Talk:RyansWorld: Waning of Christianity

Much to the contrary in your final point... Science and logic can present us with facts. What they cannot provide for us is the answer to the question why. There is a natural ethos to the universe. The more logical people become, the more they will need spiritualism, not less. Without spiritualism of some sort to animate us, we are already dead.

Spiritualism?
Such as a young twenty year old young man as myself. Christianity is very important. I do believe in the afterlife.

Time Travel/Map
Much of this scenario is good. However, there are two big problems.

1. The Seeing in the Past time travel. No research is being made to develop this, no one has any idea of how to develop this, Asimov's story does not mean that there is any active scientific interest in achieving this. Can Muhammad Li, who appears to be the "Ryan" of this Ryan's world, clarify how this is possible? Remember, the mid 21st century is only in a couple decades.

2. Even if we do take it for granted that, somehow,in 20 years we develop this amazing technology, the map is wrong. If this could be used to prove that Jesus was not the Son of God, couldn't it be proven that Muhammad did not really see an angel? I don't see why only one religion would be affected. Also, the map seems messed up. On the map, the largest Buddhist nations are being portrayed as primarily atheist, while nations that are not that Buddhist today are the ones that have switched over to Buddhism. --LurkerLordB 18:03, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

Unethical
No one (NO ONE) has any right to do this. Using such a technology simply to destroy religion (after all, that's all you've implied, Ryan) is unethical in every sense (and possible sense) of the word. I myself am a spiritual agnostic. I believe in some kind of powerful force (just not the occaisionally-too-political dogma of religion). Also, what makes you think the Pope is gonna think: "Oh well, I guess it wasn't true. Science wins". No. Evolution didn't make religon extinct. So I highly doubt something as questionable as your "Chronoscope" is gonna wipe out religion.

In addition, if you invented something like this, you would make the study of history completely obsolete. Its like what we saw in Jurassic Park III: "Why dig up the past when you could just see it for yourself?". This one invention is SO UNETHICAL, I'd fully expect the UN (or your precious, and unrealistic, USE) to ban it on moral, ethical and safety reasons alone. -108.28.37.166

Unethical because it goes against religion and makes history obsolete? This is like saying it is unethical to use TVs, because then people don't have to read newspapers, or saying it is unethical for scientists to dig up fossils that validate evolution.

No, this is unethical for a completely different reason. If anyone has ever read Isaac Asimov's story that this Chronoscope is ripped right out of (with no credit given to Asimov) then they will realize that because .00001 miliseconds ago is in the past, then this is the ultimate spying tool. This destroys all concept of privacy, and, in fact, destroys all government secrets. In fact, it is beyond unethical, it is unsafe, for now terrorists could tell everything about the government. Now, pornographers can take pictures of anyone, anytime, and with this technology, no one can stop them.

That is why this is unethical, immoral, and unsafe., not because it causes trouble for some religions. Plus the fact that the chronoscope is the single most unrealistic idea on this site. So I agree with 108.28.37.166, just for totally different reasons LurkerLordB 19:17, April 3, 2011 (UTC)