#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Isaac newton didn't finish it, why didn't an atheist start it in the first place?
| Add New Argument |
|
1
point
Because, chimp, there weren't a lot of atheists in those times. Also, an atheist would pretty much be persecuted. How does it matter, anyway? Do you believe evolution only because a Christian discovered it? Sure, stop using or believing anything that relies at all on discoveries of atheists. 1
point
1
point
That's not the point. The beliefs of the person doesn't matter, and an atheist couldn't have enough opportunity. And Newton didn't start it. He only changed things; it was started by Aristotle. His belief doesn't really fit into any popular religion, like Einstein, but for Christian purposes he was still an atheist. 1
point
The beliefs of the person doesn't matter, and an atheist couldn't have enough opportunity. They had the opportunity to start promoting the evolution theory while newton was alive(those times). Stop lying. like Einstein, but for Christian purposes he was still an atheist. You're a stupid idiot to call someone who hated atheism an atheist. 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
But even now there are only two atheists in top ten world highest IQ's. Meaning atheism is inclined to lower intelligence. That suggests to me that you're nowhere near those ranks. Also, chimp, it's something I don't even care to verify. Don't you ever say that lie again. Hmm... Those days, an atheist would pretty much be persecuted. Those days, an atheist would pretty much be persecuted. Those days, an atheist would pretty much be persecuted. It's still posting fine. 1
point
That suggests to me that you're nowhere near those ranks Conclusion without experiment..... There are perharps people undiscovered due to the lack such priviledges in their geographical location. Albert eistein's family was among refugee jews in germany. Luckily his dad was an engineer and gave him a gift that triggered what we know him for today. That speaks a lot aboucha intelligence. 1
point
Those days, an atheist would pretty much be persecuted. Then explain evolution theory survived. I looked up for isaac newton's thoughts on evolution. It says he heard rumours of it but didn't give much attention to it. Isn't it those times? Why is evolution here today instead of being abolished since it is anti-christianity creation story. Like those persecuted for saying the earth is not flat. Why are they persecuted for all things except evolution. 1
point
Isn't it those times? Nope, it isn't. Rejecting evolution was rather just an exercise for Natural Philosophers, or scientists, until Darwin came. Which means that you read it as propaganda on biased sources. Not everyone cares to know the context, especially when things would be more convenient that way - you're lucky (or perhaps unlucky) that I prefer to know the context of references. 1
point
2
points
Bias sources? Yes, asking me to restate won't change it unless I'm too bored and annoyed to continue. For what profit? As I said, propaganda. You're using it here, which means it's successful. Unless it had footnotes about evolution, it's a biased source. If it did, then the blame for promoting false claims shifts to you. Though I expect it to be simpler - that you bought the non-annotated edition. 1
point
Read............................... http://www.bio.net/hypermail/bioforum/ 1
point
Ah, yes, for someone who knows about the 2 theories, this letter is too irrational to read. Empedocles' ideas on the origins and similar things weren't good enough, and people those days had no idea about microorganisms. Read it for yourself, for it had been rejected by almost all anthropocentric scientists from Aristotle before Darwin. 1
point
Empedocles' ideas on the origins and similar things weren't good enough, and people those days had no idea about microorganisms. Read it for yourself, for it had been rejected by almost all anthropocentric scientists from Aristotle before Darwin. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/ You these scientist don't know about micro-organisms? Pls grow up 1
point
FATAL ERROR: filesDB-download.php - no numeric fileID (id) specified I wonder what in it helps your case. However, when someone says that ancient Greeks knew about microorganisms, I'd rather not continue the conversation. Though I'd advise you change your religion to one more beneficial for the state. If not, then it will be seen as an act of rebellion by whoever forms a world government, and my calculations are infallible. 1
point
FATAL ERROR: filesDB-download.php - no numeric fileID (id) specified http://www.creationmoments. Download the file on the page and read along with what was stated in my immediate previous comment. However, when someone says that ancient Greeks knew about microorganisms, I'd rather not continue the conversation. Jumping to conclusions is your habit i see. Though I'd advise you change your religion to one more beneficial for the state Stupid idiot. Why are you so obsessed with christianity? I knew you were a demon right from the beginning but didn't realise how high your rank is. Pls change your profile picture to the previous. Talking about a beneficial religions ask america how christianity has been beneficial to them. And islam has always brought them adversary. From bush's time back, america was faced with islamic terrorist attacks. Untill they got obama whom they thought was a saviour to have finished off Osama. Both are the same. Obama and Osama are muslims. It was a silly trick played on America. The penetration of a demon into their governance by killing his brother demon. There is more harm to do as a political leader than a terrorist leader. Satan is good at chess. Amin Hussein, Obama, Osama, Saddam Hussein all muslims including adolf hitler who says the only religion he respects is islam and the only prophet he knows is mohammed, making all of them subjects to mohammed the devil's advocate, all of them satanists. YKR? Demon! Glory be to God, trump is a christian and he is destroying a lot of things. I hope he is not assassinated. 1
point
Download the file on the page and read along with what was stated in my immediate previous comment. Ah, I see a completely unrelated list. Why are you so obsessed with christianity? I'm not obsessed with it, and neither does it get my special attention. It's just there out of the safe religions. Protestantism, to be precise, for Catholicism can still be allowed to live. You're an obsessed Christian, so you might just be seeing it that way. An year ago, I had no idea about your religion - why would it even nearly affect me enough. knew you were a demon right from the beginning but didn't realise how high your rank is. Well, I'm an angel of what you guys call the nothing monster. Talking about a beneficial religions ask america how christianity has been beneficial to them. Well, I asked India and Germany about it. For the less literate you - Christianity was the tool of colonisers for destruction of Hinduism, and Germany was united only because the Holy Roman Empire could fell. If I were the state, you believe only what I want you to believe, or else I would make you yield. It isn't that hard - wanna hear why Stain stopped talking to me? Because I told him what it consists of. respects is islam and the only prophet he knows is mohammed, making all of them subjects to mohammed Islam is lower than even your religion. They won't be any better off, for it, after all, demands the sharia. If they don't yield, then they can be sent to what I've specially designed and decided to call torture chambers, though you can call it The Purgatory if ya prefer - though it can't be adopted as the official name being a religious reference and all. It's cheap and I expect it to be effective. Satan is good at chess. Perhaps you're angry at NowASaint for making such satanic claims. I prefer larger strategy games. hope he is not assassinated. Though I don't like how he's mocking all pursuit of knowledge, he isn't worth assassinating. Nor is our Kim from DPRK. They're just entertaining figures for a bored and desensitised world. If it wasn't for this annoying China, I'd expect the West to fall with Trump. 1
point
Ah, I see a completely unrelated list. I have no regrets calling you a stupid idiot. Did i not ask you to correlate it to what i previuosly said? You said in those days those scientists didn't know about micro organisms that is pobably why they didn't subscribe to the evolution theory. That is why i gave you a long list of today scientists who have all the available knowledge about micro organisms and yet do not subscribe to the evolution theory. They think it's bullshit. Makes sense? You make my work so difficult. Where is your concerntration. I'm not obsessed with it, and neither does it get my special attention. Your lies don't mean anything. Well, I'm an angel of what you guys call the nothing monster. Sia Well, I asked India and Germany about it. I was talking about America. Your bullshit debunked. Christianity was the tool of colonisers for destruction of Hinduism Now i see the hate, so much for someone who knew about it just a year ago. Also the main christian branch responsible would be always be the catholics. Yet you say the catholics should be allwed to stay. Is your brain working properly? The Purgatory if ya prefer There is no such thing as purgatory. That was invented by the catholics. You've been reading junk about christianity, morely catholic shit, catholics are not christians...Jesus nowhere mentioned purgatory. he isn't worth assassinating. Are you? wanna hear why Stain stopped talking to me? Because I told him what it consists of. Because you're a stupid idiot. Nowasaint is more matured and has more life experience than you and can't be affected by your stupid bullshitting. 1
point
Are you? No, of course not. In fact, I'm important for humanity, so that won't be a good thing. Your lies don't mean anything. Oh, that's funny. Someone who thinks he knows too much about me can not properly guess what's a lie. I was talking about America. Your bullshit debunked. Ah, I see that you love the religion of those who ruled you too much to talk anything bad about it. Anyway, so tell me, how has Christianity benefitted America? You said in those days those scientists didn't know about micro organisms that is pobably why they didn't subscribe to the evolution theory. Yes, I said that, and you wanted to try refuting it. My word still stands unscathed - your sources are biased. Except that, I don't really care about a list of scientists who signed a random petition. And I didn't make any "probably why" claims, but only why all the great scientists before Darwin rejected evolution. You obviously didn't even click what I gave. That is why i gave you a long list of today scientists who have all the available knowledge about micro organisms and yet do not subscribe to the evolution theory. They think it's bullshit. I can see just some names, not refutations or what they think of it. I wonder what you're trying to prove with that. There are, after all, millions of scientists. It didn't seem to contain anyone I find specially rational. Also the main christian branch responsible would be always be the catholics. Yet you say the catholics should be allwed to stay. Nope, everyone knows that the British were Protestants. Though I doubt there would be much difference if they were Catholics - I just like the Catholic idea that you can do anything to the Bible as long as general people won't care about it. We can bring about a better Reformation if the Evangelicals and Protestants are gone - they are the dogmatic ones who would care too much about it. I don't care too much about the old events, though - it was you who seemed to. There is no such thing as purgatory. There is no such thing as any of that. I care about your specific religion only as much as I care about the smoke from my pipe. Those too stubborn on an unsafe religion can be disposed when they can't handle it any longer. Or perhaps pit them in a Coloseum and see which one has the best God - you Christians approve of such acts of slavery anyway. Nowasaint is more matured and has more life experience than you and can't be affected by your stupid bullshitting. You know, I wasn't bluffing with that. I'm persuasive, after all, and so understand the principles well. It'd be embarrassing if a zombie could refute my word so easily. 1
point
No, of course not. In fact, I'm important for humanity, so that won't be a good thing. Eveyone claims to be a royal in his family(nuclear). Trump is the top most royal of an Empire. Stop embarrasing yourself. Ah, I see that you love the religion of those who ruled you too much to talk anything bad about it. Is that what your history lecturer told you? Anyway, so tell me, how has Christianity benefitted America? Google it. There's more info there than i can give. . Except that, I don't really care about a list of scientists who signed a random petition Most convinient. It didn't seem to contain anyone I find specially rational. Most convinient. But i'm wondering why a rational person will call hundreds of professors irrational.hmmmm interesting. Talking about bias people, one spotted. I can see just some names, not refutations or what they think of it. I wonder what you're trying to prove with that. There is enough info on them to track. Nope, everyone knows that the British were Protestants. Anglicans? They are the same as catholics. You should read why they left original catholic. Not much an issue. I just like the Catholic idea that you can do anything to the Bible as long as general people won't care about it. Catholics, are not christ followers(christians). Evangelicals and Protestants are gone - they are the dogmatic ones who would care too much about it. Protestants dogmatic? Then what are catholics? I don't care too much about the old events, though - Most convenient to say. it was you who seemed to. You brought it up, dont annoy me. I care about your specific religion only as much as I care about the smoke from my pipe. You ever asked a budhist to quit his religion? you Christians approve of such acts of slavery anyway. Catholics are not christians. They are followers the pope/Devil. You know, I wasn't bluffing with that Still looks like shit to me. 1
point
But i'm wondering why a rational person will call hundreds of professors irrational.hmmmm interesting. Talking about bias people, one spotted. Is that the best you can do? If you are to appeal to authority, then you must do it with someone I find specially rational. Anything else here is simply putting my word out of context. There is enough info on them to track. Which I won't care to look for, as I said. It isn't something I'd ever want to defend - if you can give any argument for it, refuting that should be an easy task. They are the same as catholics. You should read why they left original catholic. Not much an issue They still left Catholics and joined the Protestants. When they were doing those things worldwide, they weren't Catholics. Catholics, are not christ followers(christians). That's convenient. Protestants dogmatic? Then what are catholics? You seem to be reading neither what I wrote nor what you are writing. You brought it up, dont annoy me. Nope, I didn't, and I don't need historical events to advise you to change your religion lest there be ramifications. You said that it greatly benefitted America, and so all it's ill efects on other places can be easily ignored - something I hadn't even brought up before it. You ever asked a budhist to quit his religion? No, Buddhism is a safe religion. You can join it if you want. Anyway, a bit more than the smoke, for Christianity is a popular religion and has affected a lot of things. But for what it is rather than what it has done, that's not something worth specifically caring about. Catholics are not christians. They follower the pope/Devil. The Pope is but a fallible man. He shall have the Bible edited if I ask him nicely about it - I'm persuasive, after all. If he doesn't, then Catholicism shall suffer the same fate as all others. Otherwise, I'll give him the Reformation undoed as a gift for compliance. That's the offer I've decided on, anyway. Whatcha think? That he'd decline? I find that unlikely, and won't enjoy putting the whole of Christianity under a blade, for it's a bad idea. But can't do much about what's neccessary if he rejects. In other words, he can save millions of people, gain their support and other things, or the world would be entirely unrecognisable for the worse. It's an irresistible offer, one that has always been accepted throughout history, and I need him to remain for my plans to work properly. If you think such an offer would be rejected, then that's good for a zombie. Otherwise you'd just be seen as a lunatic if you try publicising it. But my calculations are infallible, and you should change your religion. Google it. There's more info there than i can give. Nope. In a debate, you must find the sources you want to recommend, else it means nothing. Is that what your history lecturer told you? Hmm... Ghana wasn't ruled by the British? I know little about Sub-Saharan African history, except that modern humans evolved there, it still contains their purest genetic population, it had always been weak and that European powers divided it like a cake. And some bits about pastoral populations and resources. Also that it's still a continent that can't come to power. 1
point
if you can give any argument for it, refuting that should be an easy task. Don't close your eyes and complain you can't see. they weren't Catholics. Influence. A user of a tool is more powerful than the tool. That's convenient. Christians are not meant to world political super powers. This kingdom and it's politics belongs to the devil and any partaker proving strong is indeed only the tool of satan himself. Catholics. Jesus and satan never sit on the same side of a table. and so all it's ill efects on other places can be easily ignored Omword you're such a pathetic liar. No, Buddhism is a safe religion The religion of an occult master budha, is safe? Occult of satan? Adversary. The Pope is but a fallible man Say it to a catholic and you will loose some teeth. He is God to them. They just don't directly say it. That's the offer I've decided on, anyway. Whatcha think? I think you don't know who you talking about, satan's cousin. He can cause a stampede to kill you, he wont be a criminal or a sinner. Daniel 7:25 ► New International Version He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the set times and the laws. The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time. Daniel 7:25 ► Parallel Verses King James Version And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. Nope. In a debate, you must find the sources you want to recommend, else it means nothing. Is that what your Only helping out a little though its annoying. http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/22/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RoleofChristianityincivilization Etc. Hmm... Ghana wasn't ruled by the British? I know little about Sub-Saharan African history, except that modern humans evolved there, it still contains their purest genetic population, it had always been weak and that European powers divided it like a cake. And some bits about pastoral populations and resources. Also that it's still a continent that can't come to power. Even a chicken born today can bring up something better. I see you took some lines from me. 1
point
I see you took some lines from me. Only the "like a cake" analogy. Though it's pretty much meaningless, it is easy to understand for our present purposes. Omword you're such a pathetic liar. I'm not the one who said that only how it helped America matters. Influence. A user of a tool is more powerful than the tool. According to which its actions in America wouldn't be that important. Say it to a catholic and you will loose some teeth. He is God to them. They just don't directly say it. Yes, that's why it can work. Unless, that is, he has the integrity of a God, something that hasn't seemed to happen much throughout history. If you think him to be God, then perhaps we have some disagreement here. If the highest council of Christian heirarchy rejects my offer, then I don't really have much other options than to completely destroy it - something that isn't a very good idea, but I don't need them any more than they need me. He can cause a stampede to kill you, he wont be a criminal or a sinner. He really can't. I'm offering him the riddance of all non-Catholic Christians, so it would be stupid to kill me. However, I told you about keeping a personal gurad of war machines, didn't I? Using them isn't a very safe option, but better than a little stampede. I'd rather burn myself than go unavenged on being killed vulnerable and weak. The Pope is their central figure, and the Catholic administration doesn't seem to like the Reformationists. Therefore, they're the ones most likely to support my plan and get all the power they want - they can completely rewrite the Bible and I shall see that it goes unquestioned. But if they still reject, which you will find unlikely if you comtemplate the offer, I'll have problems about it. Perhaps the Jews might accept, and the Muslims can never be expected to comply so they aren't a possibility. The only other viable option is to reestablish Paganism and reinterpret bits of history to make that easier. That won't be a good plan, but better than none and something I can easily handle. I can't have similar problems with Hinduism, though, for I know enough about the culture and other things to gain sufficient support. If Christianity ever has to completely die, I'll mix Paganism with Hinduism, with which transition from even Islam can be easy. So...you get the idea. Moulding the major world religions is doable for me. Somwhere in between the plan, the trip to Ghana fits in, when you'll have a chance to effect the course of the world. satan's cousin. Satan would certainly accept my offer. Only helping out a little though its annoying. Equality stems from Christianity? Ah, that's funny, for the Church, in all denominations, has always been a source of irrational propaganda. It has also tried hard to preserve the status quo, but that was mainly a Catholic concern (however, applicable for historical events for the times you're claiming). It saw to it that equality may never even be a thing, and things would have stayed that way were it not for the Renaissance and Enlightenment era, both of which were anti-Christian for the times. 1
point
Though it's pretty much meaningless, No, they literally did it like cake sharing. Google, you will see the picture. I'm not the one who said that only how it helped America matters. Oh! So you take my original statement and make the most convenient implications for yourself with it? You're such a devil. According to which its actions in America wouldn't be that important. I thought we were talking about the British and catholic influence...... If you think him to be God, then They not me. If the highest council of Christian heirarchy rejects my offer, then I don't really have much other options than to completely destroy it Take Einstein's advice, he says christianity cannot be destroyed. Take my advice, you would be wasting your time. Plus you'll die sooner than expected. I'm offering him the riddance of all non-Catholic Christians, so it would be stupid to kill me The catholic church drew their plans before your grandparents were born. What you offer is comedy to them. I'd rather burn myself Sorry you won't have that pleasure. than go unavenged on being killed vulnerable and weak. You cannot touch the pope. Over 70yrs old popes have shot and they still lived to forgive their perpetrators. A pope dies when it is schemed internally. When the catholic church want to do away with him. Ask John Paul(poisoned to heart attack) and Benedict who stepped down before it happened. So...you get the idea. You're hallucinating and delusive. Satan would certainly accept my offer. He has come steal, kill and to destroy. This is the only deal you Will have with satan.(In disguise though,) Equality stems from Christianity? Yes. And you can't change it. it's actually stems from the bible. aside that, all the evil you mentioned are the mere actions of men who in time realised they had gained influence and power and forgot what their religion stood for. They stood for themselves behind the mask of their religion, they played politics. God hates politics. Satan loves it because in fact he invented it. So all these catholics are satanists. Plus they also offer pagan sacrifices at the vatican(goddess of the sun) city. 1
point
They not me. So you understand that he is but a fallible man. No, they literally did it like cake sharing. Not really - it was worse than that. So you take my original statement and make the most convenient implications for yourself with it? Not when that's what you meant and said. You said any examples are invalidated merely because they didn't happen in America. What you offer is comedy to them. So, they'd reject it if I gift so much influence to them? Even if they do, and it doesn't seem like I could use Judaism for the plan, I'd hand over the Christians to Islamic groups. Though I don't like them, they certainly won't reject my offer. After that, I can hand it all to the new Hinduism-Paganism complex, with which I don't have to worry about things. It's just the most convenient if the Catholic administration complies, since I don't want to use radical Islam even for transition, for that means adding it to the list of safe religions. I need help of only one denomination of one of the Abrahamic religions to easily clear the others. Would the Pope rather want that take the offer to an Islamic group? Plus you'll die sooner than expected. I'll be taking care that it may not likely happen. If the administration is not friendly enough, then I won't be making the offer. The revived Islamic State by then and their Khalifa will certainly be more friendly to my offer than what you expect the Catholic administration to be. I'm just... afraid that they might not be obedient enough, and it can damage my Hindu influence. So, as I was saying, the hardcore Catholics are weak. Killing me is the worst move they can make, for I'd die a hero in that scenario. pope dies when it is schemed internally. When the catholic church want to do away with him. Yes, the offer is for the whole administration. They'd be more rational that way. Unless, as you said, they have integrity of gods and can never accept it, in which case they must be destroyed. I'll take the hat for myself, and gift the riddance of papacy to the moderate Protestants. The Reformation would then be rather complete. The only bad thing here is that I can't have the Bible rewritten arbitrarily. The hardcore and loyalist Catholics, I'll gift to the radical Islamic wolves to do as they please. It isn't really smart to deny what I want. it's actually stems from the bible. Christianity didn't invent any such notions in the west, nor did it anticipate them in the east. I don't know about Africa, though, so perhaps it can be the creator of notions for equality there. 1
point
So you understand that he is but a fallible man I know. I know he is ordinary. But look what t(he)y has made himself over the years. Not when that's what you meant and said. i said it, you meant it. You said any examples are invalidated merely because they didn't happen in America. I didn't necessarily say that. I meant to deal with each scene independently though it's the same religion. You tried integrating it for your own convenience of an argument. Stop playing silly tricks. So, they'd reject it if I gift so much influence to them?) Getting close to the pope alone and getting rejected would be too much of an achievement for you. You can't even get to him in the first place. for I'd die a hero in that scenario. Oh come on! You think this is a comic book? Please quit your child-dreams. Unless, as you said, they have integrity of gods and can never accept it They are malicious. They will accept anything that serves their interest right. Right(good) or wrong(bad). And they will take care of their followers. They know how to make the bad look good in their eyes/minds. (If you get that close enough). Christianity didn't invent any such notions in the west, nor did it anticipate them in the east. Fuckwit. It was served, and you still dispute without any reason but pure hate, pride and jealousy. 1
point
Oh come on! You think this is a comic book? Please quit your child-dreams. I expected you to have guessed that by yourself, though. It isn't the beginning of my plan, but an intermediate stage - even later than that trip. I am not going to them a beggar, but someone they'd never want to kill in such a situation. Getting close to the pope alone and getting rejected would be too much of an achievement for you. You can't even get to him in the first place. A reluctance to meet me is equivalent to the refusal to comply to my will. I know for certain that the Khalifa wouldn't be so reluctant to meet me about it. I still prefer to avoid his help, though, for that's like unlocking wolves. And they will take care of their followers. They know how to make the bad look good in their eyes/minds. Yes, that's why the most convenient option for all is that they comply. Undoing of the Reformation and Islam is in their interests, the only thing that could be offered in addition is power on the state, which would be a stupid offer for everyone. meant to deal with each scene independently though it's the same religion. You tried integrating it for your own convenience of an argument. Catholic Church still had power over America, for its European countries had ruled there. So...your position isn't too great on that. Protestantism had spread due to the British empire, and their main concern with it was to destroy the other religions. It's no better than the Islamic State. It was served, and you still dispute without any reason but pure hate, pride and jealousy. If you believe that so much, you'll have some fine work in moralising the Christian slaves at a colosseum. But, you'll have to prove that you believe it better than that. Equality would have risen sooner were it not for Christianity and Islam. 1
point
1
point
1
point
The era of the argument that earth is spherical dates back so far that back then, there were almost no liberals, which is so not the case with the evolution, in fact, liberal christians actually supported darwin! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReactionstoOntheOriginofSpecies 1
point
Read from a letter how anti-evolution scientists are persecuted too today... http://www.bio.net/hypermail/bioforum/1998-November/027908.html You will find it in the middle parts. Also http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/ 1
point
Atheists are probably more intelligent than religious people because they benefit from many social conditions that happen to be correlated with loss of religious belief. When one looks at this phenomenon from the point of view of comparisons between countries, it is not hard to figure out possible reasons that more intelligent countries have more atheists as Richard Lynn (2009) reported. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ you can find sources which support your argument, and i can find sources that support mine. Sources today on the internet are biased, believe it or not. We should rather debate using the intelligence we possess, not by reading biased comments shown as numbers. "Also, an atheist would pretty much be persecuted." During the early modern period, the term "atheist" was used as an insult and applied to a broad range of people, including those who held opposing theological beliefs, as well as suicides, immoral or self-indulgent people, and even opponents of the belief in witchcraft.[10][11][15] Atheistic beliefs were seen as threatening to order and society by philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas. Lawyer and scholar Thomas More said that religious tolerance should be extended to all except those who did not believe in a deity or the immortality of the soul.[13] John Locke, a founder of modern notions of religious liberty, argued that atheists (as well as Catholics and Muslims) should not be granted full citizenship rights.[13] During the Inquisition, several of those accused of atheism or blasphemy, or both, were tortured or executed. These included the priest Giulio Cesare Vanini who was strangled and burned in 1619 and the Polish nobleman Kazimierz Łyszczyński who was executed in Warsaw,[10][16][17] as well as Etienne Dolet, a Frenchman executed in 1546. Though heralded as atheist martyrs during the nineteenth century, recent scholars hold that the beliefs espoused by Dolet and Vanini are not atheistic in modern terms.[12][18][19] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Don't you ever try to make that a lie again. 1
point
1
point
dude, you seem to completely ignore the first part of my argument. era of claiming earth was spherical is way way before than the evolution theory. liberals grew in number as time passed, they just didn't pop out of no where. and do me a favor, look up the meanings of execution and persecution.. please. they are different. 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Well, I can see that you've tried changing your opinion throughout this debate, but you tried making persecution a lie, which clearly isn't and that's what this is about, persecution existed. I thought you were rational enough to call execution a lie, which was never debated here about, since you were so firmly into believing persecution was a lie. hostility and ill treatment even exists today!!! take an atheist to a place with a conservative and christian crowd, you'll definitely see persecution. 1
point
1
point
I don't have to provide you with an example, I'm not here to whine about day to day life stories on persecution, well if you're unsure with the meaning, 1
point
I don't have to provide you with an example, I'm not here to whine about day to day life stories on persecution, well if you're unsure with the meaning, Man are you short on crack? 1
point
I just wanted to make sure I'm on the same page as you. Basically the persecution that Christians and Conservative show atheists is the same kind of persecution that all Democrats show black people. An oppression that "even if not shown directly, does exist". The kind that I don't need to provide an example of in order to assert that it exists, because it doesn't. 1
point
You said that if you put an atheist among Christians and Conservatives you will see persecution. Specifically you said you will see hostility, ill treatment. even if not shown directly, does exist. I might as well claim that Democrats constantly persecute black people, but it's not shown. Do you know what ill treatment that isn't expressed is? It's not treatment at all. People have to act in order to persecute. Persecution not shown is not persecution. That's why you can't actually provide an example of your claim, it doesn't exist. 1
point
1
point
To provide an example or not is completely my opinion, irrespective of it's existence, and this debate has gone way off topic to continue, and clearly, debates are arguments, opinions exchanged in response to another's, I'd rather not take up examples, just because examples can be of either side of the argument, not leading us to anywhere. 1
point
No one would believe me because, if no one shows their persecution, then there is no persecution. That's why no one believes you. And while debates are opinions, good debates are opinions derived from facts. If you claim an impossibility, such as persecution not acted on, then your debate is bad. It is an opinion based on fantasy. I have no interest in the rest of the substance of your position, so I don't mind dropping it. 1
point
There are still blue collar union democrats who take to racism as easy as the democrats of old. So my statement would be supported by someone somewhere. But a chance situation of someone somewhere is not really enough to say that that occurance is the way of things. Anacdotes are not much stronger, but providing an example is better than an unsubstantiated supposition. 1
point
But your example was of atheists among Conservatives and Christians. This can't be too uncommon. But if when this occurs, persecution is not shown, then there isn't persecution. If t is shown, then there must be examples. If we suppose it is shown without having even anecdotes, we have a weak supposition. 1
point
haha I've cleared myself already on this, and by not shown, I meant it wasn't brought to lime light. This can't be too uncommon maybe it isn't, maybe it is.. I'm just saying it exists. If t is shown, then there must be examples of course there are examples, whether I chose to give them or not are completely my opinion, and that shouldn't dictate the existence of examples. haha I've cleared myself already on this, and by not shown, I meant it wasn't brought to lime light. Limelight (focus of public attention), doesn’t fit the context of “shown” of your original statement: “take an atheist to a place with a conservative and christian crowd, you'll definitely see persecution” followed by “even if not shown directly, does exist”. The limelight, in your statement, is irrelevant because you will actually see the persecution. The other context of “shown” would be “expressed”, and this fits the context. Though it puts the persecution somewhere in the realm of unconscious bias as racism. The situation that I referred to that can’t be too uncommon is the group your describe, wherein an atheist is among Conservatives and Christians. If it’s not too uncommon, there should be examples to draw from. If you have examples that you choose not to share, your audience is left to infer that you don’t actually have examples, since sharing them would only help your position. A similar situation is the middle-schooler who says he has a girlfriend, but she goes to another school and you don’t know her and no one you know knows her and he’s not telling her name. Everyone infers that kid doesn’t actually have a girlfriend, and they are right. 1
point
I never used the term "expressed", hence it's completely your assumption of what i actually meant. lol your talking about girlfriends and middle schoolers now, completely not related to the topic of debate. your audience is left to infer that you don’t actually have examples, since sharing them would only help your position. "my" audience knows what I talk about, and clearly knows what I mean. of course it would help my position, but I don't choose to use them just for the sole reasons that there can be examples of all different events and sides. I never used the term "expressed" In the context of your sentence, "shown" can only reasonably mean a few things. "Expressed" in this case is a more reasonable interpretation than "bring to the limelight" for reasons I have already shown. my" audience knows what I talk about, and clearly knows what I mean Your audience in a debate is your opponent and any spectators. In this case myself and any silent readers. of course it would help my position, but I don't choose to use them just for the sole reasons that there can be examples of all different events and sides No one can prove that there is not persecution, but until we have evidence, at least a little evidence, such as an example, we have no reason to believe that it exists. Thus any supposition of existing persecution must be supported with some reason to believe it. Otherwise, discounting it as non-existent is more reasonable. Even if you could provide an example, it would merely be anacdotal. Lacking even that, your statement becomes groundless. 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Seriously? After those were persecuted, according to your quote from wikipedia, were some not killed(executed)? of course they were, but persecution existed throughout while execution was only at times. so now you accept that persecution isn't a lie, i suppose, now you're trying to imply execution to be a lie, but friend, the debate here was about persecution, and we have never said that execution was carried out throughout. 1
point
of course they were, but persecution existed throughout while execution was only at times. so now you accept that persecution isn't a lie, i suppose, now you're trying to imply execution to be a lie, but friend, the debate here was about persecution, and we have never said that execution was carried out throughout. So how did a stupid theory like evolution survive, thats my question you skipped. Plus do you know how many scientists are persecuted in their careers just because they do not subscribe to evolution?These days. 1
point
dude dude, you have to read my arguments carefully, you seem to miss out on a lot. So how did a stupid theory like evolution survive, thats my question you skipped. I've answered this like three times now. liberals believe everyone should have their say, right? back in the day, when we were talking about earth as a sphere, people with liberal idealogy were not possibly high in number. (you should look up the dates) but darwin's time was the 19th century, where we do find good number of liberals who supported the idea. That's how the idea survived, please, don't make me type the very same thing over and over again, just because you chose to ignore it. Plus do you know how many scientists are persecuted in their careers just because they do not subscribe to evolution?These days. This is clearly out of context. We were talking about how evolution survived, and how persecution isn't a lie, please stick to the topic. scientists who do not subscribe are just as much persecuted as to a person who does, it is very relative as there are two different sides of this argument today. 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
|
