazar-Khum: /I hate revisionists

definitely. I think that for some people, Native American History is limited to Disney's Pocahontas and Casinos
 
2006-05-23 04:36:43 AM  
Tatsuma: sure some individuals might have had qualms about it, but probably nothing that couldn't be dealt with a nice steak and some fur you stole from the fallen

See, when you talk like that, you sound like a bigot. Show me some evidence that the average individual native american had no qualms about killing children and women.
 
2006-05-23 04:37:02 AM  
ravenspore: Woooah! what the hell is St Paul doing above Augustus? One guy brought a message of a religion, another brought civil order and repect back into the Roman Empire (greatest ever IMO) and why do people keep thinking Julius Caesar was an Emperor? Augustus was his son (adopted) and the first Roman Emperor, Caesar was just a dictator that never truly established his rule before he was killed.

Very true. I would actually put Diocletian high on the list somewhere, since he doesn't appear. But certainly Augustine of Hippo - even Jerome deserves to be there, I think.

And yes, Augustus was MUCH more important than Caeser. Gauis of the Julii was just a general who took power for three years - Octavian was the guy who made the role of Imperator one that lasted for 500 years in the west and 1500 years in the east. He's the dude. Him and Diocletian.
 
2006-05-23 04:37:17 AM  
DamnYankees

Sumerian writing is as old as the heiroglyphs, and Mesopotamia was settled about the same time as the Nile Valley. So yes, there's quite a bit on civilizations other than Egypt or Greece.
 
2006-05-23 04:38:34 AM  
DamnYankees: Well, then that's just a question of who had more firepower. I don't think the Europeans being stronger made then any less moral. Losers just can't be oppressors.

It doesn't change morals, but it does change the fact that they killed less, making your statement about them killing as many women and children as the europeans did, wrong.
 
2006-05-23 04:38:55 AM  
rhiannon: Hey Homer's on the list. Oops, different Homer...

Another weird one. How the heck does Homer deserve to be on the list? First, he probably wasn't an actual person. And second, the actual impact of the Iliad and Odyssey are mainly as pieces of historicity, not as literature (brilliant as they are as pieces of literature). Why is Homer the important one, but not Achilles? I don't really get Homer being on the list.
 
2006-05-23 04:39:13 AM  
Smarshmallow: If people were settling on my land and killing my people, I'd do horrible things to them too, but I'd likely feel pretty aweful about doing them.

maybe the first time. But since you'd be around 12 or so, you could probably stomach it better. By 17, when you have killed upward 10 people already, you really wouldn't have anymore problems with it.

Don't think that if you were thrown back then, you'd be like you are right now. You'd be different and as full of bloodlust for combat like they all were

DamnYankees: Well, then that's just a question of who had more firepower. I don't think the Europeans being stronger made then any less moral. Losers just can't be oppressors.

exactly
 
2006-05-23 04:40:21 AM  
Khazar-Khum: Sumerian writing is as old as the heiroglyphs, and Mesopotamia was settled about the same time as the Nile Valley. So yes, there's quite a bit on civilizations other than Egypt or Greece.

There's actually very little on Sumerian individuals. We know Gilgamesh and other grander things, but if you can find any roster of regular folk who existed, you let me know. We don't know much about Sumer outside of Enkidu and Utnapishtim, who are all likely fictional.

Same with Mesopotamia. We just have fragments of the monomyth.
 
2006-05-23 04:40:50 AM  
Tatsuma: maybe the first time. But since you'd be around 12 or so, you could probably stomach it better. By 17, when you have killed upward 10 people already, you really wouldn't have anymore problems with it.

Don't think that if you were thrown back then, you'd be like you are right now. You'd be different and as full of bloodlust for combat like they all were


That's not really a reflection on the people, though, it's a reflection on the situation. Anyway, again, you have nothing to back up your claim that the average native American had "no qualms" about killing innocents.
 
2006-05-23 04:41:52 AM  
DamnYankees: We don't know much about Sumer outside of Enkidu and Utnapishtim, who are all likely fictional.

Well, why weren't they on the list next to Moses?
 
2006-05-23 04:42:16 AM  
Smarshmallow: See, when you talk like that, you sound like a bigot. Show me some evidence that the average individual native american had no qualms about killing children and women.

what, that was cultural! You were brought up as a warrior and you gained notoriety as you killed!

You can witness this even today! Watch Rwanda or Sudan! How would it be any different?


Man has the ability to shut himself up when he needs to do something like, say, genocide.

It doesn't change morals, but it does change the fact that they killed less, making your statement about them killing as many women and children as the europeans did, wrong.

the ONLY reason that they killed less people is that they didn't have the firepower to do it.

It's 100% that all the settlers would have been killed, had the Native Americans been able to do it
 
2006-05-23 04:42:40 AM  
my ancestors where drunks. they lost there land, freedom, and language. hell the only word the world still uses commenly, is Whiskey. but give the chance, they would have made a GREAT bunch of oppressors..
/no one would watch a movie about the real william wallace. he was pychotic....
//but thats what it took to win a war back then.
///My family was kick outta scotland fo stealing sheep!
////then let back in, and then they realized it was better back in N.A. so they came back...
 
2006-05-23 04:42:46 AM  
pmc666: 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...

Washington's not just there because of his military prowess (which does rank with those others, by the way), but because of his handling of civilian government. Find me any other brilliant general who was also so damn good at governing and political philosophy, and you may have an argument.
 
2006-05-23 04:43:01 AM  
We've got an ongoing story here where a small group of Native Hawaiians calling themselves Hui Malama i na Kupuna o Hawaii Nei (talkative bunch, yeah they are) has buried over eighty religious artifacts that they took from the local museum under false pretenses, declaring them funerary objects that should be repatriated.

Other native Hawaiian groups have declared them full of shiat, and taken the case to Western court. I've followed this with amusement.

Eventually, the Western judge, Judge David Ezra, threw up his hands and said, 'You folks used to have your own court system, called hooponopono. Try that, and give me a call.'

And so they did. The leader of Hui won't have any of it. Buried they will remain, they declare, despite insistence from these other groups to divulge their location so they can be excavated again. Back in court they are.

What really amused me is that one of the opposition groups counts as a leader a person who can trace her lineage directly back to the alii, or hereditary chiefs. She could have made this argument REALLY SHORT if she wanted to.

Her: "I can trace my lineage back to the kings, which, by our shared culture, makes me royalty. Can you?"
Hui: "No. But I BELIEVE THAT those objects were--"
Her: "Let me try that again. Me queen. You not. STFU and GBTW. I want those items on my desk by this time next week, or I'll have you strangled with a cord made of your own hair."
 
2006-05-23 04:43:46 AM  
Smarshmallow: Well, why weren't they on the list next to Moses?

Because they have zero impact on anyone's lives today, basically. Gilgamesh was probably a real person, though I doubt he had quite the adventures as described.
 
2006-05-23 04:44:24 AM  
Smarshmallow: That's not really a reflection on the people, though, it's a reflection on the situation. Anyway, again, you have nothing to back up your claim that the average native American had "no qualms" about killing innocents.

But my point is not about THEM specifically, it's farking human nature, it's happening right now pretty much everywhere in the world! Social values of the time brought them up like that, that's all there is

Well, why weren't they on the list next to Moses?

christ, because Moshe created a religon from which sprang 3.5 billion followers and I don't see lots of people giving props to Enkidu or Utnapishtim, do you?
 
2006-05-23 04:45:22 AM  
Tatsuma: the ONLY reason that they killed less people is that they didn't have the firepower to do it.

It's 100% that all the settlers would have been killed, had the Native Americans been able to do it


And my only point was that they killed less, not why. Go read my posts before you set up a strawman to topple.

And, now you have to supply evidence not only that the average Native American had "no qualms" about killing innocents, but also that it's "100%" that all of the settlers would have been killed.

Again, it seems to me that you're just unhappy that other groups had it worse than yours.
 
2006-05-23 04:48:21 AM  
Smarshmallow: And, now you have to supply evidence not only that the average Native American had "no qualms" about killing innocents, but also that it's "100%" that all of the settlers would have been killed.

I'm sorry, did you study what they did? I think you should have paid more attention in school.

Again, it seems to me that you're just unhappy that other groups had it worse than yours.

Again, why do you feel the need to rip on my jewishness? We're talking about Native Americans here and it's not a farking contest

"I disagree with you, can't back it up but you just disagree BEACSE UR A JALOUS JEW@@!!!"
 
2006-05-23 04:48:29 AM  
Tatsuma: christ, because Moshe created a religon from which sprang 3.5 billion followers and I don't see lots of people giving props to Enkidu or Utnapishtim, do you?

But Moses is just as likely to be ficitonal as those two figures are. Mesupatamian religions were heavily influential on most religions that followed them, ever heard of a flood story? Their imaginary figures should be held up just as much respect as the judeo-christian
imaginary figures are.
 
2006-05-23 04:49:24 AM  
i like how my points, comments break the intresting debate into small breaks. i would jump into this, but all sides are taken.
/sleepy time!
 
2006-05-23 04:49:26 AM  
Tatsuma: I'm sorry, did you study what they did? I think you should have paid more attention in school.

So I'll take that as a "No," you can't provide me with any evidence to support your wild claim.
 
2006-05-23 04:50:45 AM  
Smarshmallow: But Moses is just as likely to be ficitonal as those two figures are.

Moshe is not a fictional character. You have 100% rights to deny all the metaphysical stuff that happened, but we can trace our lineage and giving of Torah from 2006 to Moshe on Mt Sinai
 
2006-05-23 04:53:10 AM  
Tatsuma: Again, why do you feel the need to rip on my jewishness? We're talking about Native Americans here and it's not a farking contest

Because I've heard it from you before. You seem to have some sort of problem with the Native Americans, and you have little explaination for it. You complain about how the Native Americans are whitewashed by our appologetic culture, but you don't ever seem to have a problem with fact that the same is done for Jewish culture. You get very defensive when it's pointed out that they, as a group, have had it worse than any other culture in modern history.

The only logical conclusion is that you're jealous.
 
2006-05-23 04:54:39 AM  
Tatsuma: Moshe is not a fictional character. You have 100% rights to deny all the metaphysical stuff that happened, but we can trace our lineage and giving of Torah from 2006 to Moshe on Mt Sinai

Hah! Of course, your religious texts say that your religious figure really existed, how ever could I doubt it?
 
2006-05-23 04:58:23 AM  
Ishkur

Your brand of historical revisionism is disgusting and incontrevertibly sophistic. "While Europe was still struggling with the infantile task of literacy..." This is the judgment of a civilized society and proving in some manner cultural superiority (a fallacious claim in and of itself)?
Pakistan has a literacy rate of 48.7% (CIA gov't factbook). Are they infantile as a society?

You failed to cite a single resource in your claims about Muslims between 700 and 1100, and your simplistic explanation about the fall of islam as a parallel of the fall of Rome is simplistic and ridiculous.

You speak of libraries in Damascus, and fail to mention the incredible libraries of Alexandria and Pergamon in previous eras.

Thank god we have 5 words proposed that originate in Arabic. What would the world do without the concept of drugs (an idea prevalent throughout the Hippocratic Oath and Homer's works, see Neoptolemus) or soda?


You overestimate the works of a "society" (see your own work) which has fallen into a social decay because of its obsession with dogma and rigidity. Your attempts to insult western civilization is as groundless as any attempt to degrade eastern civilization. Why don't you wikipedia search for "primary sources" and learn a few things?
 
2006-05-23 04:59:21 AM  
Smarshmallow: So I'll take that as a "No," you can't provide me with any evidence to support your wild claim.

No, no. He means that you never attended public school, where you would have learned that citations are useless and that hearsay is the ultimate form of logical proof.

At any rate, I can't believe people keep bringing up these religious figures in regards to most influential. The average American cares more about money than church. Hell, look at your week: The average person spends 5 days a week working, 1 worshiping, and 1 doing yard work.

The dollar, or more generally, products govern most people's existence. Religion just gets warped towards the ends that society wants, in the middle east they adapt Islam, here in the west we adapt Christianity (or whatever), but ultimately all anyone does is pay lipservice to their profit of choice. None of those hypocrites does anything to approach the religious heights they preach about!

As for the scientists on the list, I consider them extremely influential on my life, but I doubt the average human is any more influenced by Newton than Jesus, at least directly. Einstein's influence is even tougher to assess, try mentioning non-euclidian geometry the next time you're at a party or bar.. chances are noone will chime in. They'd rather talk about the playoffs or their drug of choice.

Sure, you can extrapolate out the influences and try to assess the meta-effects, as these list makers tried to do, but that seems pretty meaningless to me. When everyone wakes up tomorrow chances are they'll barely think on the actions of the people on this list, instead focussing on their immidiate goals...
 
2006-05-23 05:01:31 AM  
i'll be a bigot for a second.
as a canadian, i have a big problem with native's. they made treaties with teh brit's 200 farkin years ago we have to uphold for some reason, they pay no taxes, recive weekly checks, sniff gas, and drink listorein, and biatch about how aweful us white men are.
/sure it's a stereo type, but 60% of them live up to it.
//dont belive me? come to canada, drive through a resver, watch out tho, they tend to walk on the road..
///wishes nova scotia did what Newfoundland did.
////if ya dont get it, look up the Bearatook (i probly didnt spell that right.)
/////*runs for cover before the shiat hits the fan*
 
2006-05-23 05:01:59 AM  
Smarshmallow: Hah! Of course, your religious texts say that your religious figure really existed, how ever could I doubt it?

Again, did you read what I said? We have a lineage of rabbis going back up to him. From today to Moshe.

Because I've heard it from you before. You seem to have some sort of problem with the Native Americans, and you have little explaination for it.

What, are you daft? I really don't care about Native Americans, I just jumped on something that burnt my eyes, the belief that they were peace loving individuals

but you don't ever seem to have a problem with fact that the same is done for Jewish culture.

christ, I just said that:

Tatsuma: I won't deny our history, we wiped out the Amaleks and other tribes who attacked us.

I don't whitewash our history

Discussing with you is a waste of time and I'm done with it.
 
2006-05-23 05:02:28 AM  
The guys who invented gun powder and paper money etc should probably be on that list. Anyone know who they were?
 
2006-05-23 05:05:52 AM  
Man, that last comment was a total rambling mess. This is what happens when you let your fingers walk across the keyboard unsupervised, folks...
 
2006-05-23 05:06:03 AM  
binnster: The guys who invented gun powder and paper money etc should probably be on that list. Anyone know who they were?

I know who they are and I agree with you, this is a shoddy list.

pawn: No, no. He means that you never attended public school, where you would have learned that citations are useless and that hearsay is the ultimate form of logical proof.

it's not hearsay, but where am I supposed to try and explain it to him? Do you realize how huge this task would be? How many groups and splinter groups there were and what they did? Notwhistanding the fact that he's not bothered and he doesn't care and will just throw it away

I stopped trying to bring in sources with him, they are zionists, or propaganda, or shiate, whenever he disagrees with them.
 
2006-05-23 05:09:15 AM  
They did far more horrible things, too (scalping, anyone?)

Now who's being revisionist? NAs learned scalping from us.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not going to assert that NAs were all peace before we got here, but if you're going to criticize someone for being revisionist, at least get your own facts straight.
 
2006-05-23 05:09:37 AM  
Tatsuma: I won't deny our history, we wiped out the Amaleks and other tribes who attacked us.

[several posts later]

I don't whitewash our history


By tacking on "who attacked us" you make it look like the native tribes were the agressors, when in fact that is quite the opposite.

Furthermore, several of the native tribes were quite peaceful, but given current day native populations you can fairly easily extrapolate that those were choked out of existance by the Euro's as well.

Oh well, some of them fought back so they all deserved to die. Their culture was ignorant of our religion, ergo heathens.
 
2006-05-23 05:11:12 AM  
I was born a Catholic but I think a list like this is a load of rubbish. First of all the criteria "most influential" is really vauge and lots of those peoples achievements had fark all to do with religion. I didn't check but if Gallileo is on the list I might just laugh my head off.
Doesn't take into account artistic endevours or anything.
Oliver Cromwell at 41? F*ck off.
 
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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report