Somebody Needs to Be Held Accountable! (Why Not Married?)

[Lootifer]

I've been avoiding this trainwreck since I said my piece; but once again Scotty you're looking very narrowly:

Every system from communism to complete deregulation and everything inbetween will create single observations at the tails of the distributions that are "ugly to look at".

Yes this woman is an idiot; yup she made wrong decisions and created a life that she could never hope to provide adequately for; and, yes she is an example of entitilitus.

However you are simply using her single outlier case as propaganda against wider issues.

[AAFitz]

hahahaha AntiAircraftfitz makes me smile

"It's true because it's fact. Only religious people would argue otherwise."

AOG you made me smile too. You seem to have understood some of the words on this one. Thats awesome.

[AAFitz]

However you are simply using her case as propaganda against wider issues.

The standard MO.

[Army of GOD]

hahahaha AntiAircraftfitz makes me smile

"It's true because it's fact. Only religious people would argue otherwise."

AOG you made me smile too. You seem to have understood some of the words on this one. Thats awesome.

[BigBallinStalin]

[thegreekdog]

Yes. That is all Im saying, and using examples of it. As far as Galileo being a catholic, its a ridiculous argument that it wasnt repressed, because he was. The fact that he was religious does not mean the the religious power of the time did not repress him, which they did.

The fact that you cant see it, simply isnt my problem. It happened it repressed science, the examples are there, and if you simply choose to ignore them, so be it. Religious people ignore reasonable facts all the time. Its hardly unexpected.

Oh yeah!??! The fact that you can't see what I'm saying isn't my problem either! How you like them apples?

So I guess we're done discussing since you don't have the balls to address my main point or BBS's main point. Fair enough - on the tombstone of this thread it will read "AAFitz figured out 5,000 different ways to say 'Religion repressed' science without addressing any other points."

[Army of GOD]

So I guess we're done discussing since you don't have the balls to address my main point or BBS's main point.

Or my point =(

[BigBallinStalin]

Ok, let's use Galileo as an example.


A) How did (1) religion, (2) the Catholic Church, and (3) religious members with their religious beliefs interrupt the technological flow of astronomical equipment (e.g. telescopes, maps, other measuring instruments, etc.) and repress the theoretical development of Astronomy?

B) What non-religious factors contributed and/or constrained the technological development of the astronomical equipment and of the theoretical development of Astronomy?


For your argument to be strong, it would help to differentiate among the influences of the 3 groups in question A, and to clarify the role of the non-religious factors in question B in order to single out the religious effects.

[thegreekdog]

So I guess we're done discussing since you don't have the balls to address my main point or BBS's main point.

Or my point =(

You were just reinforcing my point from an agnostic's perspective. BBS is an atheist (I think) and thus does not need his point justified by someone who is not religious. After all, we all know that religion controls me and my actions (or, more accurately, religion acts of its own accord... like a sort of ghost or demon).

Watch out! It's religion! It might repress us!

Oh noes! It's communism! Watch out or it will get you! Blargh!

Religious... communist... Nazis... Jedi knights

Not religion... communism... Nazism... the force

[PLAYER57832]

One question to Fitz: if science's growth was stunned because of religion, how come the Islamic empires were able to make such great strides in mathematics and science around the time of the dark ages?

EDIT: Not to mention Hindu India, classical Greece, Rome and their religions, classical China and its religion(s), classical Egypt, etc.

Newton himself was a Christian, if I remember correctly.

You are confused. The point is that religion held back much science, not that it held back all of it, or even that it didnt help at times.

You got to the point all right. The wrong one, and kind of embarrassingly so.

Except, it also pushed science forward, a point I made several times. In fact, the balance was more positive than negative, for a lot of reasons.

It was religion that encouraged people to learn to read. Religion allowed people to leave their specified profession and go into studies. Sure, a lot was simple text study, but a look over monastery endeavors tells you that they also delved into things like wine making, agricultural practices, etc, etc... ergo the beginnings of science.

Some people did rather object to Leonardo Davincci (later) digging up graves, but hey... he also kept on doing what he did. Similarly Gallileo was condemned by some, but also kept on.

The truth is that what you point to as religious repression was a combination of discussion within the church/some of the many disagreements and also (as greekdog noted) a factor of the power struggles of the day. Gregorian nobility, just as an example had such absolute power over their subjects that one (a countessa, I believe?)(one of those who lead to the dracula tales) was able to kill peasant girls with impunity. It was only when she began taking daughters of the lesser nobility that she was even sheparded in at all. Even so, she was confined, essentially considered "insane", not really punished.

Such a system will try to claim religion as its ally, but it is not truly religion at play, it is the power struggle.

In fact, the Bible actually illustrates this point pretty well, in the transition from judges to kings, etc.

BUT whilst all that was going on, the churches had some relative freedom. Someone who wanted to study just about anything, to reach out for more could find some outlet within the monasteries and convents.

[Army of GOD]

I know the Bible was the first book printed with the printing press, but I wonder how much religion pushed for the printing press to be developed.

[Army of GOD]

So I guess we're done discussing since you don't have the balls to address my main point or BBS's main point.

Or my point =(

You were just reinforcing my point from an agnostic's perspective. BBS is an atheist (I think) and thus does not need his point justified by someone who is not religious. After all, we all know that religion controls me and my actions (or, more accurately, religion acts of its own accord... like a sort of ghost or demon).

Watch out! It's religion! It might repress us!

Oh noes! It's communism! Watch out or it will get you! Blargh!

Religious... communist... Nazis... Jedi knights

Not religion... communism... Nazism... the force

Yea, it's pretty obvious that AntiAircraft is on a crusade (lol, pun) on religion. He's not using any arguments to defend his point other than "it's fact religion repressed science".

I noticed that he hasn't responded to BBS in a while and I think that's because he can't say "YOURE RELIGIOUS SO YOURE BLIND" to him.

[BigBallinStalin]

From what I've read on the Catholic Church, for centuries they weren't open to be allowing the "masses" to interpret the Bible for themselves, thus they discouraged reading by sticking with the Latin, so that the dissemination of the Bible in different, local languages would be discouraged/stopped.

However, there's the Lutherans and other unorthodox groups who strongly encouraged people to interpret the Bible for themselves--not just for some elite body of religious authorities.


AAFitz's argument doesn't account for the above. He just homogenizes religion, then places all the blame on it.

[AAFitz]

From what I've read on the Catholic Church, for centuries they weren't open to be allowing the "masses" to interpret the Bible for themselves, thus they discouraged reading by sticking with the Latin, so that the dissemination of the Bible in different, local languages would be discouraged/stopped.

However, there's the Lutherans and other unorthodox groups who strongly encouraged people to interpret the Bible for themselves--not just for some elite body of religious authorities.


AAFitz's argument doesn't account for the above. He just homogenizes religion, then places all the blame on it.

BBS's argument doesnt account for the words actually written by AAFitz, and just wrongly misinterprets them as all religion.

The argument was simply that religion has held back science in the past, and does it today. The argument is still actually valid, if any religion at any time held back any science for a religious reason. I repeatedly stated the exact contrary to what you just wrote, and fully accept that not all religion can be held responsible, since it is a ridculous notion.

However, the argument that religious beliefs held back science is greatly proved simply by the simple example of people believing that the earth is 6000 years old, which is completely a religious argument. There is absolutely no other reason to believe the earth is 6000 years old, except for the religion of the Bible, and no one studying the planet would ever deduce it was only 6000 years old except for the religion. Religious groups still try to force the ridiculous teaching in school, thereby holding back science as we speak. Its an irrefutable argument that religion is very much holding back science, and only those with religious beliefs about the 6000 year old earth believe it. The religion is responsible for many people, not learning the very basic science of the earth itself.

The main argument against that was that other factors were involved, and that it may have happened anyways, but the argument simply wasnt valid, and was arguing something different.

The fact is, science was held back because it conflicted with religious beliefs of the time, and that was the only reason it was held back. People feared imprisonment or death, if they suggested a scientific fact that was not inline with the religious views of the time.

BBS's post simply ignored the actual argument completely and is totally off base.

[Ray Rider]

There's a lot of superficial discussion and references to Galileo in today's culture by those who have never taken the time to actually research the subject to find what major factors were involved, such as their reliance on ancient Aristotelian wisdom for the "science" of the day rather than forming their own scientific conclusions based on observation and experimentation (spurred on by Bacon, a Protestant). In addition, Galileo never actually proved heliocentrism, although he did give some evidence for it. His work ignored that of Keppler (a Protestant), and it was only when Copernicus (a Roman Catholic) thoroughly disproved geocentrism that it finally came to be accepted as fact. In fact, much of the opposition Galileo faced was from his own peers in academia who were jealous because he was favored by the Roman Catholic church (Ronan, 1974, pp 131-134).

"Galileo's trouble with the Church later became a popular archetype for the historical relationship between science and religion. Nothing could be further from the truth. For most of the medieval and Renaissance periods, and even stretching into the eighteenth century Enlightenment, the primary supporter of research and teaching in the sciences was the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, one historian of science, John Helbron, has recently published a book entitled The Sun in the Church that documents how the Church, in the aftermath of the Galileo affair, continued to promote research into evidence for heliocentrism, even to the point of turning entire cathedrals into giant pin-hole cameras to measure the apparent diameter of the solar disk at various times of the year." (Timothy Moy, history of science professor)

Here's a website which includes references and everything if you want to check it out a bit more.

From what I've read on the Catholic Church, for centuries they weren't open to be allowing the "masses" to interpret the Bible for themselves, thus they discouraged reading by sticking with the Latin, so that the dissemination of the Bible in different, local languages would be discouraged/stopped.

However, there's the Lutherans and other unorthodox groups who strongly encouraged people to interpret the Bible for themselves--not just for some elite body of religious authorities.

Exactly, by discouraging anyone from reading the Bible, the Roman Catholic church was able to twist it to suit their purposes and the common people didn't know any better, which resulted in papal scandals and various abuses by the Roman Catholic church. This sparked the Protestant Reformation, during which many revolted from the corruption they saw and strongly encouraged everyone to learn to read the Bible for themselves rather than just trusting an elite few (so they translated it into the common tongue so it would be easier to learn).

[BigBallinStalin]

From what I've read on the Catholic Church, for centuries they weren't open to be allowing the "masses" to interpret the Bible for themselves, thus they discouraged reading by sticking with the Latin, so that the dissemination of the Bible in different, local languages would be discouraged/stopped.

However, there's the Lutherans and other unorthodox groups who strongly encouraged people to interpret the Bible for themselves--not just for some elite body of religious authorities.


AAFitz's argument doesn't account for the above. He just homogenizes religion, then places all the blame on it.

BBS's argument doesnt account for the words actually written by AAFitz, and just wrongly misinterprets them as all religion.

The argument was simply that religion has held back science in the past, and does it today. The argument is still actually valid, if any religion at any time held back any science for a religious reason.

Sure, you're argument is valid, but it isn't sound.

And, as I've already stated, that's a very weak argument, Fitz.


Watch, let me try!


The argument was simply that Army of God has held back science in the past, and does it today. The argument is still actually valid, if any action of Army of God's has at any time held back any science for some reason of Army of God's (then Army of God has held back science).

Ok, let's apply this!


We've had plenty of discussions on CC which involve the application of science, and the application of science could lead to new insights for the development of science. Usually, we seek to discover the truth through scientific/empirical knowledge. Occasionally, AoG has said something ridiculously funny in a thread. Sometimes, this distracts us from our quest for knowledge, thus our scientific inquiry on some topic has been delayed; therefore, science has been held back.

AoG, HOW DARE YOU, YOU REPRESS SCIENCE!!

The main argument against that was that other factors were involved, and that it may have happened anyways, but the argument simply wasnt valid, and was arguing something different.

You have failed to show that this is true. Remember? "Those non-religious factors are constant! Therefore, it's irrelevant to ascertaining the strength of my argument!" No, it isn't, and here's why:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 5#p3492335

No reply to that, huh?

The fact is, science was held back because it conflicted with religious beliefs of the time, and that was the only reason it was held back. People feared imprisonment or death, if they suggested a scientific fact that was not inline with the religious views of the time.

And religion has also benefited society which has also positively contributed to the development of science. The problem is we have no means of knowing the total benefits and costs of religion across all individuals and how that relates to science. Since we don't know this, and will probably never be able to, then your position can't be true: "The fact is, science was held back because it conflicted with religious beliefs of the time, and that was the only reason it was held back."

That statement totally ignores the benefits of religion and whatever later gains were achieved from the benefits of religion.

You're only looking at a negative effect while ignoring all benefits of religion plus all non-religious effects. Are you starting to see how overlooking these points will undermine your argument?


Be humble and stop presuming so much. You're embarrassing yourself.

[AAFitz]

From what I've read on the Catholic Church, for centuries they weren't open to be allowing the "masses" to interpret the Bible for themselves, thus they discouraged reading by sticking with the Latin, so that the dissemination of the Bible in different, local languages would be discouraged/stopped.

However, there's the Lutherans and other unorthodox groups who strongly encouraged people to interpret the Bible for themselves--not just for some elite body of religious authorities.


AAFitz's argument doesn't account for the above. He just homogenizes religion, then places all the blame on it.

BBS's argument doesnt account for the words actually written by AAFitz, and just wrongly misinterprets them as all religion.

The argument was simply that religion has held back science in the past, and does it today. The argument is still actually valid, if any religion at any time held back any science for a religious reason.

Sure, you're argument is valid, but it isn't sound.

And, as I've already stated, that's a very weak argument, Fitz.


Watch, let me try!


The argument was simply that Army of God has held back science in the past, and does it today. The argument is still actually valid, if any action of Army of God's has at any time held back any science for some reason of Army of God's (then Army of God has held back science).

Ok, let's apply this!


We've had plenty of discussions on CC which involve the application of science, and the application of science could lead to new insights for the development of science. Usually, we seek to discover the truth through scientific/empirical knowledge. Occasionally, AoG has said something ridiculously funny in a thread. Sometimes, this distracts us from our quest for knowledge, thus our scientific inquiry on some topic has been delayed; therefore, science has been held back.

AoG, HOW DARE YOU, YOU REPRESS SCIENCE!!

The main argument against that was that other factors were involved, and that it may have happened anyways, but the argument simply wasnt valid, and was arguing something different.

You have failed to show that this is true. Remember? "Those non-religious factors are constant! Therefore, it's irrelevant to ascertaining the strength of my argument!" No, it isn't, and here's why:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 5#p3492335

No reply to that, huh?

The fact is, science was held back because it conflicted with religious beliefs of the time, and that was the only reason it was held back. People feared imprisonment or death, if they suggested a scientific fact that was not inline with the religious views of the time.

And religion has also benefited society which has also positively contributed to the development of science. The problem is we have no means of knowing the total benefits and costs of religion across all individuals and how that relates to science. Since we don't know this, and will probably never be able to, then your position can't be true: "The fact is, science was held back because it conflicted with religious beliefs of the time, and that was the only reason it was held back."

That statement totally ignores the benefits of religion and whatever later gains were achieved from the benefits of religion.

You're only looking at a negative effect while ignoring all benefits of religion plus all non-religious effects. Are you starting to see how overlooking these points will undermine your argument?


Be humble and stop presuming so much. You're embarrassing yourself.

I am presuming nothing. Im laughing, and not hardly embarrassed.

I have simply presented my argument of how the belief in supernatural powers has impeded the study of essentially the exact opposite. Many of those who disagree, believe in varying degrees in supernatural powers, and a 6000 year old book, that states the earth was created in one day.

At no point ever would I presume to ever convince such people of a belief in something which is essentially so complex, since even the simple to understand is easily dismissed.

If you choose to believe that a belief that the earth is 6000 years old, which was essentially taught to most every human didnt stifle science in any way, great.

If you choose to believe that believing in thunder gods instead of assuming more rational explanations didnt stiffle science in any way, great.

If you choose to believe that entire churches protesting in vitro-fertilization and essentially preaching to their followers didnt stifle science in any way, great.

If you choose to believe that the dark ages was just named because the sun was less bright, great.

The only way I could be embarrassed is if I argued what you are arguing.

People believe in many ridiculous things, some are even true. Maybe, just maybe you got lucky on this one. However, the history of the world suggests otherwise, in my very humble, opinion.

[Phatscotty]

Oh my goodness, I found another person! There are actually 2 of them, and in no way are they completely surrounded by the culture so many supporters of this system deny exists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o64Fz-KW1Dk

yes people need help, but this is just getting preposterous!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

nah, we haven't created this culture...nahhhh

meanwhile, I work 50 hours a week and paying a boatload in taxes while eating 3 peanut butter sandwiches a day.

[AAFitz]

Oh my goodness, I found another person! There are actually 2 of them, and in no way are they completely surrounded by the culture so many supporters of this system deny exists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o64Fz-KW1Dk

yes people need help, but this is just getting preposterous!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

nah, we haven't created this culture...nahhhh

meanwhile, I work 50 hours a week and paying a boatload in taxes while eating 3 peanut butter sandwiches a day.

Are you really bragging about 50 hours a week, or did you take a day off or something?

[Phatscotty]

Oh my goodness, I found another person! There are actually 2 of them, and in no way are they completely surrounded by the culture so many supporters of this system deny exists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o64Fz-KW1Dk

yes people need help, but this is just getting preposterous!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

nah, we haven't created this culture...nahhhh

meanwhile, I work 50 hours a week and paying a boatload in taxes while eating 3 peanut butter sandwiches a day.

Are you really bragging about 50 hours a week, or did you take a day off or something?

just comparing that to some who work ZERO hours. It doesn't matter if I work 10 hours or 80 hours.

The subjects in this thread don't work, but there they are, demanding their fair share while contributing nothing.

[Army of GOD]

I was wrong.

It's ok AA. We forgive you.

[Lootifer]

Fun fact: In that second clip (which has been used for so much propaganda) work could be a synonym for struggle.

Oh but no way, we couldn't try and see the best in people, hell no, lets slam everyone instead...

(ps yeh she is probably some mooching idiot who deserves a kick up the arse, i just hate propaganda)

[BigBallinStalin]

ITT, over the past 5-7 pages, has anyone here noticed how AAFitz has slowly reduced his original stance (religion represses science!) into the extremely limited argument (the belief in supernatural powers has impeded the study of essentially the exact opposite)?


Anyway, go ahead, Fitz. You ignored my Galileo questions, which you originally used to defend your argument, but I'm a forgiving guy.

Use your strongest example to defend whatever your argument may be this time.

[thegreekdog]

There's a lot of superficial discussion and references to Galileo in today's culture by those who have never taken the time to actually research the subject to find what major factors were involved, such as their reliance on ancient Aristotelian wisdom for the "science" of the day rather than forming their own scientific conclusions based on observation and experimentation (spurred on by Bacon, a Protestant). In addition, Galileo never actually proved heliocentrism, although he did give some evidence for it. His work ignored that of Keppler (a Protestant), and it was only when Copernicus (a Roman Catholic) thoroughly disproved geocentrism that it finally came to be accepted as fact. In fact, much of the opposition Galileo faced was from his own peers in academia who were jealous because he was favored by the Roman Catholic church (Ronan, 1974, pp 131-134).

"Galileo's trouble with the Church later became a popular archetype for the historical relationship between science and religion. Nothing could be further from the truth. For most of the medieval and Renaissance periods, and even stretching into the eighteenth century Enlightenment, the primary supporter of research and teaching in the sciences was the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, one historian of science, John Helbron, has recently published a book entitled The Sun in the Church that documents how the Church, in the aftermath of the Galileo affair, continued to promote research into evidence for heliocentrism, even to the point of turning entire cathedrals into giant pin-hole cameras to measure the apparent diameter of the solar disk at various times of the year." (Timothy Moy, history of science professor)

Here's a website which includes references and everything if you want to check it out a bit more.

From what I've read on the Catholic Church, for centuries they weren't open to be allowing the "masses" to interpret the Bible for themselves, thus they discouraged reading by sticking with the Latin, so that the dissemination of the Bible in different, local languages would be discouraged/stopped.

However, there's the Lutherans and other unorthodox groups who strongly encouraged people to interpret the Bible for themselves--not just for some elite body of religious authorities.

Exactly, by discouraging anyone from reading the Bible, the Roman Catholic church was able to twist it to suit their purposes and the common people didn't know any better, which resulted in papal scandals and various abuses by the Roman Catholic church. This sparked the Protestant Reformation, during which many revolted from the corruption they saw and strongly encouraged everyone to learn to read the Bible for themselves rather than just trusting an elite few (so they translated it into the common tongue so it would be easier to learn).

I'm confused as to why AA has not read this particular post. Or am I assuming that if AA reads something, he will respond? Is that too much to assume?

ITT, over the past 5-7 pages, has anyone here noticed how AAFitz has slowly reduced his original stance (religion represses science!) into the extremely limited argument (the belief in supernatural powers has impeded the study of essentially the exact opposite)?


Anyway, go ahead, Fitz. You ignored my Galileo questions, which you originally used to defend your argument, but I'm a forgiving guy.

Use your strongest example to defend whatever your argument may be this time.

Like I said before, he writes a whole lot of sentences and words that essentially say "Religion represses science" with little or no variance in message and no strong examples. Further, he puts the blame squarely on religion and not religious people. I still don't understand how he can do that.

I will give him props for arguing an impossible position while maintaining an extremely high opinion of himself. As soon as AA, of all people, resorted to the "you're dumb" and "you're religious" arguments, I pretty much knew the debate was over.

[stahrgazer]

Stahrgazer, what is that dribble you posted? I'm not even going to bother quoting it here because it's so completely out in left field in regards to this topic. How on earth is it SOCIETY'S job to take care of this woman's children?? She had the children, so SHE is the one who is responsible for providing for them. Society has already done more than required with buying her furniture, paying her rent, etc., yet she thinks she is allowed to demand more from them. Why is she sitting on her ass at home while all these people give her assistance?? Why isn't she out working to earn at least something to pay her own bills? If she has 15 kids, surely a few of them are old enough to have a job. Why aren't they working to help out their family? You have no right to demand more money from society when you refuse to earn money yourself. It's as simple as that.

No, it's not simple.

1) There aren't enough decent jobs out there.
2) Assuming she did get a job, then she'd have to pay for childcare, unless you'll babysit for them - or pay for someone to babysit for them.
3) YOU are one of the ones constantly posting about how "bad" abortion is, and this is a result that can occur when folks don't choose that option. It's even biblical, in the bible, people had many more children than 15.
4) This country has laws against minors working more than a few hours a week, kids' "job" is supposed to be "go to school" here. Your ideas on "have the kids support their mother's family" would undo about 160 years of U.S. history.
5) YOU are one who keeps talking about, "let private charities take care of people since the country doesn't have enough jobs," and this is clear evidence that, THAT DOES NOT WORK.

See, to be less hypocritical, those of you who don't want to support people who don't choose abortion, should be willing to give everything and then some for those blessed souls this momma didn't choose to kill.

Or, you can be like me: I support abortion, in part because of stuff like this. Further, I think China has a bit of a right idea in limiting the number of kids some one person should be having. I'd like to see the US government program that sponsors vasectomies and tubal ligations.

But "religious" hypocrites wouldn't go for something like that. No. Instead, they'd rather foam at the mouth that the woman should not only have her kids, she should go work (leaving them motherless for about 10 hours a day) to feed them all by herself simply because she chose to have a little physical gratification with a baby-daddy (or 2 or 3) who turned out to be deadbeats or themselves, can't find a decent enough job to support that large of a family.

This woman won't win "mother of the year," but then again, I don't understand how a 40-hour-a-week working "mother" can win mother of the year when it's the day-care center that's actually "parenting" those children's developmental years for 6-10 hours a day, 2/3 to half of the child's "awake" moments.