XBrain130 wrote:

Source of the post Are you seriously saying there is the same difference between two religions and between a crime and a bad habit?

Apples and oranges, but, yes, some religious acts are crimes and some are harmless.

XBrain130 wrote:

Source of the post Let's not forgot that some hundred years ago, the first was an highly developed society in a golden age of knowledge, while the second was a bunch of fanatical sheep throwing one doomed holy war after another at the holy land.

Not correct.  Your fanatical sheep were deeply interested in knowledge as well and pushed technology and knowledge forward in all centuries (isolated examples of forgotten arts do not invalidate the general progress).  And there are two sides of wars.

midtskogen wrote:

Source of the post  Your fanatical sheep were deeply interested in knowledge as well and pushed technology and knowledge forward in all centuries

You know who was the first man to propose that there could be planets around the stars? Giordano Bruno.

You know how he ended up? Burned alive by the christian inquisition.

And how we can not mention Galilei?

You can't call it "pushing technology and knowledge forward" when they threatened with death everyone who said something in contradiction with a pile of thousand-years-old pieces of paper.

XBrain130 wrote:

Source of the post while the second was a bunch of fanatical sheep

please watch your language.
i could write alot of stuff about my religion but instead there are people who know more than me and can explain better so if you want to understand some stuff watch these:
this video shows what our prophet was like in charekteristics.


here the fighting and killing disbelievers is explained.

a really interesting lecture:


this one shows emphaty that a muslim should have also shows more about my prophet:


very interesting about terrorism not only in Islam but also in hinduism and other religion, i really want you to watch this:


and another really interesting video that you should watch about terrorism:


these videos are all really recent. and yes im a muslim.

Bambusman wrote:

XBrain130 wrote:

Source of the post while the second was a bunch of fanatical sheep

please watch your language.
i could write alot of stuff about my religion but instead there are people who know more than me and can explain better so if you want to understand some stuff watch these:
this video shows what our prophet was like in charekteristics.


here the fighting and killing disbelievers is explained.

a really interesting lecture:


this one shows emphaty that a muslim should have also shows more about my prophet:


very interesting about terrorism not only in Islam but also in hinduism and other religion, i really want you to watch this:


and another really interesting video that you should watch about terrorism:


these videos are all really recent. and yes im a muslim.

Uhm, I was referring to medieval christians...

XBrain130 wrote:

Source of the post Uhm, I was referring to medieval christians...

it doesnt matter read the forum rules... and the videos are for everyone especcially for MrZoolook,

midtskogen wrote:

Source of the post If the police put more resources into catching a serial killer, do they promote a double standard if they don't also allocate extra resources to fight jaywalking?

Again, everyone seems to be misunderstanding me. I'm not saying other religions deserve EQUAL time and attention, I'm saying that one should not totally ignore them nor pretend that they do not share some of the same problems that Islam has.

XBrain130 wrote:

Source of the post You know who was the first man to propose that there could be planets around the stars? Giordano Bruno.

You know how he ended up? Burned alive by the christian inquisition.

And how we can not mention Galilei?

I do of course know about Bruno, who was burnt at the stake after controversies (mostly theological), and about Galilei who was put in house arrest for some of his ideas.  What religion did they confess to?  Their writings confirm that science was very much alive and progressed.  As today, there were disputes, which could have much more violent outcomes in those days.  But to claim that knowledge and science (called philosophy at that time) were discouraged or worse by the church is not correct.  Both Bruno and Galilei were highly educated, and the education was largely organised by the church.  At Bruno's and Galilei's time astronomy and maths were making rapid advances.  But this is late.  A more common misunderstanding is that science in Christian Europe during the middle ages declined or disappeared.  It's true that progress slowed in some areas, or some arts were even forgotten, but this has more to do with the political instability in particular during the migration period than it has to do with religion.  Still, old knowledge was carefully preserved _by the church_ through that time.  And there was steady progress, perhaps not in every field, but certainly in agriculture, philosophy, warfare to mention a few.

midtskogen wrote:

Source of the post Both Bruno and Galilei were highly educated, and the education was largely organised by the church.

And then they actually started to produce actual results when they noticed that reality doesn't overlap with a literal interpretation of a certain book, which is exactly why they were persecuted.

midtskogen wrote:

Source of the post What religion did they confess to?

It doesn't matter whether they were Christians if the church itself wanted them dead.

midtskogen wrote:

Source of the post Still, old knowledge was carefully preserved _by the church_ through that time

Only selectively, and you guess it, what didn't contradict their sacrosanct myths, and never dreamt of changing them. Like the geocentric theory. That doesn't count when the Islams also saved countless pieces of greek studies.

XBrain130 wrote:

Source of the post And then they actually started to produce actual results when they noticed that reality doesn't overlap with a literal interpretation of a certain book, which is exactly why they were persecuted.

You must judge the events by the contemporary society.  Everyday life was saturated by superstition.  Those who "started to produce actual results" were as superstitious as everybody else at that time by today's standards.  That hadn't changed since antiquity (e.g. the fate of Sokrates), or since the beginning of man's history.  Only very recently did science, philosophy and religion split, but that didn't mark the beginning of science.

XBrain130 wrote:

Source of the post Only selectively, and you guess it, what didn't contradict their sacrosanct myths, and never dreamt of changing them

Incorrect again.  Significant pre-Christian texts were faithfully copied pretty much regardless of content.  For instance, the Christian sacrosanct myth you speak of (geocentrism) got a strong foothold in the Christian world thanks to Plato, Aristotle and Ptolemy, who were not Christians.  The geocentric model was a scientific achievement when it was developed.  It continued to be science.  It became a dogma, but that sometimes happens in science.

midtskogen wrote:

Source of the post Those who "started to produce actual results" were as superstitious as everybody else at that time by today's standards.

No. Galileo got actual results because as a first, he repeated the observations of them over an over, such as looking at Jupiter for several nights in a row to confirm that, indeed, he saw actual moons. Everyone else said glimpsed once and went either "hey, it's exactly like the Bible says, so it's true" or "hey, that's not what the Bible says, so it must be a work of the devil to send us to hell". Will to bend one's beliefs towards reality isn't the same level of superstitious as denying the second to the sake the first's integrity.

Why do you think he is said to be the father of the scientific method, and, by extension, science?

midtskogen wrote:

Source of the post Significant pre-Christian texts

aka "pre-Christian texts that fitted with the Bible"

midtskogen wrote:

Source of the post were faithfully copied pretty much regardless of content

that's exactly what I said

midtskogen wrote:

Source of the post the Christian sacrosanct myth you speak of (geocentrism)

the sacrosanct myth I was referring to was creationism and ever other ancient fairytale written in the Bible.

midtskogen wrote:

Source of the post The geocentric model was a scientific achievement when it was developed. It continued to be science.

No again. It always was pure, baseless, speculative philosophy that only on apparent level appeared to be realistic.

XBrain130 wrote:

Source of the post Everyone else said glimpsed once and went either "hey, it's exactly like the Bible says, so it's true" or "hey, that's not what the Bible says, so it must be a work of the devil to send us to hell".

Which verses in the Bible do you have in mind?

XBrain130 wrote:

Source of the post aka "pre-Christian texts that fitted with the Bible"

If there were important works which Christianity deliberately erased, we would likely know about the existence of several indirectly.  There are lost works referred to or quoted in other works, but I think historians will disagree with you if you think there was a systematic purge of religiously improper works.

XBrain130 wrote:

Source of the post that's exactly what I said

Selectively, you said.  Remember that the geocentric model predates the New Testament, so it's rather the other way around, Christianity didn't part with the dominating worldview.

XBrain130 wrote:

Source of the post No again. It always was pure, baseless, speculative philosophy that only on apparent level appeared to be realistic.

Ptolemy's model had observational support.  Epicycles work up to a certain point.  The sphere and circle obsession is a matter of aesthetics and simplicity, which is still a guide in science (cf Occam's razor) even though it can be dismissed as "speculative philosophy".

midtskogen wrote:

Source of the post Which verses in the Bible do you have in mind?

I was talking in general. And I never read it anyway.

midtskogen wrote:

Source of the post If there were important works which Christianity deliberately erased, we would likely know about the existence of several indirectly.  There are lost works referred to or quoted in other works, but I think historians will disagree with you if you think there was a systematic purge of religiously improper works.

Look, I'm not saying they deliberately erased or purged them, just that they might have not copied all of them. And as I already said, they weren't the only ones into it, Islam did copy classical works too, that might be why we ain't missing most of them.

midtskogen wrote:

Source of the post Selectively, you said.  

Yes. They selected which ones were entirely wholesome, and copied all of it. Why would they help spread something going against their beliefs?

midtskogen wrote:

Source of the post Remember that the geocentric model predates the New Testament, so it's rather the other way around, Christianity didn't part with the dominating worldview.

I don't see the point of this counter. Of course they would adhere to the the-dominant worldview if it didn't hinder them. The problem is when they kept pushing it after it started have plotholes and more realistic alternatives popped up.

midtskogen wrote:

Source of the post Ptolemy's model had observational support.

All amounting to the naked eye. But that's hardly a reliable instrument in astronomy to base evidence on.

XBrain130 wrote:

Source of the post All amounting to the naked eye. But that's hardly a reliable instrument in astronomy to base evidence on.

To be fair, it's all they had. Even with the best measurements they could make at the time the epicycles worked. None of which of course invalidates your point about the harm caused by the Church's dogmatic view on geocentrism.

XBrain130 wrote:

Source of the post Look, I'm not saying they deliberately erased or purged them, just that they might have not copied all of them.

Works were of course lost, not copied, but it has little to do with their contents contradicting biblical ideas.  There were a large number of Greek and Roman works dealing with the gods, promoting views that are directly opposed to the single god of Abraham, but we still have a lot of those works, and do you know what, Christians read them and copied them.

XBrain130 wrote:

Source of the post And as I already said, they weren't the only ones into it, Islam did copy classical works too, that might be why we ain't missing most of them.

Yes, some classical works would have been lost if they hadn't been preserved in the Islamic world.  But it's nothing to do with Christianity being "anti-science" and Islam being "pro-science" or something like that.  It simply isn't true.

XBrain130 wrote:

Source of the post Why would they help spread something going against their beliefs?

Because they valued knowledge?  The Greek and Romans clearly did not worship the Christian god, but still their works were read and even influenced Christian theology.
Look, you were promoting myths.  Sure, there were persistent dogmata, but you need to understand this in the contemporary contexts.  In particular, there was no clear distinction between science, philosophy and theology.  Astronomy, mathematics, meteorology, whatever, were all considered studies of the divine.  Some Greek philosophers spoke against superstition and mocked god fearing people, but for the most part they weren't really atheists, but rather had the view that the gods didn't care about the affairs of men.

I took the political compass twice on different sites, here are my results.