Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Medieval Science Persecution Myth

Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2014 8:59:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This always gets trotted out by atheists, so I'd like to shed a little light on the reasons why there seemed to be no scientific advancement during the medieval age, and why it is a myth to say the Church caused that to happen.

The "dark ages" occurred because the Roman Empire collapsed. This was NOT due to the spread of Christianity. Rome had been in decline for hundreds of years before it accepted Christianity as an official religion. Plagues, barbarian attacks across it's borders, and other incidents, caused massive loss of life and resulted in people becoming increasingly dependent on hand-outs from the Roman Senate. The attacks in particular cost Rome many of it's skilled craftsmen and engineers, and as a result Rome's infrastructure fell into disrepair in many parts of it's empire.

After Rome collapsed, Europe was no longer unified. Fighting between barbarians and nomads in the various countries left behind was fierce, and many ancient libraries and other public buildings were destroyed. The only traces of Roman knowledge lay in the monasteries. With Europe disjointed, scientific progress in Europe was retarded as educated people were unable to communicate with each other.

So you see the Church had nothing to do with the "Dark Ages" in many ways, it prevented them from being worse and more prolonged.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2014 9:49:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Just like the church didn't punish Galileo and Bruno for trying to elevate scientific knowledge. Just like the church hadn't been fighting evolution, big-bang and every other scientific advancement which helps to demonstrate the failure of religion.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2014 10:03:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/31/2014 8:59:52 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
This always gets trotted out by atheists, so I'd like to shed a little light on the reasons why there seemed to be no scientific advancement during the medieval age, and why it is a myth to say the Church caused that to happen.

The "dark ages" occurred because the Roman Empire collapsed. This was NOT due to the spread of Christianity.
Actually, it was a mix of both the collapse of the Roman Empire, the Church's anti-science policies at the time, and the Black Death, which was the devout concern of the very small scientific community at the time.

Galileo, Copernicus, Bruno, and a wide variety of other humanist scholars were either arrested or killed on policy up until the rise of the renaissance and the humanist reformation. People who were intellectual and knowledgeable were afraid to pursue careers in science because the church literally said, "If you contradict anything we say, you will be prosecuted and killed".

At the time, the church opposed the new findings of almost all scientific information that was not included in the bible. It wasn't inherently the church within itself that caused the void in scientific progression, but rather, the policies the church carried up until the dawn of the renaissance (when the policies were almost forcibly removed).

Rome had been in decline for hundreds of years before it accepted Christianity as an official religion. Plagues, barbarian attacks across it's borders, and other incidents, caused massive loss of life and resulted in people becoming increasingly dependent on hand-outs from the Roman Senate. The attacks in particular cost Rome many of it's skilled craftsmen and engineers, and as a result Rome's infrastructure fell into disrepair in many parts of it's empire.
This is half true and half not. It's more true that Rome was not a Christian empire at it's prime. Christianity is in no way even amongst the largest causes of the descent of the Roman Empire, but the religious and political conflict it created amongst Roman citizens didn't help.

After Rome collapsed, Europe was no longer unified. Fighting between barbarians and nomads in the various countries left behind was fierce, and many ancient libraries and other public buildings were destroyed. The only traces of Roman knowledge lay in the monasteries. With Europe disjointed, scientific progress in Europe was retarded as educated people were unable to communicate with each other.
This might be true for the first 10 years after the Roman Empire collapsed.
The world doesn't work this way, though. The collapse of an empire never signifies or prompts the complete absence of scientific progress unless there is some outside motivation threatening it (in this case, remarks like "Pursue science and you'll burn in hell" constantly pushed out by the church)

So you see the Church had nothing to do with the "Dark Ages" in many ways, it prevented them from being worse and more prolonged.
Seriously? The church - or rather, the Papacy - remained in complete control of almost all of Europe. When that control ceased and new developments in humanism, religious/scientific reformation, and end to horrid diseases arose, it was labelled the "renaissance"

The point that "the dark ages was 100% the church's fault" is moot, but for you to suggest that the Church made things *better* even though the dark ages only ended after the papacy forfeited it's complete power is ridiculous. You need to have a better historical understanding of the time before you make such sure statements.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2014 2:24:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/31/2014 9:49:19 AM, Beastt wrote:
Just like the church didn't punish Galileo and Bruno for trying to elevate scientific knowledge. Just like the church hadn't been fighting evolution, big-bang and every other scientific advancement which helps to demonstrate the failure of religion

Islamic golden age maybe?
Never fart near dog
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2014 2:29:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/31/2014 9:49:19 AM, Beastt wrote:
Just like the church didn't punish Galileo and Bruno for trying to elevate scientific knowledge. Just like the church hadn't been fighting evolution, big-bang and every other scientific advancement which helps to demonstrate the failure of religion.

I'll agree as far as a Round Earth goes. The Church did mess up there.
But still, if it wasn't for the Church then countless works from Ancient Greek and Roman authors would be lost.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2014 2:31:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/31/2014 10:03:35 AM, Daltonian wrote:
At 8/31/2014 8:59:52 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
This always gets trotted out by atheists, so I'd like to shed a little light on the reasons why there seemed to be no scientific advancement during the medieval age, and why it is a myth to say the Church caused that to happen.

The "dark ages" occurred because the Roman Empire collapsed. This was NOT due to the spread of Christianity.
Actually, it was a mix of both the collapse of the Roman Empire, the Church's anti-science policies at the time, and the Black Death, which was the devout concern of the very small scientific community at the time.

Galileo, Copernicus, Bruno, and a wide variety of other humanist scholars were either arrested or killed on policy up until the rise of the renaissance and the humanist reformation. People who were intellectual and knowledgeable were afraid to pursue careers in science because the church literally said, "If you contradict anything we say, you will be prosecuted and killed".

At the time, the church opposed the new findings of almost all scientific information that was not included in the bible. It wasn't inherently the church within itself that caused the void in scientific progression, but rather, the policies the church carried up until the dawn of the renaissance (when the policies were almost forcibly removed).

Rome had been in decline for hundreds of years before it accepted Christianity as an official religion. Plagues, barbarian attacks across it's borders, and other incidents, caused massive loss of life and resulted in people becoming increasingly dependent on hand-outs from the Roman Senate. The attacks in particular cost Rome many of it's skilled craftsmen and engineers, and as a result Rome's infrastructure fell into disrepair in many parts of it's empire.
This is half true and half not. It's more true that Rome was not a Christian empire at it's prime. Christianity is in no way even amongst the largest causes of the descent of the Roman Empire, but the religious and political conflict it created amongst Roman citizens didn't help.

After Rome collapsed, Europe was no longer unified. Fighting between barbarians and nomads in the various countries left behind was fierce, and many ancient libraries and other public buildings were destroyed. The only traces of Roman knowledge lay in the monasteries. With Europe disjointed, scientific progress in Europe was retarded as educated people were unable to communicate with each other.
This might be true for the first 10 years after the Roman Empire collapsed.
The world doesn't work this way, though. The collapse of an empire never signifies or prompts the complete absence of scientific progress unless there is some outside motivation threatening it (in this case, remarks like "Pursue science and you'll burn in hell" constantly pushed out by the church)

So you see the Church had nothing to do with the "Dark Ages" in many ways, it prevented them from being worse and more prolonged.
Seriously? The church - or rather, the Papacy - remained in complete control of almost all of Europe. When that control ceased and new developments in humanism, religious/scientific reformation, and end to horrid diseases arose, it was labelled the "renaissance"

The point that "the dark ages was 100% the church's fault" is moot, but for you to suggest that the Church made things *better* even though the dark ages only ended after the papacy forfeited it's complete power is ridiculous. You need to have a better historical understanding of the time before you make such sure statements.

http://metanexus.net...
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2014 2:34:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/31/2014 2:24:52 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/31/2014 9:49:19 AM, Beastt wrote:
Just like the church didn't punish Galileo and Bruno for trying to elevate scientific knowledge. Just like the church hadn't been fighting evolution, big-bang and every other scientific advancement which helps to demonstrate the failure of religion

Islamic golden age maybe?

The Islamic world got Western scientific knowledge from the Nestorians, a heretical sect of Christianity.
http://www.aina.org...
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2014 2:54:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/31/2014 2:34:36 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 8/31/2014 2:24:52 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/31/2014 9:49:19 AM, Beastt wrote:
Just like the church didn't punish Galileo and Bruno for trying to elevate scientific knowledge. Just like the church hadn't been fighting evolution, big-bang and every other scientific advancement which helps to demonstrate the failure of religion

Islamic golden age maybe?

The Islamic world got Western scientific knowledge from the Nestorians, a heretical sect of Christianity.
http://www.aina.org...

Thats funny Islamic golden age stretched from china to spain taking small tiny part of its works (actually i didnt read yet your post but i know there were muslim jews and christanins working together like in islamic spain) , ohhh what you talking about?? from mathimatics to astronomy many scientists and great contributors al-Khwarizmi , Ibn Al-Haytham, Abd al-Rahman al-Sufi, Ibn al-Nafis, Avicenna .....where christianity comes in without the mulsims there wouldnt be renaissance, the muslims took the paper from the chinese and gave it to europe, gun power, arabic numerals... yeah christains did the job they said..
Never fart near dog
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2014 3:00:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/31/2014 2:54:25 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/31/2014 2:34:36 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 8/31/2014 2:24:52 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/31/2014 9:49:19 AM, Beastt wrote:
Just like the church didn't punish Galileo and Bruno for trying to elevate scientific knowledge. Just like the church hadn't been fighting evolution, big-bang and every other scientific advancement which helps to demonstrate the failure of religion

Islamic golden age maybe?

The Islamic world got Western scientific knowledge from the Nestorians, a heretical sect of Christianity.
http://www.aina.org...

Thats funny Islamic golden age stretched from china to spain taking small tiny part of its works (actually i didnt read yet your post but i know there were muslim jews and christanins working together like in islamic spain) , ohhh what you talking about?? from mathimatics to astronomy many scientists and great contributors al-Khwarizmi , Ibn Al-Haytham, Abd al-Rahman al-Sufi, Ibn al-Nafis, Avicenna .....where christianity comes in without the mulsims there wouldnt be renaissance, the muslims took the paper from the chinese and gave it to europe, gun power, arabic numerals... yeah christains did the job they said..

Basically the Christians gave the knowledge to the Muslims, forgot it,and later took back the knowledge from the Muslims, who had improved upon it.
As for the Renaissance, the Muslims caused this by capturing Constantinople and forcing the Byzantine scholars to flee West into Europe.
The thing about Chinese inventions is only because the Muslim world is closer to China than Europe is. The Europeans did bring back a few things from China without the help of the Muslims, such as some silk worms smuggled out of China by Monks.
The discoveries of the Americas was caused by the Christians wanting to find trade routes that the Muslims were not in control of.
The Crusaders did take some ancient manuscripts from the Muslims, effectively taking back the scientific knowledge their ancestors had given the Muslims.

Overall, it seems that Medieval and Early Modern advancements were caused by Christians and Muslims fighting.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2014 3:49:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/31/2014 8:59:52 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
This always gets trotted out by atheists, so I'd like to shed a little light on the reasons why there seemed to be no scientific advancement during the medieval age, and why it is a myth to say the Church caused that to happen.

The "dark ages" occurred because the Roman Empire collapsed. This was NOT due to the spread of Christianity. Rome had been in decline for hundreds of years before it accepted Christianity as an official religion. Plagues, barbarian attacks across it's borders, and other incidents, caused massive loss of life and resulted in people becoming increasingly dependent on hand-outs from the Roman Senate. The attacks in particular cost Rome many of it's skilled craftsmen and engineers, and as a result Rome's infrastructure fell into disrepair in many parts of it's empire.

After Rome collapsed, Europe was no longer unified. Fighting between barbarians and nomads in the various countries left behind was fierce, and many ancient libraries and other public buildings were destroyed. The only traces of Roman knowledge lay in the monasteries. With Europe disjointed, scientific progress in Europe was retarded as educated people were unable to communicate with each other.

So you see the Church had nothing to do with the "Dark Ages" in many ways, it prevented them from being worse and more prolonged.

The split of the East and West Empire doomed the Western half, because it largely cut off the revenues from trade, etc. that had long sustained the Empire. Its is precisely because of this that Rome began to economize with its military forces, eventually hiring the very Barbarians who would sack Rome itself.

Justinian would attempt to return control to the West, but plague stopped him short, and the barbarians eventually revered the Byzantine advance.

After that, Europe descended into chaos, with warlords rapaciously exploiting the people as new Empires fought to emerge from the chaos. The only transnational force that could reign in these brutal warlords was the church. They served a mediators, and, for many essential governmental services, they were it - births and deaths, for example, were recorded by the church - which has direct applicability to ... taxation - as late as the French Revolution, major governments were still reliant upon the church for these basic governmental services.

The churches monastic orders were a direct result of of poor infrastructure and the resulting collapse of the economic order in Europe, with the excess population being pulled into the monasteries where new ground were eventually tamed and made productive again. In fact, these monastic orders were the only salvation of much Western knowledge and from these scholastically order monasteries (who often had the only literate people too be found) science and learning were again allowed to flower.

It is exactly this tie with excessive population and influence on governments that lead to the First Crusade, with indulgences being a direct influence on the excess of young men who were used to rapaciously exploit the people of Europe. What better way to strengthen the state, then by removing the ability of non-state actors to form resistance movement AND blunting a rising foreign threat and shoring up the Eastern Empire too boot.

The church certainly did to create the conditions of the dark and middle ages, and it certainly did not always act the way those inspired by Christ should (Saint Francis being a key rebuker of this trend), but the fact remains that there were many individuals who were devoted to the ideal of Christ who toiled in the service of their fellow man and did so both individually and collectively and to the great benefit of Europe.

Criticality should lead to a balanced view of the period rather than the summary dismissal of the benefits and focus only on the problems, particular for those who pride themselves on their intellectualism and objective rationalism ;-)
Idealist1
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2014 4:17:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/31/2014 10:03:35 AM, Daltonian wrote:
At 8/31/2014 8:59:52 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
This always gets trotted out by atheists, so I'd like to shed a little light on the reasons why there seemed to be no scientific advancement during the medieval age, and why it is a myth to say the Church caused that to happen.

The "dark ages" occurred because the Roman Empire collapsed. This was NOT due to the spread of Christianity.
Actually, it was a mix of both the collapse of the Roman Empire, the Church's anti-science policies at the time, and the Black Death, which was the devout concern of the very small scientific community at the time.

Galileo, Copernicus, Bruno, and a wide variety of other humanist scholars were either arrested or killed on policy up until the rise of the renaissance and the humanist reformation. People who were intellectual and knowledgeable were afraid to pursue careers in science because the church literally said, "If you contradict anything we say, you will be prosecuted and killed".

At the time, the church opposed the new findings of almost all scientific information that was not included in the bible. It wasn't inherently the church within itself that caused the void in scientific progression, but rather, the policies the church carried up until the dawn of the renaissance (when the policies were almost forcibly removed).

Rome had been in decline for hundreds of years before it accepted Christianity as an official religion. Plagues, barbarian attacks across it's borders, and other incidents, caused massive loss of life and resulted in people becoming increasingly dependent on hand-outs from the Roman Senate. The attacks in particular cost Rome many of it's skilled craftsmen and engineers, and as a result Rome's infrastructure fell into disrepair in many parts of it's empire.
This is half true and half not. It's more true that Rome was not a Christian empire at it's prime. Christianity is in no way even amongst the largest causes of the descent of the Roman Empire, but the religious and political conflict it created amongst Roman citizens didn't help.

After Rome collapsed, Europe was no longer unified. Fighting between barbarians and nomads in the various countries left behind was fierce, and many ancient libraries and other public buildings were destroyed. The only traces of Roman knowledge lay in the monasteries. With Europe disjointed, scientific progress in Europe was retarded as educated people were unable to communicate with each other.
This might be true for the first 10 years after the Roman Empire collapsed.
The world doesn't work this way, though. The collapse of an empire never signifies or prompts the complete absence of scientific progress unless there is some outside motivation threatening it (in this case, remarks like "Pursue science and you'll burn in hell" constantly pushed out by the church)

So you see the Church had nothing to do with the "Dark Ages" in many ways, it prevented them from being worse and more prolonged.
Seriously? The church - or rather, the Papacy - remained in complete control of almost all of Europe. When that control ceased and new developments in humanism, religious/scientific reformation, and end to horrid diseases arose, it was labelled the "renaissance"

The point that "the dark ages was 100% the church's fault" is moot, but for you to suggest that the Church made things *better* even though the dark ages only ended after the papacy forfeited it's complete power is ridiculous. You need to have a better historical understanding of the time before you make such sure statements.

Check-out the article "There Was Nothing Dark About The Dark Ages: The Medieval Origins Of Science" at http://www.academia.edu...

I just finished a good book on this subject. There was a lot of scientific advancement during the "Dark Ages." It was because of things like the collapse of the Roman Empire and the coming of the "Black Death" to Europe that it was called dark, not the lack of progress. Why have most of the Far-Eastern countries, which have never been Christian, had to buy or steal so much of their technology from the "Christian" nations of the West?
Keltron
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2014 10:21:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/31/2014 2:24:52 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/31/2014 9:49:19 AM, Beastt wrote:
Just like the church didn't punish Galileo and Bruno for trying to elevate scientific knowledge. Just like the church hadn't been fighting evolution, big-bang and every other scientific advancement which helps to demonstrate the failure of religion

Islamic golden age maybe?

Yeah, but the Islamic golden age of science ended with the wahhabist counter reformation that turned Islam away from science in the late 14th century. The idea was that Allah could not be scrutinized or subjected to inquiry, and therefore intellectual inquiry was tantamount to blasphemy. Since then the Islamic world has become an intellectual desert.
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2014 10:39:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/31/2014 3:00:51 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 8/31/2014 2:54:25 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/31/2014 2:34:36 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 8/31/2014 2:24:52 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/31/2014 9:49:19 AM, Beastt wrote:
Just like the church didn't punish Galileo and Bruno for trying to elevate scientific knowledge. Just like the church hadn't been fighting evolution, big-bang and every other scientific advancement which helps to demonstrate the failure of religion

Islamic golden age maybe?

The Islamic world got Western scientific knowledge from the Nestorians, a heretical sect of Christianity.
http://www.aina.org...

Thats funny Islamic golden age stretched from china to spain taking small tiny part of its works (actually i didnt read yet your post but i know there were muslim jews and christanins working together like in islamic spain) , ohhh what you talking about?? from mathimatics to astronomy many scientists and great contributors al-Khwarizmi , Ibn Al-Haytham, Abd al-Rahman al-Sufi, Ibn al-Nafis, Avicenna .....where christianity comes in without the mulsims there wouldnt be renaissance, the muslims took the paper from the chinese and gave it to europe, gun power, arabic numerals... yeah christains did the job they said..

Basically the Christians gave the knowledge to the Muslims, forgot it,and later took back the knowledge from the Muslims, who had improved upon it.
As for the Renaissance, the Muslims caused this by capturing Constantinople and forcing the Byzantine scholars to flee West into Europe.
The thing about Chinese inventions is only because the Muslim world is closer to China than Europe is. The Europeans did bring back a few things from China without the help of the Muslims, such as some silk worms smuggled out of China by Monks.
The discoveries of the Americas was caused by the Christians wanting to find trade routes that the Muslims were not in control of.
The Crusaders did take some ancient manuscripts from the Muslims, effectively taking back the scientific knowledge their ancestors had given the Muslims.

Overall, it seems that Medieval and Early Modern advancements were caused by Christians and Muslims fighting.

No. The Muslim empire likely got its knowledge from when it was ruled by Alexander of Mastodon. The same man who's army moved rivers and built a city by draining part of the Nile.
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2014 11:52:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/31/2014 9:49:19 AM, Beastt wrote:
Just like the church didn't punish Galileo and Bruno for trying to elevate scientific knowledge. Just like the church hadn't been fighting evolution, big-bang and every other scientific advancement which helps to demonstrate the failure of religion.

The Church, as you call it, Is not the true Church of God. It is a pagan religion that uses the trappings of Christianity to deceive people.. The Pope is not Gods Vicar on earth. Jesus is the only intermediary between God and man. So your claim that Christianity persecuted scientists is false.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 12:25:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/31/2014 11:52:45 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 8/31/2014 9:49:19 AM, Beastt wrote:
Just like the church didn't punish Galileo and Bruno for trying to elevate scientific knowledge. Just like the church hadn't been fighting evolution, big-bang and every other scientific advancement which helps to demonstrate the failure of religion.

The Church, as you call it, Is not the true Church of God.
Oh, it never is when you point out the barbaric acts common to it over the centuries. And yet somehow, you still see it as being superior to atheism.

It is a pagan religion that uses the trappings of Christianity to deceive people..
Which is fitting since Christianity is simply an off-shoot of pagan religion.

The Pope is not Gods Vicar on earth.
According to you. But understand that you speak with no greater authority than the Catholic church because both of you yammer on and on, but can provide no objective evidence to support your claims. That qualifies your claims as equal to those of the Catholic church and as simply "stories".

Jesus is the only intermediary between God and man.
And yet, as you've seen in the multiple debates on the issue, there is no more reason to believe that Jesus is real, than to believe that Zeus, Thor and Poseidon are real.

So your claim that Christianity persecuted scientists is false.
Religions in general persecute scientists and Christians as a whole are STILL hateful toward science. It's on this board everyday as the continual claims that "evolution isn't science", "evolution is full of holes", "big-bang means that nothing exploded and formed a universe" and other goat-twaddle, religious ignorance abounds. At a time when computer technology is almost as common as electric lights, about half of the U.S. population still believes that evolution is false, simply due to the ongoing efforts of the church to undermine science. And they use the fruits of scientific achievement to do it.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 12:30:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 12:25:47 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/31/2014 11:52:45 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 8/31/2014 9:49:19 AM, Beastt wrote:
Just like the church didn't punish Galileo and Bruno for trying to elevate scientific knowledge. Just like the church hadn't been fighting evolution, big-bang and every other scientific advancement which helps to demonstrate the failure of religion.

The Church, as you call it, Is not the true Church of God.
Oh, it never is when you point out the barbaric acts common to it over the centuries. And yet somehow, you still see it as being superior to atheism.

It is a pagan religion that uses the trappings of Christianity to deceive people..
Which is fitting since Christianity is simply an off-shoot of pagan religion.

The Pope is not Gods Vicar on earth.
According to you. But understand that you speak with no greater authority than the Catholic church because both of you yammer on and on, but can provide no objective evidence to support your claims. That qualifies your claims as equal to those of the Catholic church and as simply "stories".

Jesus is the only intermediary between God and man.
And yet, as you've seen in the multiple debates on the issue, there is no more reason to believe that Jesus is real, than to believe that Zeus, Thor and Poseidon are real.

So your claim that Christianity persecuted scientists is false.
Religions in general persecute scientists and Christians as a whole are STILL hateful toward science. It's on this board everyday as the continual claims that "evolution isn't science", "evolution is full of holes", "big-bang means that nothing exploded and formed a universe" and other goat-twaddle, religious ignorance abounds. At a time when computer technology is almost as common as electric lights, about half of the U.S. population still believes that evolution is false, simply due to the ongoing efforts of the church to undermine science. And they use the fruits of scientific achievement to do it.

You poor fool.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 12:49:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 12:30:54 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/1/2014 12:25:47 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/31/2014 11:52:45 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 8/31/2014 9:49:19 AM, Beastt wrote:
Just like the church didn't punish Galileo and Bruno for trying to elevate scientific knowledge. Just like the church hadn't been fighting evolution, big-bang and every other scientific advancement which helps to demonstrate the failure of religion.

The Church, as you call it, Is not the true Church of God.
Oh, it never is when you point out the barbaric acts common to it over the centuries. And yet somehow, you still see it as being superior to atheism.

It is a pagan religion that uses the trappings of Christianity to deceive people..
Which is fitting since Christianity is simply an off-shoot of pagan religion.

The Pope is not Gods Vicar on earth.
According to you. But understand that you speak with no greater authority than the Catholic church because both of you yammer on and on, but can provide no objective evidence to support your claims. That qualifies your claims as equal to those of the Catholic church and as simply "stories".

Jesus is the only intermediary between God and man.
And yet, as you've seen in the multiple debates on the issue, there is no more reason to believe that Jesus is real, than to believe that Zeus, Thor and Poseidon are real.

So your claim that Christianity persecuted scientists is false.
Religions in general persecute scientists and Christians as a whole are STILL hateful toward science. It's on this board everyday as the continual claims that "evolution isn't science", "evolution is full of holes", "big-bang means that nothing exploded and formed a universe" and other goat-twaddle, religious ignorance abounds. At a time when computer technology is almost as common as electric lights, about half of the U.S. population still believes that evolution is false, simply due to the ongoing efforts of the church to undermine science. And they use the fruits of scientific achievement to do it.

You poor fool.

Yeah, I'm the "poor fool" and yet, "poor fool" is the best refutation you can manage. You're the one believing in a silly, absurd fairytale. You should probably concentrate on saving your pity for yourself.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 1:43:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 12:49:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/1/2014 12:30:54 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/1/2014 12:25:47 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/31/2014 11:52:45 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 8/31/2014 9:49:19 AM, Beastt wrote:
Just like the church didn't punish Galileo and Bruno for trying to elevate scientific knowledge. Just like the church hadn't been fighting evolution, big-bang and every other scientific advancement which helps to demonstrate the failure of religion.

The Church, as you call it, Is not the true Church of God.
Oh, it never is when you point out the barbaric acts common to it over the centuries. And yet somehow, you still see it as being superior to atheism.

It is a pagan religion that uses the trappings of Christianity to deceive people..
Which is fitting since Christianity is simply an off-shoot of pagan religion.

The Pope is not Gods Vicar on earth.
According to you. But understand that you speak with no greater authority than the Catholic church because both of you yammer on and on, but can provide no objective evidence to support your claims. That qualifies your claims as equal to those of the Catholic church and as simply "stories".

Jesus is the only intermediary between God and man.
And yet, as you've seen in the multiple debates on the issue, there is no more reason to believe that Jesus is real, than to believe that Zeus, Thor and Poseidon are real.

So your claim that Christianity persecuted scientists is false.
Religions in general persecute scientists and Christians as a whole are STILL hateful toward science. It's on this board everyday as the continual claims that "evolution isn't science", "evolution is full of holes", "big-bang means that nothing exploded and formed a universe" and other goat-twaddle, religious ignorance abounds. At a time when computer technology is almost as common as electric lights, about half of the U.S. population still believes that evolution is false, simply due to the ongoing efforts of the church to undermine science. And they use the fruits of scientific achievement to do it.

You poor fool.

Yeah, I'm the "poor fool" and yet, "poor fool" is the best refutation you can manage. You're the one believing in a silly, absurd fairytale. You should probably concentrate on saving your pity for yourself.

Evolution is the fairy tale. Read this, if you have the courage. It just might put a dent in your ignorance. Then again, maybe not.

http://members.toast.net...
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 1:59:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Now Beastt, he can trace his "christianity" all the way back to.....umm...well a long time ago, but he really believes in the book those pagan christians produced.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 2:22:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 1:43:59 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/1/2014 12:49:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/1/2014 12:30:54 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 9/1/2014 12:25:47 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/31/2014 11:52:45 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 8/31/2014 9:49:19 AM, Beastt wrote:
Just like the church didn't punish Galileo and Bruno for trying to elevate scientific knowledge. Just like the church hadn't been fighting evolution, big-bang and every other scientific advancement which helps to demonstrate the failure of religion.

The Church, as you call it, Is not the true Church of God.
Oh, it never is when you point out the barbaric acts common to it over the centuries. And yet somehow, you still see it as being superior to atheism.

It is a pagan religion that uses the trappings of Christianity to deceive people..
Which is fitting since Christianity is simply an off-shoot of pagan religion.

The Pope is not Gods Vicar on earth.
According to you. But understand that you speak with no greater authority than the Catholic church because both of you yammer on and on, but can provide no objective evidence to support your claims. That qualifies your claims as equal to those of the Catholic church and as simply "stories".

Jesus is the only intermediary between God and man.
And yet, as you've seen in the multiple debates on the issue, there is no more reason to believe that Jesus is real, than to believe that Zeus, Thor and Poseidon are real.

So your claim that Christianity persecuted scientists is false.
Religions in general persecute scientists and Christians as a whole are STILL hateful toward science. It's on this board everyday as the continual claims that "evolution isn't science", "evolution is full of holes", "big-bang means that nothing exploded and formed a universe" and other goat-twaddle, religious ignorance abounds. At a time when computer technology is almost as common as electric lights, about half of the U.S. population still believes that evolution is false, simply due to the ongoing efforts of the church to undermine science. And they use the fruits of scientific achievement to do it.

You poor fool.

Yeah, I'm the "poor fool" and yet, "poor fool" is the best refutation you can manage. You're the one believing in a silly, absurd fairytale. You should probably concentrate on saving your pity for yourself.

Evolution is the fairy tale. Read this, if you have the courage. It just might put a dent in your ignorance. Then again, maybe not.

http://members.toast.net...

Well, if that's the kind of pure fecal tripe you're reading, no wonder you're both ignorant and confused. Let's take a look at some of the statements from the site you linked, and talk about how they're praying on your blind ignorance of science, to make claims which are clearly and utterly false. They state;

- "Naturalism is the belief that all things, including the origin of life, can be explained purely in terms of natural phenomena, without the intervention of a supernatural being or deity. Ironically, many of the dogmatic proponents of Evolution may not even be aware that this is the religion they hold. Most seem unable to distinguish their religion from their "science", and thus pursue their opposition to a Creator on what they suppose are purely "scientific" grounds."

Let's start with the fact that naturalism isn't a "religion". I'm not sure why it is that the first step of religious people take in attempting to discredit any form of logical methodology, always start by calling it a "religion". It's as though they automatically recognize that religions are consistently just a load of crap.

More importantly, they're completely ignoring the requirement of science to have objective evidence for any proposition, upon which to test that proposition. There isn't a shred of evidence for a "creator" anywhere. In fact, the very concept of creation is entirely contrary to science. You posted this yourself on one of your threads, "matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed" (First Law of Thermodynamics). And that's a well-known, and fully consistent tenet of science. But this site which you're promoting, is upset with science for not just blinding accepting the idea of a creator - without a shred of evidence for a creator - and for not simply dismissing a major tenet of science which is consistent with every shred of evidence the universe has yet seen fit to offer, simply so that science can accept without any substantiation, an ancient superstition in place of solid objective evidence, and a solid, observed, and confirmed mechanism, fully supported by that evidence.

Do you think you do anything aside from make yourself look silly when you post links to such easily refuted, childish, tripe, posing as some kind of authority on science? It takes all of about 10-seconds of reading, and a minimal understanding of science to rip that kind of fecal rubbish to shreds.

There is no standard of science to which the Theory of Evolution does not comply. And if you think you can find one, then I invite you...

... no, I "challenge" you to try to present it.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 2:36:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 1:43:59 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:

http://members.toast.net...

Here's some more utter and obvious garbage from your linked site;

- "However, their "science" rules out the possibility of an intelligent Creator from the very outset. This consideration is not demanded by scientific evidence, but by prevailing philosophical ideas about what science ought to be. The problem with this position is that, if God really did create the universe, scientists are forbidden to acknowledge the evidence of it, and must substitute a false, naturalistic explanation in its place."

There is no tenet or principle of science which rules out the possibility of an intelligent creator. But just as one can't simply say that galaxies are moving away from each other because the fairies living in those galaxies want greater separation from their neighbors (and not be expected to present evidence for these fairies), one cannot simply insert an unevidenced creator, and expect the idea to be accepted, devoid of evidence. If you want to present a concept to science... FINE! Do so. But when you haven't a shred of objective evidence to support your concept, it's nothing but "story-telling". And stories aren't granted authority in science, when there is no evidence to support them.

There is no objective evidence for a creator - NONE. And if someone wants to present some credible objective evidence for a creator, there isn't anything stopping them (except the lack of any such evidence). The claim that scientists are forbidden to acknowledge evidence for a creator is pure bullcrap. There's simply nothing at all true about that statement. The problem is simply that - try as some might - none have been able to present even a shred of objective evidence for a creator... (because none has ever been found).

Idiot theists have a horrible habit of thinking that circular arguments are evidence. Things like; "God created the universe, therefore, the universe is evidence of God", is no more rational, logical or credible than, "Fairies cause galaxies to move away from each other, therefore the movement of galaxies away from other galaxies, is evidence for fairies." If you see the problem with the latter claim, then you can see the problem with the former claim. It's two assertions which rest only on each other. Neither one is supported by any actual evidence.

So expecting science to accept the idea that a creator might be behind the patterns and order we find in the universe, is not only ridiculous due to the fact that we can demonstrably show that these patterns and order are due to chaos theory (which doesn't employ or need any outside intelligent agent), but because you can't simply inject a proposition into science - without presenting evidence to support it - and call anything resulting from that blind assertion "science".

Would you like me to keep shredding your silly site which is clearly intended to fool only the most gullible and scientifically ignorant, or would you like to apologize and admit that you really have no clue what you're talking about?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 3:12:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/31/2014 10:21:39 PM, Keltron wrote:
At 8/31/2014 2:24:52 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/31/2014 9:49:19 AM, Beastt wrote:
Just like the church didn't punish Galileo and Bruno for trying to elevate scientific knowledge. Just like the church hadn't been fighting evolution, big-bang and every other scientific advancement which helps to demonstrate the failure of religion

Islamic golden age maybe?

Yeah, but the Islamic golden age of science ended with the wahhabist counter reformation that turned Islam away from science in the late 14th century. The idea was that Allah could not be scrutinized or subjected to inquiry, and therefore intellectual inquiry was tantamount to blasphemy. Since then the Islamic world has become an intellectual desert.

wahhabism in late 14th? wtf founder of wahhabism Abd Wahhab was born around 18th.... there were many major things for the collapse like the mongol invasion, Hulagu destroyed Bhadhdad utterly which was at that time the most advanced city on earth, from the west expulsion of the chalifat from spain which also was center learning, not going too far blaming everybody else we have also muslims to blame.... the ottomans gave the paper (the most importent thing to start with) and they banned it to use for centuries, anyway there are many thinging not just some "wahhabism" you dont know history.
Never fart near dog
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 3:25:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/31/2014 3:00:51 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 8/31/2014 2:54:25 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/31/2014 2:34:36 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 8/31/2014 2:24:52 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/31/2014 9:49:19 AM, Beastt wrote:
Just like the church didn't punish Galileo and Bruno for trying to elevate scientific knowledge. Just like the church hadn't been fighting evolution, big-bang and every other scientific advancement which helps to demonstrate the failure of religion

Islamic golden age maybe?

The Islamic world got Western scientific knowledge from the Nestorians, a heretical sect of Christianity.
http://www.aina.org...

Thats funny Islamic golden age stretched from china to spain taking small tiny part of its works (actually i didnt read yet your post but i know there were muslim jews and christanins working together like in islamic spain) , ohhh what you talking about?? from mathimatics to astronomy many scientists and great contributors al-Khwarizmi , Ibn Al-Haytham, Abd al-Rahman al-Sufi, Ibn al-Nafis, Avicenna .....where christianity comes in without the mulsims there wouldnt be renaissance, the muslims took the paper from the chinese and gave it to europe, gun power, arabic numerals... yeah christains did the job they said..

Basically the Christians gave the knowledge to the Muslims,

that is bullsh1t. if they were part of somethings thats good but "Basically"? lol.

forgot it,and later took back the knowledge from the Muslims, who had improved upon it.

everybody took something and improved it.

As for the Renaissance, the Muslims caused this by capturing Constantinople and forcing the Byzantine scholars to flee West into Europe.

what??? nonsense.

The thing about Chinese inventions is only because the Muslim world is closer to China than Europe is. The Europeans did bring back a few things from China without the help of the Muslims, such as some silk worms smuggled out of China by Monks.
The discoveries of the Americas was caused by the Christians wanting to find trade routes that the Muslims were not in control of.

thats good.

The Crusaders did take some ancient manuscripts from the Muslims, effectively taking back the scientific knowledge their ancestors had given the Muslims.

Overall, it seems that Medieval and Early Modern advancements were caused by Christians and Muslims fighting.

thats is bullcrap, you rewriting history for the christians lol "muslim fighting" history of christainity years of dark ages compare to isalmic history you are dreaming and rewriting nonsense, islamic age was not only muslims but also jews atheists and christains everybody worked together, the thing is departing from the church and leaving christainity brought renaissance and advancements thats fact. yeah you can imagine chrsitains built islamic history good luck...
Never fart near dog
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 3:29:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 2:36:26 AM, Beastt wrote:

There is no objective evidence for a creator - NONE.

Then there should be objective documentation of no evidence. Let's see it.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 3:45:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 3:29:08 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/1/2014 2:36:26 AM, Beastt wrote:

There is no objective evidence for a creator - NONE.

Then there should be objective documentation of no evidence. Let's see it.

One does not document "no evidence" because to do so would mean that you'd need to document a lack of evidence for absolutely any and every crackpot idea anyone might present. The burden is for people to support their claims with evidence, thereby eliminating any need to document a lack of evidence for an infinite number of imaginary concepts.

If you can't figure that out for yourself... WOW!
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 3:54:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 3:45:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/1/2014 3:29:08 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/1/2014 2:36:26 AM, Beastt wrote:

There is no objective evidence for a creator - NONE.

Then there should be objective documentation of no evidence. Let's see it.

One does not document "no evidence" because to do so would mean that you'd need to document a lack of evidence for absolutely any and every crackpot idea anyone might present. The burden is for people to support their claims with evidence, thereby eliminating any need to document a lack of evidence for an infinite number of imaginary concepts.

If you can't figure that out for yourself... WOW!

Agh yeah, you do. Its begins by checking in the places where we would expect to find no evidence, and then documenting that there is no evidence. If the reasonable places we would expect to find evidence produce none? You have a strong inductive case.

Are there NO miracles?

Are there NO answered prayers?

Was Jesus Fake?

Any evidence that Paul just hit his head?

Statistics DOESN'T support design?

etc. etc. etc.

And what you get is a body of evidence that CLEARLY exists, and from which you have to make a case. Its why atheists deny that they even have to do it - because the ostrich with his head in the sand is always right with himself.

What exactly do you think religions use to support their claims? Evidence? Perhaps?

Now you would obviously disagree with this:

http://toptenproofs.com...

The First Law of Thermodynamics? Sounds like evidence to me? So where then would you arrive at the convention, adamantly and emotionally, that there is NO evidence? Why?

A better stamens might be that there is no evidence YOU would accept, but that is not an evidenced based position, its a classic argument to absurdity and indicates one very important thing - those arguing to absurdity are not using evidence and can indeed not be influenced by evidence.

Its a form of zealotry.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 4:04:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 3:54:02 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/1/2014 3:45:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/1/2014 3:29:08 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/1/2014 2:36:26 AM, Beastt wrote:

There is no objective evidence for a creator - NONE.

Then there should be objective documentation of no evidence. Let's see it.

One does not document "no evidence" because to do so would mean that you'd need to document a lack of evidence for absolutely any and every crackpot idea anyone might present. The burden is for people to support their claims with evidence, thereby eliminating any need to document a lack of evidence for an infinite number of imaginary concepts.

If you can't figure that out for yourself... WOW!

Agh yeah, you do. Its begins by checking in the places where we would expect to find no evidence, and then documenting that there is no evidence. If the reasonable places we would expect to find evidence produce none? You have a strong inductive case.

Are there NO miracles?

Are there NO answered prayers?

Was Jesus Fake?

Any evidence that Paul just hit his head?

Statistics DOESN'T support design?

etc. etc. etc.

And what you get is a body of evidence that CLEARLY exists, and from which you have to make a case. Its why atheists deny that they even have to do it - because the ostrich with his head in the sand is always right with himself.

What exactly do you think religions use to support their claims? Evidence? Perhaps?

Now you would obviously disagree with this:

http://toptenproofs.com...

The First Law of Thermodynamics? Sounds like evidence to me? So where then would you arrive at the convention, adamantly and emotionally, that there is NO evidence? Why?

A better stamens might be that there is no evidence YOU would accept, but that is not an evidenced based position, its a classic argument to absurdity and indicates one very important thing - those arguing to absurdity are not using evidence and can indeed not be influenced by evidence.

Its a form of zealotry.

Holy crap... it's like I'm showing you a dime and you're yelling, "THERE'S NO DIME! I DON'T SEE A DIME! PROVE THERE IS A DIME." So I keep showing you the dime, and you just keep on yelling. Did you see what the site produces for evidence of anything outside of the universe? Here it is.

- "Now, as believers we know, of course, that God does influence the universe, so many believers would consider the universe an "open system", (one that does get outside influence), but for the atheist who says there is no God, the universe is all there is, so from their perspective and for the sake of conventional science, the universe would get no outside influence and would therefore be considered a 'closed system'."

Get a clue, Neutral. That's NOT evidence. That's an assertion DEVOID OF EVIDENCE! And then they proceed to build their argument connecting the First Law of Thermodynamics to a creator, based on that purely UNEVIDENCED assertion.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 4:45:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 4:04:30 AM, Beastt wrote:

Holy crap... it's like I'm showing you a dime and you're yelling, "THERE'S NO DIME! I DON'T SEE A DIME! PROVE THERE IS A DIME." So I keep showing you the dime, and you just keep on yelling. Did you see what the site produces for evidence of anything outside of the universe? Here it is.

- "Now, as believers we know, of course, that God does influence the universe, so many believers would consider the universe an "open system", (one that does get outside influence), but for the atheist who says there is no God, the universe is all there is, so from their perspective and for the sake of conventional science, the universe would get no outside influence and would therefore be considered a 'closed system'."

Get a clue, Neutral. That's NOT evidence. That's an assertion DEVOID OF EVIDENCE! And then they proceed to build their argument connecting the First Law of Thermodynamics to a creator, based on that purely UNEVIDENCED assertion.

No Beasty, you are not showing anyone other than a deranged version of your opinion. No citations, no evidence, no nothing - in fact, you are PROVING MY POSITION by taking the SAME evidence, whether the universe is open or closed, and violently disagreeing ... because ...

Well, physics tells us that the amount of energy./matter in the universe is constant - that indicates a CLOSED system.

So based on SCIENTIFIC evidence, it currently support us. And there are MANY, MANY more.

It would be one thing to disagree, that happens.

But to stand there derisively and continuously telling us there is no evidence at all? Math? Physical Laws? Statistics? Are not objective evidence? You are full of it.

When you can concede disagreement rather non-existence, you might be taken seriously. As it stands, you will simply take the opposite of anything we say while making no evidenced based case on your own.

It isn't religion killing science - its atheism. THE SCIENCE CANNOT STATE WHAT IT SAYS!!! Well, it does anyway.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 8:23:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 3:25:12 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/31/2014 3:00:51 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 8/31/2014 2:54:25 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/31/2014 2:34:36 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 8/31/2014 2:24:52 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/31/2014 9:49:19 AM, Beastt wrote:
Just like the church didn't punish Galileo and Bruno for trying to elevate scientific knowledge. Just like the church hadn't been fighting evolution, big-bang and every other scientific advancement which helps to demonstrate the failure of religion

Islamic golden age maybe?

The Islamic world got Western scientific knowledge from the Nestorians, a heretical sect of Christianity.
http://www.aina.org...

Thats funny Islamic golden age stretched from china to spain taking small tiny part of its works (actually i didnt read yet your post but i know there were muslim jews and christanins working together like in islamic spain) , ohhh what you talking about?? from mathimatics to astronomy many scientists and great contributors al-Khwarizmi , Ibn Al-Haytham, Abd al-Rahman al-Sufi, Ibn al-Nafis, Avicenna .....where christianity comes in without the mulsims there wouldnt be renaissance, the muslims took the paper from the chinese and gave it to europe, gun power, arabic numerals... yeah christains did the job they said..

Basically the Christians gave the knowledge to the Muslims,

that is bullsh1t. if they were part of somethings thats good but "Basically"? lol.

forgot it,and later took back the knowledge from the Muslims, who had improved upon it.

everybody took something and improved it.

As for the Renaissance, the Muslims caused this by capturing Constantinople and forcing the Byzantine scholars to flee West into Europe.

what??? nonsense.

The thing about Chinese inventions is only because the Muslim world is closer to China than Europe is. The Europeans did bring back a few things from China without the help of the Muslims, such as some silk worms smuggled out of China by Monks.
The discoveries of the Americas was caused by the Christians wanting to find trade routes that the Muslims were not in control of.

thats good.

The Crusaders did take some ancient manuscripts from the Muslims, effectively taking back the scientific knowledge their ancestors had given the Muslims.

Overall, it seems that Medieval and Early Modern advancements were caused by Christians and Muslims fighting.

thats is bullcrap, you rewriting history for the christians lol "muslim fighting" history of christainity years of dark ages compare to isalmic history you are dreaming and rewriting nonsense, islamic age was not only muslims but also jews atheists and christains everybody worked together, the thing is departing from the church and leaving christainity brought renaissance and advancements thats fact. yeah you can imagine chrsitains built islamic history good luck...

So you are denying that Greek and Roman knowledge was transmitted to the Muslims by the Nestorians?
And actually, ancient knowledge was preserved within the monasteries, so it wasn't as much of a dark age as people usually think.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 10:46:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 4:45:45 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/1/2014 4:04:30 AM, Beastt wrote:

Holy crap... it's like I'm showing you a dime and you're yelling, "THERE'S NO DIME! I DON'T SEE A DIME! PROVE THERE IS A DIME." So I keep showing you the dime, and you just keep on yelling. Did you see what the site produces for evidence of anything outside of the universe? Here it is.

- "Now, as believers we know, of course, that God does influence the universe, so many believers would consider the universe an "open system", (one that does get outside influence), but for the atheist who says there is no God, the universe is all there is, so from their perspective and for the sake of conventional science, the universe would get no outside influence and would therefore be considered a 'closed system'."

Get a clue, Neutral. That's NOT evidence. That's an assertion DEVOID OF EVIDENCE! And then they proceed to build their argument connecting the First Law of Thermodynamics to a creator, based on that purely UNEVIDENCED assertion.

No Beasty, you are not showing anyone other than a deranged version of your opinion. No citations, no evidence, no nothing - in fact, you are PROVING MY POSITION by taking the SAME evidence, whether the universe is open or closed, and violently disagreeing ... because ...

Well, physics tells us that the amount of energy./matter in the universe is constant - that indicates a CLOSED system.

So based on SCIENTIFIC evidence, it currently support us. And there are MANY, MANY more.

It would be one thing to disagree, that happens.

But to stand there derisively and continuously telling us there is no evidence at all? Math? Physical Laws? Statistics? Are not objective evidence? You are full of it.

When you can concede disagreement rather non-existence, you might be taken seriously. As it stands, you will simply take the opposite of anything we say while making no evidenced based case on your own.

It isn't religion killing science - its atheism. THE SCIENCE CANNOT STATE WHAT IT SAYS!!! Well, it does anyway.

Bravo! Thanks for putting that troll in his place. Well done!