tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post6623577358483361344..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: On religion and persecutionVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger169125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64236887049006797772014-03-25T20:37:07.647-07:002014-03-25T20:37:07.647-07:00Skeppy,
That's a shame. The site worked for m...Skeppy,<br /><br /><i>That's a shame. The site worked for me.</i><br /><br />I find that difficult to believe since Oracle discontinued ThinkQuest in July, 2013. That site hasn't been operational for the better part of a year. <br /><br /><i>It describes the church's involvement in keeping the people poor and uneducated. And it says exactly what I describe.</i><br /><br />Let me sum this up in one word: bullshit. I had to dig through the frigging <a href="http://wayback.archive-it.org/3635/20130730194945/http://library.thinkquest.org/10949/fief/hifeudal.html" rel="nofollow">way back archive</a> to find that damn article. It is a rather basic overview of the feudal class structure, the kind you find in a First-Grade textbook. Here is what it says about the Church:<br /><br /><i> The church leaders often also held a great power over the people, much like the lords of the manor. Many church leaders were active in politics and government. For example, the Archbishop of Canterbury was also Chancellor of England in 1381. In fact the church was really the only universal European governing force. It was divided into spheres of influence, much like fiefs. Each "fief" was a diocese headed by a bishop. In addition to spiritual fiefs, many bishops were given real manors to govern. In this way, the church was firmly entrenched in the spiritual and practical lives of the medieval peasant. The church had a great influence over many of the common folk. The peasants believed that the harder they worked, the more of their money they gave to the church, and the more they served the church, the better the after-life would be for them. The church also paid the lord to use the land, and this sort of symbiosis between the church and the lord keep them both with an exceptional amount of money, while the peasant sometimes starved to death from overwork and exploitation.</i><br /><br />In other words lower classes got hit hard with taxes, which has about much to do with this discussion as does the price of tea in China. There is <i><b>nothing</b></i> in that article that says the Church opposed education, suppressed knowledge or destroyed scientific progress. So no, it is <i>not</i> exactly as you say. <br /><br /><i>As for linking things that don't say what you think, that's really rich coming from you. I've pointed out numerous cases where you've done exactly that.</i><br /><br />Really? Let's see your examples of this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51121484858777501582014-03-25T17:19:57.569-07:002014-03-25T17:19:57.569-07:00"Your link's dead and has been for some t..."Your link's dead and has been for some time. Plus you have a known tendency to cite sources that say the exact opposite of what you think they say and actually undermine your position. Got anything else?"<br /><br />That's a shame. The site worked for me. It describes the church's involvement in keeping the people poor and uneducated. And it says exactly what I describe.<br /><br />As for linking things that don't say what you think, that's really rich coming from you. I've pointed out numerous cases where you've done exactly that.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30218683969499940402014-03-25T16:29:10.426-07:002014-03-25T16:29:10.426-07:00"You almost make it seem like the church was ..."<i>You almost make it seem like the church was the only thing making life bearable for the people of the Dark Ages.</i>"<br /><br />Take out the "almost", and you'd be right. Because for the most part, it was.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53089682041089391092014-03-25T15:42:37.225-07:002014-03-25T15:42:37.225-07:00Skeppy,
You almost make it seem like the church ...Skeppy, <br /><br /><i>You almost make it seem like the church was the only thing making life bearable for the people of the Dark Ages. Actually, the church was complicit in keeping people poor and uneducated, while they and their aristocratic partners grew wealthy. They made life a struggle for the ordinary people. <br /><br />http://library.thinkquest.org/10949/fief/hifeudal.html</i><br /><br />Your link's dead and <a href="http://www.thinkquest.org/en/" rel="nofollow">has been for some time</a>. Plus you have a known tendency to cite sources that say the exact opposite of what you think they say and actually undermine your position. Got anything else?<br /><br /><i>While the church did preserve some literature from the classical era, they also destroyed vast treasures of literature and knowledge that they didn't approve of. I shudder to think of all the knowledge that was lost during that time.</i><br /><br />Really? Show us an instance of them destroying vast treasures of literature. I am pretty sure you can name at least one major book burning ceremony, right? Also is engineering and technological progress a part of science or is it not?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-78219318571045340142014-03-25T13:38:45.781-07:002014-03-25T13:38:45.781-07:00planks,
"Without the monastic orders, the Pa...planks,<br /><br />"Without the monastic orders, the Papacy, and the Orthodox Church, far more of classical culture would have been lost to us than actually was."<br /><br />You almost make it seem like the church was the only thing making life bearable for the people of the Dark Ages. Actually, the church was complicit in keeping people poor and uneducated, while they and their aristocratic partners grew wealthy. They made life a struggle for the ordinary people. <br /><br />http://library.thinkquest.org/10949/fief/hifeudal.html<br /><br />While the church did preserve some literature from the classical era, they also destroyed vast treasures of literature and knowledge that they didn't approve of. I shudder to think of all the knowledge that was lost during that time.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19401100908306305922014-03-25T10:54:29.301-07:002014-03-25T10:54:29.301-07:00Karl,
Before you get too frustrated in this conve...Karl,<br /><br />Before you get too frustrated in this conversation, keep in mind that these guys have failed to learn from Aldous Huxley (<i>Brave New World</i>), who wrote "Facts don't cease to exist because they are ignored."<br /><br />Im-skeptical's stubborn refusal to acknowledge that there was no suppression of science during the so-called "Dark Ages" does not make his imagined history any more real. What there <i>was</i> during those roughly 400 years was a bitter struggle simply to stay alive - hardly a propitious time for far-reaching scientific advancement. (And yet, amazingly, it continued nevertheless.)planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16948751599210856912014-03-25T10:52:56.692-07:002014-03-25T10:52:56.692-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-85490975867344025642014-03-25T09:28:33.959-07:002014-03-25T09:28:33.959-07:00Skeppy,
Of course, we were talking about areas un...Skeppy,<br /><br /><i>Of course, we were talking about areas under the domination of the Catholic church, which did in fact suppress scientific advancement</i><br /><br />So you keep repeating but have yet to prove. You have yet to give us even one name of a scientist suppressed by the Church during this time period for his scientific work. In fact, you have yet to actually name one scientific idea that was actually suppressed during the Middle Ages. <br /><br /><i>Clearly, the article I linked uses the latter.</i><br /><br />Yes, and it is hardly an academic site now isn't it? O'Neill goes into some detail about its faults and you have yet to address any of his arguments. <br /><br /><i>The church didn't suppress the invention of tools and weapons, or borrowing technology from other lands. They had no problem with implements of torture and death, as we have seen, but they did suppress science.</i><br /><br />Now do I have dredge up your previous posts where you claimed engineering was a subset of science? Are you now abandoning that claim? Isn't it ironic that you tout modern technology all the damn time as proof that scientific thought is superior to religious thought but when it comes to showing religion suppressed science suddenly technological progress and science are two separate things? Funny how that works. So how about you define what you consider to be scientific work and I am going to hold you to that definition. <br /><br />Hell, I don't even have to ask that. You already admitted on your post on March 24, 2014 11:06 AM there were "modest" advances in science during the time period. Now define what distinguishes a modest scientific advance from a great one. <br /><br /><i>This suppression extended into the Renaissance, but eventually eased.</i><br /><br />In other words, you can't name one scientific invention in a secular state during the Renaissance. About what I figuredAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60722997000577012682014-03-25T07:52:25.587-07:002014-03-25T07:52:25.587-07:00I repeat my invitation: please feel free to expoun...I repeat my invitation: please feel free to expound on the great scientific advances of the Dark Ages. Of course, we were talking about areas under the domination of the Catholic church, which did in fact suppress scientific advancement, not other parts of the world, which were not subject to domination by the church, Karl. Also, the Dark Ages has been variously defined, most commonly as as the Early Middle Ages (400 - 1000) or the Early and High Middle Ages (1000 - 1300). Clearly, the article I linked uses the latter. So we have nine centuries when expressing ideas that were seen by the church as a threat to their theology was likely to get you killed. The church didn't suppress the invention of tools and weapons, or borrowing technology from other lands. They had no problem with implements of torture and death, as we have seen, but they did suppress science. This suppression extended into the Renaissance, but eventually eased.<br /><br />So go ahead. Tell us about all the wonderful scientific advances of the Dark Ages.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-67089300599264501832014-03-25T06:22:48.051-07:002014-03-25T06:22:48.051-07:00Planks Length,
Now watch this entire discussion g...Planks Length,<br /><br /><i>Now watch this entire discussion go off the rails in a debate over the role of Medieval Islam. Any bets?</i><br /><br />Nah, that's a sucker's bet. Besides we already have the two 'geniuses' proclaiming that technological and scientific inventions from Byzantine don't count because Byzantine wasn't Christian (epic fail there) to improvements upon foreign inventions and technology don't count as technological progress if it has military applications. And the best Skeppy can come up with for a persecuted scientist in the Middle Ages is Albertus Magnus personally keeping quiet about some stuff because he personally thought it would upset society at large, not because forced to under pain of death or threat of torture. The rationalizations and evasions are just going to get worse. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77283380651862690512014-03-25T05:54:59.280-07:002014-03-25T05:54:59.280-07:00Karl,
I intend to hammer home my last point (of m...Karl,<br /><br />I intend to hammer home my last point (of my previous comment) in all future discussions on this subject. Any decline in learning, culture, or technology that may have occurred in the Dark Ages was not due to Christianity, but was rather strenuously resisted by it. The sole reason that the "Dark Ages" existed at all was the collapse of the Roman Empire (vigorously defended by its Christian citizens) in the face of the Germanic migrations.<br /><br />Without the monastic orders, the Papacy, and the Orthodox Church, far more of classical culture would have been lost to us than actually was. And as for the old canard about Islam somehow preserving this knowledge - utter rot. The only reason they possessed any of it to begin with was because of their plundering of the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire in the 8th Century. The knowledge was there for Islam to plunder solely due to the centuries of effort on the part of the Christian Byzantine Empire and the Orthodox Church to preserve it.<br /><br />(Now watch this entire discussion go off the rails in a debate over the role of Medieval Islam. Any bets?)planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-270332358056066882014-03-25T05:34:19.915-07:002014-03-25T05:34:19.915-07:00Planks Length,
The Dark Ages began with Alaric...Planks Length,<br /><br /><i>The Dark Ages began with Alaric's Sack of Rome in AD 410, and ended with the crowning of Charlemagne and the founding of the Holy Roman Empire in AD 800.</i><br /><br />I know that, but Skeppy's little link posits the Dark Ages as being from 5th Century (Alaric's Sacking) till the 15th Century. It's hard enough to get him to admit that technological and scientific progress wasn't dead during this time period; getting him to admit that the Dark Ages only occurred for less than half the time he said it did ain't going to happen. <br /><br /><i>And the so-called Dark Ages were confined to Western and Northern Europe, but excluded the Eastern Mediterranean, in which the Byzantine Empire was flourishing.</i><br /><br />I seriously doubt either Paps or Skeppy heard of the Byzantine Empire before this discussion. Which is why we have Paps laughably claiming technology originating from it didn't come from Christian lands.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69346802819958997162014-03-25T04:43:49.169-07:002014-03-25T04:43:49.169-07:00All of you are badly misconstruing the term "...All of you are badly misconstruing the term "Dark Ages". They are <b>not</b> synonymous with the Middle Ages (a much longer period, which also covers a broader geographical area). The Dark Ages began with Alaric's Sack of Rome in AD 410, and ended with the crowning of Charlemagne and the founding of the Holy Roman Empire in AD 800. And the so-called Dark Ages were confined to Western and Northern Europe, but excluded the Eastern Mediterranean, in which the Byzantine Empire was flourishing. <br /><br />For instance, the magnificent (and still standing) Hagia Sophia was built during the reign of the Emperor Justinian (AD 526-565), and the <i>Corpus Juris Civilis</i> was codified in the same period. No "Dark Ages" there! (By the way, Im-skeptical, these are <i>examples</i>, not an exhaustive list!)<br /><br />In any case, the undeniably miserable conditions in the West were neither caused nor sustained by Christendom, but rather by the <i>Volkswanderung</i>, a.k.a., the "Barbarian Invasions". The Catholic Church and its individual members were not guilty party here, but instead very much the victims. So attributing any unpleasantries which occurred during the time period in question to the Church is no different than blaming a rape victim for being assaulted. Are all you atheists out there also in the habit of doing that? Because that is exactly what you are doing here.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-50238023611885333022014-03-25T04:03:33.750-07:002014-03-25T04:03:33.750-07:00Paps,
European technical advancements from the 12...Paps,<br /><br /><i>European technical advancements from the 12th to 14th centuries were either built on long-established techniques in medieval Europe</i><br /><br />The Middle Ages lasted from 5th to 15th, so guess what time period those long-established techniques in medieval Europe came into being. Why the so called "Dark Ages".<br /><br /><i> originating from Roman and Byzantine antecedents</i><br /><br />Oh this rich, hey Paps Byzantine (aka the Eastern Roman Empire) was Christian lands. In fact, the Crusades were originally called to reclaim its lost territory from invading Muslim armies. So you are saying that inventions and scientific research from Christian lands is not proof of scientific and technological progress from Christian lands? I suppose 2 + 2 = 5 in your little mind too, don't they?<br /><br /><i>adapted from cross-cultural exchanges through trading networks with the Islamic world, China, and India.</i><br /><br />Like I told Skeppy earlier:<br /><br /><i>Now if the Church were suppressing scientific research and technological innovation, like you claim, during this time period on grounds of heresy then they definitely would also be suppressing inventions that came from heretical or pagan lands outside the borders of Christendom. But if these inventions from heretical / pagan lands flowed freely across the borders and underwent widespread adoption in Christendom than the idea that the Church was suppressing scientific and technological innovation takes a major hit.</i><br /><br />You have done jack-shit to damage that point. <br /><br /><i>it were Christians that perfected gunpowder to become the clinical, efficient, deadly and devastating weapon of mass destruction</i><br /><br />So you admit that not only did Christian rulers adopt technology from non-Christian lands they improved upon it, and incremental improvements to existing technology make up the bulk technological progress. And you shouldn't be bitching about the military applications of technological development; after all, didn't you cite three articles or so talking about the military applications of transhumanism to show its wonderful future? Should we link to that discussion to show another double standard of yours? <br /><br /><i>And your algebra nonsense can only be characterized as the scuttlebutt of an ignoramus even at the most generous interpretation. You are wantonly derelict in the use of whatever intellect you may possess. Illiteracy writ large.</i><br /><br />In other words you can't find any sources to contradict it so you are following the <i>Argument weak, insult opponent</i> strategy. Now answer me something, both you and Skeppy claim (not that you actually do) follow evidence and logic; how come you and him have such a radically different view of Alchemy?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53831304009529511762014-03-24T22:42:09.069-07:002014-03-24T22:42:09.069-07:00Karl Grant, you are an embarrassment in your cheap...Karl Grant, you are an embarrassment in your cheap and misconstrued use of history. Your three sites show absolutely nothing of any significance that the Christian age of darkness during the European Middle Ages realized an invention or product as a direct result of Christian thought. Your <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_technology" rel="nofollow">List of stuff invented during that flat black line:</a> makes it abundantly clear <i>"European technical advancements from the 12th to 14th centuries <b>were either built on long-established techniques</b> in medieval Europe, <b>originating from Roman and Byzantine antecedents, or adapted from cross-cultural exchanges through trading networks with the Islamic world, China, and India.</b> Often, the revolutionary aspect <b>lay not in the act of invention itself, but in its</b> technological <b>refinement and application to political and economic power</b>. Though gunpowder had long been known to the Chinese, it was the Europeans who developed and perfected its military potential, precipitating European expansion and eventual imperialism in the Modern Era".</i><br /><br />My bolding highlights the acknowledgement for these discoveries and inventions to the rightful owners, and. they. were. not. christian. in. origin. Period. Even gunpowder was not invented by Christians. But to be sure, and true to its pathological form and under God's divine will, it were Christians that perfected gunpowder to become the clinical, efficient, deadly and devastating weapon of mass destruction; and they had no compunction in using it in God's name. Why should we be surprised that the followers of the Christian God would even consider imagining the perfection of killing machines as anything other than the fulfillment of divine will? And of course, history records this Catholic psychotypal obsession with the instruments of torture gleefully used throughout its period of hegemonic domination in Europe during the Middle Ages, happy in its commitment to execute divine retribution on the heretics, blasphemers and people of other faiths [especially Jews].<br /><br />And your algebra nonsense can only be characterized as the scuttlebutt of an ignoramus even at the most generous interpretation. You are wantonly derelict in the use of whatever intellect you may possess. Illiteracy writ large.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11713457142924292392014-03-24T21:34:25.740-07:002014-03-24T21:34:25.740-07:00Skeppy,
The 16th century is hardly the Dark Ages...Skeppy, <br /><br /><i>The 16th century is hardly the Dark Ages.</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.algebra.com/algebra/about/history/" rel="nofollow">Oh, it came into being much earlier than that:</a><br /><br /><i>but by medieval times Islamic mathematicians were able to talk about arbitrarily high powers of the unknown x, and work out the basic algebra of polynomials (without yet using modern symbolism). This included the ability to multiply, divide, and find square roots of polynomials as well as a knowledge of the binomial theorem. The Persian mathematician, astronomer, and poet Omar Khayyam showed how to express roots of cubic equations by line segments obtained by intersecting conic sections, but he could not find a formula for the roots. A Latin translation of Al-Khwarizmi's Algebra appeared in the 12th century. In the early 13th century, the great Italian mathematician Leonardo Fibonacci achieved a close approximation to the solution of the cubic equation x3 + 2x2 + cx = d. Because Fibonacci had traveled in Islamic lands, he probably used an Arabic method of successive approximations.</i><br /><br />12th and 13th century, that's towards the tail end of the Middle Ages. <br /><br /><i>By thy way, did you take note of all the things on your list that were invented in China? Is the Catholic church taking credit for them?</i><br /><br />I never said the Catholic Church was taking credit for them, now did I? I said they were invented in the Middle Ages. Now if the Church were suppressing scientific research and technological innovation, like you claim, during this time period on grounds of heresy then they definitely would also be suppressing inventions that came from heretical or pagan lands outside the borders of Christendom. But if these inventions from heretical / pagan lands flowed freely across the borders and underwent widespread adoption in Christendom than the idea that the Church was suppressing scientific and technological innovation takes a major hit. Understand, genius, or do I have draw you a picture? <br /><br />As to the Chinese question: paper, gunpowder, cannons. Now paper may have been invented in China earlier but it was introduced in Europe in the Middle Ages (which is the time period we are talking about). But let's say I give you that one; congratulations, you managed to remove one invention from the list. Like I said, the list is partial, I can find something to replace it. But I would be real careful about playing this game Skeppy, because you ain't good at it. And I'll give you a hint as to why you ain't good at it. Name all major inventions from the Renaissance invented in a <i>secular</i> state.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1296091812141400972014-03-24T20:55:10.495-07:002014-03-24T20:55:10.495-07:00"For example, algebra was developed during th..."For example, algebra was developed during this time period and I didn't list that."<br /><br />The 16th century is hardly the Dark Ages.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebra<br /><br />"Two, all of these things were developed after the Fall of the Western Roman Empire"<br /><br />http://www.ipst.gatech.edu/amp/collection/museum_invention_paper.htm<br /><br />By thy way, did you take note of all the things on your list that were invented in China? Is the Catholic church taking credit for them?<br /><br />Karl, you're a dolt.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91413125636741709522014-03-24T20:28:14.159-07:002014-03-24T20:28:14.159-07:00Skeppy,
So the totality of "scientific"...Skeppy,<br /><br /><i>So the totality of "scientific" and technological advancement during a millennium of church suppression fits in a short paragraph (even shorter if you remove the things that were developed outside the church's sphere of domination, or before the dark ages began).</i><br /><br />One, that is only a partial list. For example, algebra was developed during this time period and I didn't list that. <br /><br />Two, all of these things were developed <i><b>after</b></i> the Fall of the Western Roman Empire which historically is considered the start of the fucking "Dark Ages". Your little graph on your little link posits the black mark heralding the Dark Ages at around 4th century AD and ending at the around the middle 15th, early 16th century. All the things listed in were invented from 6th to early 15th century, within your little black bracket. Not before. Not after. Somebody ain't paying attention but that's normal. <br /><br />Three, I bet if I asked you to name all the major inventions of the Renaissance period you wouldn't be able name half number of things I listed. Because I am willing to bet your knowledge of history is about the same as your knowledge of physics. Tell me, read up any on thermodynamics lately? But I will do you one better. List all major technological advances of the 20th century. Let's see how long that list is. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82283197040918269872014-03-24T18:41:59.445-07:002014-03-24T18:41:59.445-07:00"Heavy plough, Horse collar, Horseshoes, Wine..."Heavy plough, Horse collar, Horseshoes, Wine press, Artesian well, Central heating, Chimney, Treadwheel crane, Harbor crane, Floating crane, Wheelbarrow, Oil paint, Hourglass, Mechanical clocks, Compound crank, Blast furnace, Paper mill, Rolling mill, Tidal mills, Vertical windmills, Water hammer, Dry compass, Astronomical compass, paper, spectacles, water mark, printing press, buttons, silk, spinning wheel, grindstones, magnets, mirrors, rat traps, soap, saddles, spurs, stirrups, gunpowder, cannon, handguns...."<br /><br />So the totality of "scientific" and technological advancement during a millennium of church suppression fits in a short paragraph (even shorter if you remove the things that were developed outside the church's sphere of domination, or before the dark ages began). Karl, you're a dolt.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75731355582090083532014-03-24T18:01:29.528-07:002014-03-24T18:01:29.528-07:00Paps,
Even O'neill admits himself that these ...Paps,<br /><br /><i>Even O'neill admits himself that these 'scientists' of the Middle Ages were: " I use the word "scientist" here, as I said, as a shorthand for "proto-scientific natural philosopher""</i><br /><br />Pray tell, what do you think the Ancient Greeks and Romans that came before them where? Quantum theorists? <br /><br /><i>"Most physics in the Middle Ages was like the physics of Aristotle - thought experiments and induction about principles like motion, dynamics, mass, space and the nature of time." And we must never forget that 'proto-scientific natural philosophy' also took astrology and alchemy very seriously.</i><br /><br />So your response is to throw all scientific work, including pre-Christian work (when do you think Aristotle lived), before the Great Dawkins under the bus? Just when I think you have said the dumbest thing possible you keep typing. Oh and it's a good thing they practiced alchemy. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy" rel="nofollow">Since Skeppy no longer dislikes Wikipedia:</a><br /><br /><i> It is recognized as a protoscience that contributed to the development of modern chemistry and medicine. Alchemists developed a structure of basic laboratory techniques, theory, terminology, and experimental method, some of which are still in use today.</i><br /><br />So people in the Middle Ages spending time on something that gave birth to modern medicine, and modern chemistry, was a bad thing, am I right? Between this and your love of the anti-flu-shot crank Bill Maher, I am starting think you don't like modern medicine. Is that because they want to put you in nursing home? But hey if you want to mock Alchemy go ahead; oh by the way, congratulations. By doing so you have just admitted Skeppy is full of shit to try and make yourself look good. From his precious little No Beliefs site: <i>The Church also frowned on the practice of alchemy thus chemistry, without which the understanding of matter could not have happened.</i> <br /><br />Hey Skeppy, how does it feel to have Paps tell everybody your precious link is bullshit?<br /><br /><i>Even atheists [I shudder to imagine] can be wrong.</i><br /><br />Speaking from personal experience here? After all, you were wrong when you thought you could try your hand at plagiarism and we wouldn't notice.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14183691563180681922014-03-24T17:59:42.192-07:002014-03-24T17:59:42.192-07:00Skeppy,
Please feel free to expound on all the gr...Skeppy,<br /><br /><i>Please feel free to expound on all the great scientific advances of the dark ages.<br /><br />http://nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm </i><br /><br />Oh, that sorry ass site again. It didn't impress us the first time why do you think it will do so this time? In fact, O'Neill actually has the graph at bottom of your link in his article. This is what he says about it:<br /><br /><i>And, almost without fail, someone digs up a graphic (see below), which I have come to dub "The Most Wrong Thing On the Internet Ever", and to flourish it triumphantly as though it is proof of something other than the fact that most people are utterly ignorant of history and unable to see that something called "Scientific Advancement" can't be measured, let alone plotted on a graph.</i><br /><br />Well, you are astonishingly predictable. Here is what I think of your graph. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_technology" rel="nofollow">List of stuff invented during that flat black line:</a><br /><br />Heavy plough, Horse collar, Horseshoes, Wine press, Artesian well, Central heating, Chimney, Treadwheel crane, Harbor crane, Floating crane, Wheelbarrow, Oil paint, Hourglass, Mechanical clocks, Compound crank, Blast furnace, Paper mill, Rolling mill, Tidal mills, Vertical windmills, Water hammer, Dry compass, Astronomical compass, paper, spectacles, water mark, printing press, buttons, silk, spinning wheel, grindstones, magnets, mirrors, rat traps, soap, saddles, spurs, stirrups, gunpowder, cannon, handguns....<br /><br />Lots of technological inventions for a time period supposed to be bereft of technological advancement. All of these things were invented before 1500 but after the fall of the Roman Empire, right where that black mark is on your graph. <br /> <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68361348106218151212014-03-24T14:41:11.671-07:002014-03-24T14:41:11.671-07:00Grant trots out:
Tim O'Neill: "By the tim...Grant trots out:<br />Tim O'Neill: <i>"By the time I produce a laundry list of Medieval scientists - like Albertus Magnus, R........ and ask why these men were happily pursuing science in the Middle Ages without molestation from the Church, my opponents usually scratch their heads in puzzlement at what just went wrong."</i><br /><br />Such triumphalism rounding out this polemic from O'Neill isn't really a seminal treatise on the historical nature of the relationship between religion and science in the middle ages. It is one view, a review of a book, in which O'Neill overpaints a seemingly cozy téte-a-téte between science and religion. Such a view is only a Pyrrhic victory as religion, theology to be precise, certainly was the predominant metric against which all other endeavours, including science, was measured. To be sure Magus, Duns Scotus etc etc explored aspects of 'natural philosophy' but it was always in context of the prevailing theological paradigm. Even O'neill admits himself that these 'scientists' of the Middle Ages were: <i>" I use the word "scientist" here, as I said, as a shorthand for "proto-scientific natural philosopher""</i> Hardly a ringing endorsement of science. But rather a quasi-science more in keeping with philosophical musings than the empirical and observational nature of the discipline as we know it today, and always, always ruminated upon within the dictats of contemporaneous theological thought. He goes on: <i>"Most physics in the Middle Ages was like the physics of Aristotle - thought experiments and induction about principles like motion, dynamics, mass, space and the nature of time."</i> And we must never forget that 'proto-scientific natural philosophy' also took astrology and alchemy very seriously. <br /><br />Of course, as a counter, there are many other scholars of history that offer a different slant. So it is by no means a slam dunk. Indeed, when one surveys the contemporary landscape, anti-science is predominantly a religious motivated reaction, palpably and obviously manifested through the response of religionists on the matter of biological evolution, just one of so many examples. To claim that Catholic doctrine is in accord with biological evolution is a rhetorical furphy in the most underhanded and devious way. In fact it is as Daniel Dennett would call, a 'deepity' - something that is trivially true but fundamentally false. It is true up to a point, so long as that point does not transgress beyond the boundary of the profane, that is, encroach onto theologically sacred territory, in very much the same way science would not have been allowed to do during the Middle Ages. The Catholic doctrine does not support the absolutely central and fundamental tenet of biological evolution; that it is natural and unguided. Catholic doctrine pays lip service, a pretense towards embracing science, but it does not for one moment subscribe to unguided natural evolution. The closest that Catholics can abide with science is to accept 'guided' evolution, a view that is unscientific. Why? Because unguided natural evolution transgresses into the sacred domain; the totally unfounded claim that God created humans. <br /><br />So I wouldn't be trotting out this piece too often, its only value being a piece written by an atheist. Even atheists [I shudder to imagine] can be wrong.<br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-65615202260086971652014-03-24T14:29:47.912-07:002014-03-24T14:29:47.912-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30563970782670371672014-03-24T13:01:57.148-07:002014-03-24T13:01:57.148-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-15045067243358350832014-03-24T12:30:27.798-07:002014-03-24T12:30:27.798-07:00"That is exactly what the OPERA collaboration..."That is exactly what the OPERA collaboration recently did, so we have a counter-example to your claim."<br /><br />That's absurd. What they did was discover errors in the observed data. If they had confirmed that these neutrinos actually move faster than light, they would have been forced to revise the general theory of relativity. What they don't do is revise observed data to agree with their beliefs. Save that for the theists.<br /><br />"Nobody here can understand you because you are speaking your own private language, I'm afraid!"<br /><br />Now this conversation is getting pretty ridiculous. I said quite clearly from the beginning that the premise used in AFR was unsupported be observed facts. It should be perfectly clear what I'm saying, but you have tried to turn the table to place the burden of proof on me. If I say the assertion isn't true, you object that I'm being "irksome". If I say that the assertion isn't valid, you complain that I'm not using the correct technical jargon.<br /><br />OK, I'm not a trained philosopher. But I still know bullshit when I see it.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.com