Obama mentions atheists in Inauguration Speech

Rev Hellfire

Dades wrote: »

pH wrote:

Well whenever I see people posting here it seems to be only atheists and the more fanatical followers of Christianity that hold the view that bible is the unchanging word of god and must be taken literally as written.

Are you saying you don't know why that is?

Now now lets not be putting my words into pH's mouth

CerebralCortex

PDN wrote: »

Ah, but now you're doing exegesis - trying to discern what the original authors intended to say. And, as some of your co-religionists have pointed out in another thread, exegesis is nonsense and part of a made-up subject. Apparently, according to them, your bias prevents you from being able to come to any reasonable conclusion as to what the authors actually meant to say thousands of years ago. So, by that reasoning, your statement about how the writings seem is subjective and meaningless.

Co-religionists?

PDN

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Co-religionists?

If you prefer, "those who share your subsection of the RELIGION & SPIRITUALITY forum".

PDN

PDN wrote: »

If you prefer, "those who share your subsection of the RELIGION & SPIRITUALITY forum".

We should really have our own secton.

But, not to derail the thread too much, have you ever noticed how "paranormal", including "psychics and mediums" is under recreation? Now, that's funny.

pH

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Now now lets not be putting my words into pH's mouth

Or anything else of yours for that matter.

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Now now lets not be putting my words into pH's mouth

LOL... fixed.

PDN wrote: »

Ah, but now you're doing exegesis - trying to discern what the original authors intended to say. And, as some of your co-religionists have pointed out in another thread, exegesis is nonsense and part of a made-up subject.

You obviously didn't notice my lack of input in the exegesis debate... I am not a number!
I therefore reserve the right to interpret Genesis as I read it.

darjeeling

PDN wrote: »

Obama (like just about every other President) chose to add the 'so help me God' phrase to the oath, and to swear on Lincoln's old Bible.

sionnach wrote: »

Obama didn't just give us a shout out, he took the constitutional oath of office without his hand on a bible!

Originally Posted by msnbc news
Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the oath to Obama on Wednesday night at the White House — a rare do-over

The president said he did not have his Bible with him, but that the oath was binding anyway.

So Obama continues to be all things to all people. For the Christians, he was up on TV with his hand on a Bible, invoking God. For the atheists (to whom he gave a big shout out), he was taking the oath with his hand on a book belonging to Abraham Lincoln. Oh, and then he took it again in private, and let it slip he didn't use a Bible the second time.

Sooner or later he's going to have to disappoint someone, but we can enjoy the peace while it lasts.

Goduznt Xzst

PDN wrote: »

I would say a majority of Christians today would believe in theistic evolution.

Yes you would. I would say a majority of Christians today would not believe in theistic evolution. I believe we have equal evidence supporting both of our postulations.

PDN wrote: »

We read the Bible to discover how to live our lives better, how to glorify God, and to have a good relationship with Him - just like President Obama reads his Bible.

Seems like he was quite the bad author then. Would you not agree that this message could of been expressed a lot more succinctly without adding in all this filler that has just confused people for milleniums.

I mean what is the purpose of Genesis at all if its just a story that shouldn't be taken literally and can change as it pleases with scientific discovery. I mean it is nothing more than fluff in the wind, having no substance. You might as well just have a book that says "God did it, whatever you figure out, yup, he did it". In fact I might write that book, I'm sure there are people like you out there that would follow me, and the greatest part is its completely unfallible.

In fact whatever you type next, my God is going to make you type it, he told me so in a vision. You may resist it, but eventually you will give in and type something, and my prophecy will be fulfilled. Here is my prophecy, in allegorical form, of what you'll type in your next few posts "A mongoose flies south over a riverbank nestled between two mountain peaks, a man pokes his eyeball with a flies leg"

I'll let you know what the allegory means once you figure out what you're going to type next in your next few posts, then i'll interpret it for you to show you that my prophecy was true all along.

philologos

darjeeling wrote: »

So Obama continues to be all things to all people. For the Christians, he was up on TV with his hand on a Bible, invoking God. For the atheists (to whom he gave a big shout out), he was taking the oath with his hand on a book belonging to Abraham Lincoln. Oh, and then he took it again in private, and let it slip he didn't use a Bible the second time.

I don't agree with swearing on the Bible, it just seems to me to be a bit contradictory.

Matthew 5:34 wrote:

But I say to you, do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let your word be "Yes, Yes" or "No, No" anything else comes from the evil one.

darjeeling

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't agree with swearing on the Bible, it just seems to me to be a bit contradictory.

Well then the second oath-taking was for you - the man has all bases covered.

More seriously, I don't think America has much appetite for religious strife right now, and Obama seems canny enough to know to use his political capital where it matters.

PDN

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Yes you would. I would say a majority of Christians today would not believe in theistic evolution. I believe we have equal evidence supporting both of our postulations.

I certainly don't agree that we have equal evidence. I have decades of experience of working with thousands of Christians of many denominations and studying their beliefs. From some of your previous posts, I don't believe that you have much idea of what Christians actually believe at all.

Theistic evolution is accepted by Roman Catholicism, the Eastern Orthodox Church, many Protestant denominations (eg Anglicanism & Methodism) and by major Christian figures such as Billy Graham.

Seems like he was quite the bad author then. Would you not agree that this message could of been expressed a lot more succinctly without adding in all this filler that has just confused people for milleniums.

No I don't agree. The point of the Bible is not just to impart information, but to inspire us to changed lives. Think again of Obama. He could have shared his goals for the Presidency in a prosaic list of propositions. But that would never have inspired enough volunteers to win him the election. It took a mixture of prose, poetry and metaphor (expressed with an oratorical flourish) to make history.

I mean what is the purpose of Genesis at all if its just a story that shouldn't be taken literally and can change as it pleases with scientific discovery. I mean it is nothing more than fluff in the wind, having no substance. You might as well just have a book that says "God did it, whatever you figure out, yup, he did it". In fact I might write that book, I'm sure there are people like you out there that would follow me, and the greatest part is its completely unfallible.

In fact whatever you type next, my God is going to make you type it, he told me so in a vision. You may resist it, but eventually you will give in and type something, and my prophecy will be fulfilled. Here is my prophecy, in allegorical form, of what you'll type in your next few posts "A mongoose flies south over a riverbank nestled between two mountain peaks, a man pokes his eyeball with a flies leg"

I'll let you know what the allegory means once you figure out what you're going to type next in your next few posts, then i'll interpret it for you to show you that my prophecy was true all along.

That's just the point. Your assertion is contradicted by history. The interpretation of Genesis doesn't change with scientific discovery. The metaphorical interpretation of Genesis 1 preceded any scientific discoveries.

Christians use exegesis to determine which Scripture is intended to be taken literally and which is poetry, parable or extended metaphor. You have made clear that you reject the validity of that process, and you therefore assert than a text can be interpreted any way you want. Bully for you! But you have then effectively disqualified yourself from criticising how Christians interpret the Bible.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

So, it is completely untrue to assert that all, or even most Christians, interpreted Genesis 1 literally until scientific discoveries forced them to do otherwise.

I wish someone would explain that to Wolfsbane :pac:

The Mad Hatter

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Yes you would. I would say a majority of Christians today would not believe in theistic evolution. I believe we have equal evidence supporting both of our postulations.

I'd actually be willing to bet that the majority of Christians don't give a *checks whether he's in Christianity or A&A* damn. An awful lot of them have probably never thought about it, and I'd say of those who have, the higher percentage is likely to agree with scientists on science and with religionists on religion. The fact is, most people have other things to think about.

ZuStar

PDN wrote: »

You obviously hold to a different view of the Bible than I do. I wouldn't expect anything different from you as an atheist.

i'm not actually an athiest. just for the record.

ZuStar

Jakkass wrote: »

That isn't entirely true either, as I've said previously in this thread, many early Christian figures suggested that the 7 days could have been more stages rather than literal days. Augustine, and Origen of Jerusalem are the two I can think of right now who held such a stance.

PDN wrote: »

So when did human science demonstrate this to be implausible? Must have been before St Augustine. Was there a early version of Darwin beavering away diligently in the Galapagos in the 3rd Century AD?

it makes no difference that someone somewhere had the idea at some time. what is trying to be demonstrated here is that the thought that the earth is much older than can be gleaned from the bible, or that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth, and the implications that these realizations have on the world were scornfully discarded or just ignored until science made it nearly impossible to do either. people were killed for suggesting such things seriously. and also interesting to note is that rationale was never enough to really persuade people, or the religious institutions that govern them.

why don't religions have to stand up to the same test of scrutiny as everything else? why is faith in religion considered so virtuous and absolute, but blindly following or believing in anything else is obvious ignorance? why should we scrutinize our science or our politicians more than we scrutinize our idea of god or the institution that supposedly has a monopoly on god? and to say that it's just 'a matter of faith' does nothing to imply why that faith is good or right. it's like saying that grapes are good for you because they're grapes. it's meaningless.

ZuStar

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The majority of Christians seem to take only a small handful of statements from it as historical and scientific fact, namely that the individual known as Jesus existed, died, got up, you know the story.

this illustrates the point i've been trying to make. there seems to be an arbitrary method for picking what part of the bible is the "good" part. why are the stories of jesus considered more accurate than, perhaps, the story of sodom and gomorrah? did god really destroy this town specifically because of it's sins? and what of the prophecies for the future? what system is there for determining which part is real and which part is not? and why would you worship a book that seems to fall mostly in the realm of not? how is it any different from "the secret" or "aesop's fables?"

PDN

ZuStar wrote: »

it makes no difference that someone somewhere had the idea at some time. what is trying to be demonstrated here is that the thought that the earth is much older than can be gleaned from the bible, or that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth, and the implications that these realizations have on the world were scornfully discarded or just ignored until science made it nearly impossible to do either.

Surely that would be true of most people, religious or irreligious? None of us should be gullible enough to believe some scientific theory until the weight of evidence makes it nearly impossible not to. That's what the scientific method is all about, isn't it? Otherwise you're just accepting things on faith.

people were killed for suggesting such things seriously.

Really? Who was killed for suggesting that the earth is older than can be gleaned from the Bible, or that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth?

why don't religions have to stand up to the same test of scrutiny as everything else? why is faith in religion considered so virtuous and absolute, but blindly following or believing in anything else is obvious ignorance?

I'm sorry, but I don't recall anyone in this thread suggesting that religions should not be scrutinised or saying that religion should automatically be considered virtuous or absolute? Maybe you could cite which posters have argued that - or are you just going off on a bit of a rant?

PDN

PDN wrote: »

or that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth?

If Galileo had been any more determined, he probably would have been tortured, if not killed.

ZuStar

PDN wrote: »

I would say a majority of Christians today would believe in theistic evolution.

i don't understand what sort of parallel dimension you live in where most christians fully accept evolution over creationism. you realize that there are still ongoing battles about whether it's even ALLOWED to be taught in schools, right? yes, STILL. as in now. as in it was just last year that the state of florida's schools were allowed to use the word "evolution" instead of "change over time."

and it would be nice if you'd stop being so condescending about how you think the debate in this forum should behave. bringing up questionable practices is not tantamount to "straw men" and asking questions is not a method of "changing the subject" to evade what you must think is your intimidating rhetorical ability. however, i would think that making snotty remarks about other people's thoughts and ideas is a pretty good example of self-riteousness. but i suppose people who don't believe in popular religion have long had to deal with being considered inferior by people who have "god on their side."

ZuStar

PDN wrote: »

Ah, but now you're doing exegesis - trying to discern what the original authors intended to say. And, as some of your co-religionists have pointed out in another thread, exegesis is nonsense and part of a made-up subject.

so.... if it's impossible to determine what they actually meant, then why bother reading or using the bible for anything? how can you read it and not try to determine what the authors intended to say?

ZuStar

PDN wrote: »

Really? Who was killed for suggesting that the earth is older than can be gleaned from the Bible, or that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth?

I'm sorry, but I don't recall anyone in this thread suggesting that religions should not be scrutinised or saying that religion should automatically be considered virtuous or absolute? Maybe you could cite which posters have argued that - or are you just going off on a bit of a rant?

Giordano Bruno (1548 – February 17, 1600) , burned at the stake.

and to address your second "point," i am of the tendency of having thoughts that don't come directly from other people's thoughts. god**, you're so condescending.

**irony intended** lest you scoff that now i'm changing sides.

ZuStar

sorry for all the repeated posts lately, i just really like these types of discussions. with exception to those who try to impose rules of how the discussion should go or what's a valid topic to bring up. **cough cough**

i'll give it a break for a little while. if i can.

PDN

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

If Galileo had been any more determined, he probably would have been tortured, if not killed.

I wasn't asking what might have happened to Galileo in a hypothetical situation. I was asking who these people were that Zustar says were killed. I don't think it's an unreasonable question - otherwise we could all go around bolstering our arguments with allegations of non-existent atrocities. Who knows, maybe he will find some examples? But I certainly don't have any springing to mind from my reading on church history.

Zustar wrote:

i don't understand what sort of parallel dimension you live in where most christians fully accept evolution over creationism. you realize that there are still ongoing battles about whether it's even ALLOWED to be taught in schools, right? yes, STILL. as in now. as in it was just last year that the state of florida's schools were allowed to use the word "evolution" instead of "change over time."

Yes, there is the occasional court case brought by little groups of people, but two thirds of the US population believe in evolution, and 75% of the population claim to be Christian - so, even if every nonChristian was an evolutionist, that would still leave 42% of the population (or 56% of professing Christians) believing in theistic evolution.

So, creationists make up a minority (albeit a large minority) of Christians in America. Creationism is a far more common phenomenon in the US than anywhere else. So I am the one who is living in the real world rather than a parallel dimension where facts are jettisoned for a urban legends where most Christians are Creationists and history is full of people being killed for not believing the sun circles the earth.

Zustar wrote:

and it would be nice if you'd stop being so condescending about how you think the debate in this forum should behave. bringing up questionable practices is not tantamount to "straw men" and asking questions is not a method of "changing the subject" to evade what you must think is your intimidating rhetorical ability.

Maybe you should address the post rather than attacking the poster?

Bringing up questionable practices that have nothing to do with the subject or individuals involved in a discussion, and then misrepresenting the views of Christians, is most certainly straw manning.

I make no claims to my rhetorical ability. I simply like to discuss issues and find it irritating when people make outlandish claims and then try to change the subject. I don't think that is unreasonable.

Zustar wrote:

however, i would think that making snotty remarks about other people's thoughts and ideas is a pretty good example of self-riteousness.

You seem to have forgotten that this little interchange between us began because you, instead of addressing Jakkass's points, made a snotty remark about the Bible and the age of the earth. A pretty good example of self-righteousness coupled with a bad memory?

Zustar wrote:

so.... if it's impossible to determine what they actually meant, then why bother reading or using the bible for anything? how can you read it and not try to determine what the authors intended to say?

I think that it's perfectly possible, by using historical and linguistic criteria, to determine, in most cases, what the authors actually meant and whether it should be interpreted as literal prose or as parables or poetry. I was referring to another thread ('Atheism is Cool' or some such title) where the majority of atheists loudly proclaimed that such exegesis was impossible or nonsense.

ZuStar

PDN wrote: »

I wasn't asking what might have happened to Galileo in a hypothetical situation. I was asking who these people were that Zustar says were killed. I don't think it's an unreasonable question - otherwise we could all go around bolstering our arguments with allegations of non-existent atrocities. Who knows, maybe he will find some examples? But I certainly don't have any springing to mind from my reading on church history.


Yes, there is the occasional court case brought by little groups of people, but two thirds of the US population believe in evolution, and 75% of the population claim to be Christian - so, even if every nonChristian was an evolutionist, that would still leave 42% of the population (or 56% of professing Christians) believing in theistic evolution.

So, creationists make up a minority (albeit a large minority) of Christians in America. Creationism is a far more common phenomenon in the US than anywhere else. So I am the one who is living in the real world rather than a parallel dimension where facts are jettisoned for a urban legends where most Christians are Creationists and history is full of people being killed for not believing the sun circles the earth.


Maybe you should address the post rather than attacking the poster?

Bringing up questionable practices that have nothing to do with the subject or individuals involved in a discussion, and then misrepresenting the views of Christians, is most certainly straw manning.

I make no claims to my rhetorical ability. I simply like to discuss issues and find it irritating when people make outlandish claims and then try to change the subject. I don't think that is unreasonable.


You seem to have forgotten that this little interchange between us began because you, instead of addressing Jakkass's points, made a snotty remark about the Bible and the age of the earth. A pretty good example of self-righteousness coupled with a bad memory?



I think that it's perfectly possible, by using historical and linguistic criteria, to determine, in most cases, what the authors actually meant and whether it should be interpreted as literal prose or as parables or poetry. I was referring to another thread ('Atheism is Cool' or some such title) where the majority of atheists loudly proclaimed that such exegesis was impossible or nonsense.

so let's address this, hopefully without taking up too much space.

subject one, the evidence of someone killed over scientific claims, see post from earlier today (i know there were a lot of them), but again, giordano bruno, burned at the stake. so no, it's not a 'non-existent atrocity.' this was ten years prior to galileo's incarceration, so it's not suprising that galileo finally, sadly, recanted his views regarding the movement of the spheres. (it's also not surprising that this would not come up in church history, the church apologized for what it did to galileo some three hundred years after the incident, after having lifted the ban on his research, but no one brings up bruno) plenty of other philosphers were taken out during the inquisition, i'm sure i can find some sort of list if you're really skeptical of that fact.

as for the general consensus, i've done some further looking into the matter and i still find that polls show a majority of americans, regardless of christian loyalty, vouching for creationism. but i realize that polls are easily skewed based on the sample, the question format, etc.
here are two poll sites that i checked out, just so there isn't a question of evidence:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml
so are your polls right or are these polls right?

regardless of potentially skewed information, i think it speaks loud enough that there is a substantial portion of the population that thinks a vice president who literally believes in a creationistic reading of the bible is a good option for vice president (palin) and is in touch with reality. and the fact that there are regular disputes about the teaching of evolution and the insistence that creationism also be taught in schools gives merit to the notion that americans really like the genesis explanation of where people came from. as for whether it's a literal majority or not, find me one that says it is and i'll find you one that says it isn't. or the other way around. it's really irrelevant.

moving on, my saying that the bible puts the age of the earth around 6,000 years ago wasn't any attack on anyone. this is an estimate made by the same scholars that so love and revere the book, so stating their own belief should hardly constitute an attack or a snotty remark. and it had nothing to do with belittling anyone in the forum, it was to illustrate the point that i was making, in that same post, about religion being inflexible when it comes to contradictions between holy texts and evidence, so it's hardly unreasonable to mention one such contradiction, especially one that not only illustrates an vast disparity but also demonstrates the way that inflexible institutionalized belief permeates societal thought? and i'm not saying that it permeates societal thought now, but it did for a long, long time.

and why would your or any christian take offense to a notion provided by the bible if you already recognize that the bible isn't supposed to be literal? generally the only people who take offense to flaws pointed out in their foundations are ones who think their foundations are flawless. regardless, it wasn't directed at any person. it was part of my point.

however, i'll take into account the notion that i am misrepresenting the views of christians. after all, even census polls can't figure out what christians really think.

at least we agree on the understandability of literature.

my last thought: why is it that any time i bring up something that isn't directly related to someone else's point, you get upset?

to all the people who were hoping i wouldn't post againt today, i'm very sorry. i said i would try.

PDN

ZuStar wrote: »

subject one, the evidence of someone killed over scientific claims, see post from earlier today (i know there were a lot of them), but again, giordano bruno, burned at the stake. so no, it's not a 'non-existent atrocity.'

If there were a lot of them then how come you can't even find one?

Bruno was tried and executed for the following:
# Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic Faith and speaking against it and its ministers.
# Holding erroneous opinions about the Trinity, about Christ's divinity and Incarnation.
# Holding erroneous opinions about Christ.
# Holding erroneous opinions about Transubstantiation and Mass.
# Claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity.
# Believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes.
# Dealing in magics and divination.
# Denying the Virginity of Mary

None of that had anything to do with the age of the earth or the earth orbiting the sun.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy. When Bruno was burned at the stake as a heretic, it had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology."

However, you are doing better than another poster who tried to make the same claim by asserting that Copernicus was burned at the stake!

So, once again I ask you, who were all these people who were killed for stating the earth was more than 6000 years old or for denying that the sun orbited the earth?

my last thought: why is it that any time i bring up something that isn't directly related to someone else's point, you get upset?

I'm not upset in the slightest. I simply pointed out the flaws in your reasoning. You are the one who accused me of being condescending, who resorts to putting entire words in capital letters (which, on internet discussion boards, equates to shouting) and who sent me a PM.

People are allowed to disagree with you, you know. That's how internet discussion boards work. It doesn't mean they are upset and it's not worth you getting upset about it either.

ZuStar

PDN wrote: »

If there were a lot of them then how come you can't even find one?

Bruno was tried and executed for the following:
# Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic Faith and speaking against it and its ministers.
# Holding erroneous opinions about the Trinity, about Christ's divinity and Incarnation.
# Holding erroneous opinions about Christ.
# Holding erroneous opinions about Transubstantiation and Mass.
# Claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity.
# Believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes.
# Dealing in magics and divination.
# Denying the Virginity of Mary

the plurality of worlds that he attested to is the vastness of the universe, that there are other (whether infinite or not) planets out there circling other suns, thus referring to the earth not being the center of god's universe. so even if you don't think that's the primary reason, you've discovered that it's one of the reasons. besides, this belabors the overarching point: the church killed people for disagreeing with them. i don't know why you're so combative on this point, nearly all governing institutions have done it at one time or another, many still do.

and isn't it interesting that the church mounts such a list of infractions, even reaching to magic? is it so hard to believe that the list is an arbitrary result of needing sufficient excuses to kill a person? the same way you could accuse a person of witchcraft and have them killed, secretly holding more sinister motives? and since you're probably going to argue that this also never happened or happens, here's an article referring to some incidents in india:
http://www.mail-archive.com/chhattisgarh-network@yahoogroups.com/msg00076.html

and regarding the use of capital letters, it was FOUR WORDS throughout my posts. oh, make it six. perhaps i can italicize so as not to offend your sensibilities. is this what you mean by addressing the post? on the same topic, please stop yelling your name at me. :eek:

Dades

ZuStar wrote: »

however, i would think that making snotty remarks about other people's thoughts and ideas is a pretty good example of self-riteousness. but i suppose people who don't believe in popular religion have long had to deal with being considered inferior by people who have "god on their side."

Your own posts don't exactly ooze humility, so I suggest you take a look at your own posting style too.

ZuStar wrote: »

so.... if it's impossible to determine what they actually meant, then why bother reading or using the bible for anything? how can you read it and not try to determine what the authors intended to say?

If you spent more time reading here you'd know context of PDN's post on exegesis. Dropping in at odd hours to fire off some posts doesn't give you the full picture.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

who were all these people who were killed for stating the earth was more than 6000 years old

Here's one from three years ago:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/scottish-backpacker-stabbed-to-death-after-creationism-row-765266.html

PDN

ZuStar wrote: »

the plurality of worlds that he attested to is the vastness of the universe, that there are other (whether infinite or not) planets out there circling other suns, thus referring to the earth not being the center of god's universe. so even if you don't think that's the primary reason, you've discovered that it's one of the reasons.

No, Bruno's theory of the plurality of worlds was that the universe was infinite and contained an infinite number of inhabited worlds. This idea, which was based on theological and philosophical speculation rather than science, is very different from geocentrism -v- heliocentrism.

In trying to make Bruno fit your description of someone who was killed for either asserting the earth to be older than 6000 years or for denying the earth orbited the sun, you are stretching the poor chap far more than the Inquisition ever could have with the rack. Why are you stretching Bruno so much to try to make him such a martyr? After all, if "a lot of people" were killed for the reasons you stated then you should be able to name at least one of them without trying to deny the facts of history concerning poor Bruno.

besides, this belabors the overarching point: the church killed people for disagreeing with them.

I agree that the Catholic Church has a murderous history, and it is disgraceful that poor Bruno got executed for any reason. However, that point may overarch something - but certainly nothing we've been discussing in this thread up to this point.

Once again you seem to be changing the subject, which is fine in an internet discussion where everything wanders wonderfully off-topic, but it doesn't mask the fact that you're spreading a fictional urban legend.

i don't know why you're so combative on this point, nearly all governing institutions have done it at one time or another, many still do.

I'm not combative on that point. I couldn't be since nobody had even mentioned that point up until your last post.

I'm 'combative' in that I've pointed out a false statement you made (ie a lot of people have been killed for asserting the earth is older than 6000 years or for denying the sun circles the earth) and you prefer to accuse me of being 'upset' or 'condescending' rather than actually produce the slightest shred of evidence to support your claim.

a

nd isn't it interesting that the church mounts such a list of infractions, even reaching to magic? is it so hard to believe that the list is an arbitrary result of needing sufficient excuses to kill a person? the same way you could accuse a person of witchcraft and have them killed, secretly holding more sinister motives? and since you're probably going to argue that this also never happened or happens, here's an article referring to some incidents in india:
http://www.mail-archive.com/chhattis.../msg00076.html

Maybe you would have more success if you addressed the things I have actually said, rather than arguing with what you imagine I'm probably going to say?

ZuStar

PDN wrote: »

No, Bruno's theory of the plurality of worlds was that the universe was infinite and contained an infinite number of inhabited worlds. This idea, which was based on theological and philosophical speculation rather than science, is very different from geocentrism -v- heliocentrism.

taken directly from the vatican's archives:

(Circa motum terrae, f. 287, sic dicit: Firstly, I say that the theories on the movement of the earth and on the immobility of the firmament or sky are by me produced on a reasoned and sure basis, which doesn’t undermine the authority of the Holy Sciptures […]. With regard to the sun, I say that it doesn’t rise or set, nor do we see it rise or set, because, if the earth rotates on his axis, what do we mean by rising and setting[…])

http://asv.vatican.va/en/doc/1597.htm

for one, it's clearly about the nature of the relationship between the sun and the earth, aka heliocentrism. two, why would he be defending something that no one attacking him about?

thanks, robindch, for your more recent example.

PDN wrote: »

Maybe you would have more success if you addressed the things I have actually said, rather than arguing with what you imagine I'm probably going to say?

anticipating opposition is pretty standard for debate