Spin-off: 10 Most influential people of all time.

[goofball]

This one is really tough. I haven't even come up wiht 10 names yet, but my current ideas are:

Aristotle, Jesus, Gutenberg, Newton all as very solid.

Plato and Socrates, Julius Caesar, Ghengis Khan, Moses, the rest of the locks from the last millenia list (luther darwin copernicus einstin) are all in contention.

But all time is really [censored] tough.

edit - i don't actually know if julius caesar was the one who made the meditarranean the "roman lake" but whoever that was...

[CallMeIshmael]

Ive got 4 off the top of my head... I'll keep thinking

IMO 1,2 and 3 are pretty much not even debatable.

1. Jesus
2. Muhammad
3. Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha)
4. Confucius

[goofball]

i was just about to say nice ones, but then i realized. haaving all the first 3 on the list sort of takes away from it for me. They all sorta did the same thing, just in different areas in the world, and humanity being what it is it almost seens like the things they did were things that 'needed' to happen. i dunno, is that clear at all?

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
i was just about to say nice ones, but then i realized. haaving all the first 3 on the list sort of takes away from it for me. They all sorta did the same thing, just in different areas in the world, and humanity being what it is it almost seens like the things they did were things that 'needed' to happen. i dunno, is that clear at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well... this is part of the arugment with pretty much everyone: IF they didnt exist, someone else would have done it anyway. So... you cant count them, right?

I say wrong, because, frankly they DID it. And that is the influence.

Nothing is anywhere near the Jesus/Muhammad 1/2 combo in terms of changing the way we think, and affecting how we act.

Also... its not like IF Muhammad didnt exist, Jesus would just be more famous, because of how information has been limited in terms of expansion until fairly recently.

[goofball]

my point wasn't really hte "if they didn't somoene else would have" I should have been more clear. My point was that they both did essentailly the same thing.
I mean, like you said, say jesus doesn't exist, doesn't muhammad's teaching just spread further and vice versa? I dunno, takes a little away for me.I'm not really attempting to argue that they don't belong, just voicing a vague feeling/concern.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
my point wasn't really hte "if they didn't somoene else would have" I should have been more clear. My point was that they both did essentailly the same thing.
I mean, like you said, say jesus doesn't exist, doesn't muhammad's teaching just spread further and vice versa? I dunno, takes a little away for me.I'm not really attempting to argue that they don't belong, just voicing a vague feeling/concern.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ahh... my bad. I see what you mean. And its an interesting point.


But, I think its tough to tell. Because, it would be difficicult for say, Jesus' teachings to have reached the entire world until not too long ago. So, I would say no, and that several people with those sort of philosophical thoughts had to exist.

But, I have no way to back that up, AND its quite debatable.

[quinn]

It seems to me like the correct secular standpoint on this is that Muhammad is more influential than Jesus. This is for a few reasons:
1. Muhammad was the chief proselytizer of his religion, Jesus was not. (Though they were both founders)
2. Muslims follow what Muhammad said more closely than Christians follow what Jesus said, in general.

Of course, if Jesus really did save the world from its sin, then obviously Jesus is more influential.

[CallMeIshmael]

I actually said in an OOT post the 1 and 2 were debatable because of how much more adherant to Muhammad Muslims are compared to Christians to Jesus.

But, I think its still Jesus at #1, because of:

1. More followers (2ish vs 1.3 ish, IIRC)
2. More widespread worship (global coverage is greater)
3. The countries that are 'more important' globally are predominantly Christian. By which I mean, say, the G-8.

[Brainwalter]

I don't understand how darwin is so high on these lists. I fail to see how his ideas actually changed the course of world events on anywhere near a Newton or Jesus level, or even a Merriwether Lewis level.

Explain yourselves.

[boncher]

Jesus Christ
Muhammad
Buddha
Confucious
Aristotle
Columbus
St. Paul
Einstein
Darwin
Galileo Galilei

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus Christ
Muhammad
Buddha
Confucious
Aristotle
Columbus
St. Paul
Einstein
Darwin
Galileo Galilei

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah see, one of those does not beling IMO.

[goofball]

several of those do not belong.

Columbus, Galeleo, and I agree with you on darwin now that i've thought about it for a bit. I think he belongs on the century list but not the all time list though.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
I don't understand how darwin is so high on these lists. I fail to see how his ideas actually changed the course of world events on anywhere near a Newton or Jesus level, or even a Merriwether Lewis level.

Explain yourselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly, me and drudman were talking about this yesterday.

also, some guy said gandhi? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
also, some guy said gandhi? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying Gandhi is bad for just the all time list, or both?

I agree he is absurd for the all time list, but not that far removed from the top 10 of the millenium (probably top 30 or so)

[goofball]

yeah. ghandi shouldn't be considered for the all time lsit, not even close. I was just repeating names from my millenium list to get things started.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah. ghandi shouldn't be considered for the all time lsit, not even close. I was just repeating names from my millenium list to get things started.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, Gandhi wasnt mentioned in this thread until Daryn. Which is why Im confused as to which list he meant /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand how darwin is so high on these lists. I fail to see how his ideas actually changed the course of world events on anywhere near a Newton or Jesus level, or even a Merriwether Lewis level.

Explain yourselves.

[/ QUOTE ]


In addition to monumentally changing biology, you cant overlook a side effect of his work:

His affect on the current state of religion is massive. No one is more responsible for the seperation of science and religion than Darwin.

There are a billion atheists/agnostics in the world. Now, Im not about to claim that Darwin is solely respsonsible for their lack of faith in God. But, I would also say that it isnt just a coincidence that the Darwin fish is the only symbol I know for the atheist/agnostic subset.

[Prevaricator]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand how darwin is so high on these lists. I fail to see how his ideas actually changed the course of world events on anywhere near a Newton or Jesus level, or even a Merriwether Lewis level.

Explain yourselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

The implications of Darwin's theory collide with and intrude upon several areas of set beliefs.

Religion: evolution conflicts directly with creationism, that should be obvious. I'd assume most people of the board would agree that creationism has been debunked, but without Darwin that certainly would not be the case. This also tests the question of "is there a god" to a certain degree, and definitely tests the question of "is there a judeo-christain god" and the validity of the scripture. When evolution suggests that the world could be much much older than people imagined, questions arise.

Social Darwinism: The notion of "survival of the fittest" made people wonder how they fit into the evolutionary scheme of things. This idea links into the eugenics movemnt which leads right into Hitler's formulation of a master race. Without Darwin, this wouldn't happen quite like this.

Biology: Obviously the theory of evolution has done a lot to aid the understanding of biology, affecting everything up to present day issues such as stem cell research, pathology, etc. Evolution governs these issues because it explains them. Without the understanding that evolution provides, we could not track the development of disease, nor would we care. Without Darwin, if Watson and Crick still discover DNA, they miss the big picture.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
The implications of Darwin's theory collide with and intrude upon several areas of set beliefs.

Religion: evolution conflicts directly with creationism, that should be obvious. I'd assume most people of the board would agree that creationism has been debunked, but without Darwin that certainly would not be the case. This also tests the question of "is there a god" to a certain degree, and definitely tests the question of "is there a judeo-christain god" and the validity of the scripture. When evolution suggests that the world could be much much older than people imagined, questions arise.

Social Darwinism: The notion of "survival of the fittest" made people wonder how they fit into the evolutionary scheme of things. This idea links into the eugenics movemnt which leads right into Hitler's formulation of a master race. Without Darwin, this wouldn't happen quite like this.

Biology: Obviously the theory of evolution has done a lot to aid the understanding of biology, affecting everything up to present day issues such as stem cell research, pathology, etc. Evolution governs these issues because it explains them. Without the understanding that evolution provides, we could not track the development of disease, nor would we care. Without Darwin, if Watson and Crick still discover DNA, they miss the big picture.

[/ QUOTE ]


Very well said.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
yeah. ghandi shouldn't be considered for the all time lsit, not even close. I was just repeating names from my millenium list to get things started.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, Gandhi wasnt mentioned in this thread until Daryn. Which is why Im confused as to which list he meant /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

i was talking about the other post, last 1000 years or whatever.

[Chairman Wood]

I'm curious to think what people think of Abraham. Without him, no Jesus, no Muhammed.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious to think what people think of Abraham. Without him, no Jesus, no Muhammed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was hesitant to put OT figures on the list (for obvious reasons)

But, if you are, Abraham must be counted. Of course, Adam is a lock at #1 if you include OT figures.

[tbach24]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious to think what people think of Abraham. Without him, no Jesus, no Muhammed.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were to go that root I think you would have to include Moses and Noah because without them there would be no Abraham. Or am I messing up the timeline? Same goes to Adam as CMI said.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand how darwin is so high on these lists. I fail to see how his ideas actually changed the course of world events on anywhere near a Newton or Jesus level, or even a Merriwether Lewis level.

Explain yourselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

The implications of Darwin's theory collide with and intrude upon several areas of set beliefs.

Religion: evolution conflicts directly with creationism, that should be obvious. I'd assume most people of the board would agree that creationism has been debunked, but without Darwin that certainly would not be the case. This also tests the question of "is there a god" to a certain degree, and definitely tests the question of "is there a judeo-christain god" and the validity of the scripture. When evolution suggests that the world could be much much older than people imagined, questions arise.

Social Darwinism: The notion of "survival of the fittest" made people wonder how they fit into the evolutionary scheme of things. This idea links into the eugenics movemnt which leads right into Hitler's formulation of a master race. Without Darwin, this wouldn't happen quite like this.

Biology: Obviously the theory of evolution has done a lot to aid the understanding of biology, affecting everything up to present day issues such as stem cell research, pathology, etc. Evolution governs these issues because it explains them. Without the understanding that evolution provides, we could not track the development of disease, nor would we care. Without Darwin, if Watson and Crick still discover DNA, they miss the big picture.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice post. I would also like to add psychology to the list of fields that Darwin had an enormous impact on. Darwin in effect removed man from his pedestal and made him into just another animal. An astounding animal, no doubt, but an animal just the same. I don't think the impact of what Darwin's work means to the human psyche can be understated.

[pryor15]

[ QUOTE ]
also, some guy said gandhi? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

ghandi introduced the principles of non violence that were key to the civil rights movement and have carried over to multiple movements since then (suffrage, gay rights, etc). he is the driving force for MLK

still probably shouldn't make the top 10

[tbach24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
also, some guy said gandhi? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

ghandi introduced the principles of non violence that were key to the civil rights movement and have carried over to multiple movements since then (suffrage, gay rights, etc). he is the driving force for MLK

still probably shouldn't make the top 10

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but didn't he learn those from Thoreau

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
also, some guy said gandhi? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

ghandi introduced the principles of non violence that were key to the civil rights movement and have carried over to multiple movements since then (suffrage, gay rights, etc). he is the driving force for MLK

still probably shouldn't make the top 10

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but didn't he learn those from Thoreau

[/ QUOTE ]


I dont think Gandhi is top 10 or anything, but, he was far and away the most influential person on the movement for the indepdence of India. I mean, that alone cant be overlooked. Add to that the influences he had on others (mentioned above), and he was pretty influential.