Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-02-2015, 04:05 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(26-02-2015 11:50 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  You literally just asserted that my definition of "substance" is wrong because it's a definition that was originally created in the Middle Ages.

Actually I said no such thing. Are you on drugs ? You still have presented no definition of the word "substance" that has any meaning in 2015. You have given us no EVIDENCE and answered no important question here. All you've done is said really stupid things like the "council passed the council", old man.

How is the "substance" of steam different from the "substance" of water ? Take your time.
Did you say your rosary today ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2015, 07:04 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(26-02-2015 11:47 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
Quote:Modern science began with the Enlightenment. The rest of your rant is simply a rant.

Science did not begin with the Enlightenment.

Nor did I say that. I said modern science.

Quote:
Quote:No, they did nothing to successfully combat disease, lengthen lifespan, improve health.

In your world, God invented disease.

Yeah, actually they did. The thing is that most of simply didn't work.

No, they did nothing to successfully combat disease, lengthen lifespan, improve health.

Quote:That doesn't mean they weren't constantly trying and learning though. Hell, trepanning to reduce swelling on the brain is still something that works today, and they also knew how to tend to physical injuries such as breaking your arm, or the more common 'getting shot with an arrow', so did say they did 'nothing' is not true.

They were not successful; wounds got infected, people were crippled by or died of things that are easily treatable by modern science-based medicine.

Quote:
Quote:Which makes you the mortal foe of rational people.

Yeah, sure, okay bud.

Anyone who advocates theocracy or monarchy is in opposition to human dignity.

Quote:
Quote:Yeah, compared to the kindly ministrations of the Office of the Inquisition?

Actually, the Inquisition only put to death 2000 people over 200 years, and even then, they always dealt out the punishment after a lengthy trial where they looked at evidence and testimony, and made every attempt to deliver the right judgement.

Do you seriously believe that version of 'history'? The office of the Inquisition was in existence for far longer than 200 years.

Quote:Post revolutionary France, however, killed hundreds of thousands, millions even, if you count the wars they fought to spread secularism across Europe, and there was no due process, no trial, or no sense involved in the matter. They were so paranoid, in their constant executions of people, that they actually ended up executing one of the leaders of the Revolution for something he didn't say. Try to listen to actual historians for a change.

Quote:Tell us the tale of Galileo, please. Consider

What's there to tell? The evidence Galileo presented wasn't right, and still isn't valid proof of heliocentrism to this day, he presented nothing that wasn't already refuted by Aristotle's arguments against heliocentrism. Not to mention, his version of heliocentrism wasn't even correct to begin with. He thought that the Sun was the center of the entire universe, not just the Solar System. Once again, try reading actual historians instead of tracts from the Internet.

Aristotle's arguments against heliocentrism? Are you trying to be ridiculed here?
Galileo used observations of the moon, Venus, and Jupiter's moons to demonstrate that heliocentrism was a more correct model.

Quote:
Quote:"The history of science during the Age of Enlightenment traces developments in science and technology during the Age of Reason, when Enlightenment ideas and ideals were being disseminated across Europe and North America. Generally, the period spans from the final days of the 16th and 17th-century Scientific revolution until roughly the 19th century, after the French Revolution (1789) and the Napoleonic era (1799–1815). The scientific revolution saw the creation of the first scientific societies, the rise of Copernicanism, and the displacement of Aristotelian natural philosophy and Galen’s ancient medical doctrine. By the 18th century, scientific authority began to displace religious authority, and the disciplines of alchemy and astrology lost scientific credibility."

Wikipedia: Always a reliable source. Then again, I'm not denying the scientific discoveries that happened during this period, I just hate the stupid ideas of (most) Enlightenment philosophers, and hate the idea that anything that came before the Enlightenment is wrong simply by the virtue of coming before the Enlightenment. I also see no reason to think that all these things wouldn't have been discovered if the French Revolution and subsequent Enlightenment did not take place.

The onset of the Enlightenment preceded the French Revolution by more than a century, so what do you mean by "the French Revolution and subsequent Enlightenment"?

What, precisely, is so hateful to you of the Enlightenment?

Quote:Also, the idea that astrology held any major place within Medieval Europe's academic community in the first place is not true.

I beg to differ. It was influential in medicine, meteorology, and politics.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
27-02-2015, 07:35 AM (This post was last modified: 27-02-2015 07:39 AM by PetrovPolak.)
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(27-02-2015 12:46 AM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  
(27-02-2015 12:29 AM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  Yeah, no. Here's what happened in full. Galileo submitted his paper 'De revolutionibus orbium coelestium' to the Inquisition to get an Imprimatur, and was summoned to present his proof to Cardinal Robert Bellarmine.  He said it was a good hypothesis, but Galileo failed to provide valid proof for it. 'De revolutionibus orbium coelestium' was placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, however, the Inquisition still allowed him to teach it as an unproven hypothesis.  Galileo presented it as proven fact, therefore, the Inquisition placed him under house arrest in his villa, where he died a few years later of natural causes.

Also, to clarify, the heretical position was not that the Earth did move, it was that the Sun was the center of the universe, which, while not being declared a heresy in an infallible manner, was never revised, as it is still not true today.

That *book* was by *Copernicus*. Try again.

Oh, right, got things mixed up there. Everything else about that is still true though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2015, 07:57 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2015, 07:58 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Quote:Actually I said no such thing. Are you on drugs ?

Quote:All you did was copy-paste an ancient definition and expect us to accept it because you say so.

Top fucking kek m8.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2015, 08:04 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(27-02-2015 07:58 AM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
Quote:Actually I said no such thing. Are you on drugs ?

Quote:All you did was copy-paste an ancient definition and expect us to accept it because you say so.

Top fucking kek m8.

So you are on drugs then. Facepalm
That's what I thought.
Oh well.
Say your prayers. There may be hope for you, but I doubt it.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2015, 09:02 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(27-02-2015 08:04 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(27-02-2015 07:58 AM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  Top fucking kek m8.

So you are on drugs then. Facepalm
That's what I thought.
Oh well.
Say your prayers. There may be hope for you, but I doubt it.

You gave no reason for the definition I gave being invalid other than it's "ancient", therefore, that's exactly what you said.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2015, 09:58 AM (This post was last modified: 27-02-2015 10:03 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(27-02-2015 09:02 AM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
(27-02-2015 08:04 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So you are on drugs then. Facepalm
That's what I thought.
Oh well.
Say your prayers. There may be hope for you, but I doubt it.

You gave no reason for the definition I gave being invalid other than it's "ancient", therefore, that's exactly what you said.

Actually it utterly devoid of meaning in 2015. ANd you failed, and NOT ONE person here agrees with anything you have said about anything. Loser. It may work for your older brain, but NO ONE in 2015 talks about or believes in "substance" and YOU have not a shred of evidence that the concept is valid. If I have a rock, (which in your world has the "substance of rock-ness". and using the VERY SAME atoms it can (and does) get changed into volcanic lava, (which in your world would have the "substance of lava", then THE VERY (things) same set of atoms possess no intrinsic "substance" of anything, and science has disproven your garbage.

You REALLY need to join the 21st Century, dear, and get yourself an education from someplace other than the *Holy Jebus and Mary Seminary Indoctrination Center for Future Pedophiles and their Protectors*.

Maybe you've poisoned your brain by watching videos by dead priests you can't even explain if you tried. Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2015, 11:25 AM (This post was last modified: 27-02-2015 11:48 AM by PetrovPolak.)
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(27-02-2015 09:58 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(27-02-2015 09:02 AM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  You gave no reason for the definition I gave being invalid other than it's "ancient", therefore, that's exactly what you said.

Actually it utterly devoid of meaning in 2015. ANd you failed, and NOT ONE person here agrees with anything you have said about anything. Loser. It may work for your older brain, but NO ONE in 2015 talks about or believes in "substance" and YOU have not a shred of evidence that the concept is valid. If I have a rock, (which in your world has the "substance of rock-ness". and using the VERY SAME atoms it can (and does) get changed into volcanic lava, (which in your world would have the "substance of lava", then THE VERY (things) same set of atoms possess no intrinsic "substance" of anything, and science has disproven your garbage.

You REALLY need to join the 21st Century, dear, and get yourself an education from someplace other than the *Holy Jebus and Mary Seminary Indoctrination Center for Future Pedophiles and their Protectors*.

Maybe you've poisoned your brain by watching videos by dead priests you can't even explain if you tried. Tongue

Quote:Actually it utterly devoid of meaning in 2015.

Why? You haven't explained why it's devoid of meaing.

Quote:and using the VERY SAME atoms it can (and does) get changed into volcanic lava, (which in your world would have the "substance of lava", then THE VERY (things) same set of atoms possess no intrinsic "substance" of anything, and science has disproven your garbage.

You're entire line of logic seems to be based on the presupposition that substances are unchanging and inert. They're not.

Quote:You REALLY need to join the 21st Century, dear, and get yourself an education from someplace other than the *Holy Jebus and Mary Seminary Indoctrination Center for Future Pedophiles and their Protectors*.

It's funny you talk about pedophiles while you're a sodomite supporter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2015, 11:44 AM (This post was last modified: 27-02-2015 11:51 AM by PetrovPolak.)
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(27-02-2015 07:04 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(26-02-2015 11:47 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  Science did not begin with the Enlightenment.

Nor did I say that. I said modern science.

Quote:Yeah, actually they did. The thing is that most of simply didn't work.

No, they did nothing to successfully combat disease, lengthen lifespan, improve health.

Quote:That doesn't mean they weren't constantly trying and learning though. Hell, trepanning to reduce swelling on the brain is still something that works today, and they also knew how to tend to physical injuries such as breaking your arm, or the more common 'getting shot with an arrow', so did say they did 'nothing' is not true.

They were not successful; wounds got infected, people were crippled by or died of things that are easily treatable by modern science-based medicine.

Quote:Yeah, sure, okay bud.

Anyone who advocates theocracy or monarchy is in opposition to human dignity.

Quote:Actually, the Inquisition only put to death 2000 people over 200 years, and even then, they always dealt out the punishment after a lengthy trial where they looked at evidence and testimony, and made every attempt to deliver the right judgement.

Do you seriously believe that version of 'history'? The office of the Inquisition was in existence for far longer than 200 years.

Quote:Post revolutionary France, however, killed hundreds of thousands, millions even, if you count the wars they fought to spread secularism across Europe, and there was no due process, no trial, or no sense involved in the matter. They were so paranoid, in their constant executions of people, that they actually ended up executing one of the leaders of the Revolution for something he didn't say. Try to listen to actual historians for a change.


What's there to tell? The evidence Galileo presented wasn't right, and still isn't valid proof of heliocentrism to this day, he presented nothing that wasn't already refuted by Aristotle's arguments against heliocentrism. Not to mention, his version of heliocentrism wasn't even correct to begin with. He thought that the Sun was the center of the entire universe, not just the Solar System. Once again, try reading actual historians instead of tracts from the Internet.

Aristotle's arguments against heliocentrism? Are you trying to be ridiculed here?
Galileo used observations of the moon, Venus, and Jupiter's moons to demonstrate that heliocentrism was a more correct model.

Quote:Wikipedia: Always a reliable source. Then again, I'm not denying the scientific discoveries that happened during this period, I just hate the stupid ideas of (most) Enlightenment philosophers, and hate the idea that anything that came before the Enlightenment is wrong simply by the virtue of coming before the Enlightenment. I also see no reason to think that all these things wouldn't have been discovered if the French Revolution and subsequent Enlightenment did not take place.

The onset of the Enlightenment preceded the French Revolution by more than a century, so what do you mean by "the French Revolution and subsequent Enlightenment"?



Quote:Also, the idea that astrology held any major place within Medieval Europe's academic community in the first place is not true.

I beg to differ. It was influential in medicine, meteorology, and politics.

Quote:Nor did I say that. I said modern science.

I don't think that's right either. I guess you could say it was 'refined' during the Enlightenment, but experimental science existed before the Enlightenment as well.

Quote:No, they did nothing to successfully combat disease, lengthen lifespan, improve health.

I could have sworn "successfully" wasn't there before. Oh well then, I guess I just didn't see it.

Quote:They were not successful; wounds got infected, people were crippled by or died of things that are easily treatable by modern science-based medicine.

Depends on what you're talking about. If it was a broken arm or a fractured bone, that was treatable. If you're talking about an arrow going through the tendon on your leg, then yeah, the leg's most likely done for.

Quote:Anyone who advocates theocracy or monarchy is in opposition to human dignity.

And this kind of thinking is exactly why I don't like the ideas of the Enlightenment.

Quote:Do you seriously believe that version of 'history'?

Well, considering that it's the 'correct' version of history that's accepted by all serious historians, then yes.

Quote:The office of the Inquisition was in existence for far longer than 200 years.

The Spanish Inquisition is the one usually everyone means when they talk about "The Inquisition", so I was talking about that one.

Quote:Aristotle's arguments against heliocentrism? Are you trying to be ridiculed here?

I think you've got it backwards there, bud. The fact that you didn't know about Aristotle's arguments against heliocentrism that refuted it for centuries to come makes you the object of ridicule.

Quote:Galileo used observations of the moon, Venus, and Jupiter's moons to demonstrate that heliocentrism was a more correct model.

First off, a lot of that wasn't new evidence, and secondly, it didn't matter as Galileo couldn't refute Aristotle's main arguments, and thus, couldn't solve any of the major problems with the theory at the time.

Quote:What, precisely, is so hateful to you of the Enlightenment?

It's disdain for tradition, hierarchy, authority, and religion. The habit of its intellectuals to talk about religion, even though they had no education in it, leading them to support the worst, most unsupported theories ever, as long as it agreed with their anti-Church bias, all the while proclaiming themselves "Enlightened" or "Freethinkers" (Thomas Paine and his constant ramblings about the Council of Nicaea and Christ myth conspiracy theories is an excellent example of this).

Its espousal of imaginary, 'feel-good' values like "Every man is equal." and "Natural, universal, human rights." Their disposition towards armed rebellion to achieve their goals, and the underlying idea that anyone who opposed said rebellion couldn't be genuine in their intentions, but had to be either some power-hungry maniac, or a brain-washed sycophant.

That's a few reasons.

Quote:I beg to differ. It was influential in medicine, meteorology, and politics.

Huh, I guess I'll have to look into that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: