Moral Progress

Originally posted by 667joe
Again, some posters are skeptical of my statements because I may have found them on google. Why are said posters not as skeptical of the bible which provides even less evidence than google but makes very preposterous claims such as virgin births and resurrection?

Again, some posters are skeptical of my statements because I may have found them on google.

Yes, which is a very good argument, mind you. If you wrote in a peer-reviewed academic journal and cited a Google search as your authority, you would be laughed at for the rest of your life. I have given several explanations of why.

Why are said posters not as skeptical of the bible which provides even less evidence than google but makes very preposterous claims such as virgin births and resurrection?

Why indeed. I really don't give a stuff. The credibility of the Bible is not the subject here; your inability to produce credible evidence for your claims is the subject. You have not even cited any article. You have simply said that there is some article out there which you found on Google. Well, how convincing.

And, still, you have failed to back up your previous claims that the Catholic Church opposed vaccination among other things. What a joke.

And, still, you have failed to back up your previous claims that the Catholic Church opposed vaccination among other things. What a joke.[/b]

Then , you have to admit believing in the bible is even more of a joke! Why do you criticize google but give the bible a free pass? Your position is not tenable, but it is hypocritical.

Originally posted by 667joe
Then , you have to admit believing in the bible is even more of a joke! Why do you criticize google but give the bible a free pass? Your position is not tenable, but it is hypocritical.

Again, my beliefs in the bible (which are actually quite complex, rather than your simple-minded literal interpretations) are not under discussion. All I want is to know why you make these claims. Why should that be so difficult?

And, again, I am not criticising Google. As I have said, Google is an effective search engine. But that is all it is. It only ranks sites according to their relevance to the search words. It does not however evaluate whether these sites are wrong or wrong, whether they are written by academics or not, whether they are satirical or not, etc. It is not a scholarly authority.

But if you consider Google such an authority, why do you not give your assent to this article:

http://www.gendercide.org/case_witchhunts.html

Google lists this as the second site when I typed 'Catholic Church witch hunts'. Since Google supplied it, why don't you agree with it?

According to you, this article does say the Catholics were involved in witch hunt so to that extent, I agree with it.

Originally posted by 667joe
Again, some posters are skeptical of my statements because I may have found them on google. Why are said posters not as skeptical of the bible which provides even less evidence than google but makes very preposterous claims such as virgin births and resurrection?

I'm skeptical of your statements because I cannot find any evidence for them. When I wandered into this discussion I was on your side until I checked around a bit and realized there is no substance to these claims.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I'm skeptical of your statements because I cannot find any evidence for them. When I wandered into this discussion I was on your side until I checked around a bit and realized there is no substance to these claims.

You must have your eyes closed! It is easy to find references to everything I said.

Originally posted by 667joe
You must have your eyes closed! It is easy to find references to everything I said.

Why should others have to find your references? You have made the claim and so the burden of proof firmly rests on your shoulders.

Originally posted by 667joe
You must have your eyes closed! It is easy to find references to everything I said.

Cool. Help us out. Provide them.

Originally posted by 667joe
According to you, this article does say the Catholics were involved in witch hunt so to that extent, I agree with it.

If your claim were merely that there were some Catholics who engaged in witch-hunts, then I am not disagreement. Your claim however is much stronger -- that the Catholic Church was the main agent. This article in contrast says that witch-hunts were significantly lower in Catholic countries. Other evidence I have given also shows that Catholic authorities were wary of claims of witchcraft, as illustrated by the condemnation of Malleus Maleficarum.

And, again, why are you unable to give evidence for your other claims? You said that the Catholic Church opposed vaccination, for example. I have asked for proof several times now and so far you have completely ignored this demand. Your hypocrisy is obvious. You make hysterical claims and, finding no evidential support for them, find yourself too cowardly to admit error.

Originally posted by Conrau K
If your claim were merely that there were some Catholics who engaged in witch-hunts, then I am not disagreement. Your claim however is much stronger -- that the Catholic Church was the main agent. This article in contrast says that witch-hunts were significantly lower in Catholic countries. Other evidence I have given also shows that Catholic authori ...[text shortened]... l claims and, finding no evidential support for them, find yourself too cowardly to admit error.

Malleus Maleficarum was a book venerated almost as much as the bible, that gave step by step instructions to priests on how to torture witches and socerers. Tens of thousands were murdered. The Atheist Universe David Mills.

Because you are so anal retentive and obviously in denial of the truth, I will get you references for the other facts I have told you. Naturally, I will be surprised if you accept my references, but, who cares! The fact that you keep harping on the matter tells me you are not sure of yourself

Originally posted by 667joe
Malleus Maleficarum was a book venerated almost as much as the bible, that gave step by step instructions to priests on how to torture witches and socerers. Tens of thousands were murdered. The Atheist Universe David Mills.

Because you are so anal retentive and obviously in denial of the truth, I will get you references for the other facts I have ...[text shortened]... who cares! The fact that you keep harping on the matter tells me you are not sure of yourself

Malleus Maleficarum was a book venerated almost as much as the bible, that gave step by step instructions to priests on how to torture witches and socerers. Tens of thousands were murdered. The Atheist Universe David Mills.

As has already been shown, the author of this work was condemned by the inquisition three years later because of this work. AThousandYoung also gave many cases in which fellow priests and bishops were publicly skeptical of the work. To say that this book was 'venerated' is untrue.

Because you are so anal retentive and obviously in denial of the truth, I will get you references for the other facts I have told you. Naturally, I will be surprised if you accept my references, but, who cares! The fact that you keep harping on the matter tells me you are not sure of yourself

Well, whether I accept your references depends on their credibility and the plausibility of the arguments they give. That is the nature of probative evidence and you would ask the same standards from any theist.

But I look forward to reading whatever evidence you find. It is quite a worry that it took three pages of posts just to convince you to put forward evidence. Normally, evidence comes first.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Malleus Maleficarum was a book venerated almost as much as the bible, that gave step by step instructions to priests on how to torture witches and socerers. Tens of thousands were murdered. The Atheist Universe David Mills.

As has already been shown, the author of this work was condemned by the inquisition three years later because of this e pages of posts just to convince you to put forward evidence. Normally, evidence comes first.[/b]

It's also a "gentleman's agreement" that "soft sources" be used in online discussions - that is, links rather than books. One sophistic trick is to make it really inconvenient to check up on the references, so we use soft sources that are easy for everyone to check.

EDIT - Why do you think David Mills is an expert on the Malleus Maleficium? Here's some info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mills_(author)
http://www.davidmills.net/
http://www.davidmills.net/Atheist-Universe-Excerpt.pdf
http://www.afrashteh.com/whoami/interview_with_an_atheist.htm

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
It's also a "gentleman's agreement" that "soft sources" be used in online discussions - that is, links rather than books. One sophistic trick is to make it really inconvenient to check up on the references, so we use soft sources that are easy for everyone to check.

EDIT - Why do you think David Mills is an expert on the Malleus Maleficium? Here' ...[text shortened]... heist-Universe-Excerpt.pdf
http://www.afrashteh.com/whoami/interview_with_an_atheist.htm

Doing a Google search, I was able to locate an excerpt from David Mills' book which bears particular relevance here:

“The effects of the Malleus Maleficarum spread far beyond Germany, greatly impacting France and Italy and, to a lesser extent, England.

...

“Despite popular belief that the Malleus Maleficarum was the classic Roman Catholic text on witchcraft, it was never officially used by the Catholic Church and was, in fact, condemned by the Inquisition in 1490.”

Originally posted by Conrau K
Doing a Google search, I was able to locate an excerpt from David Mills' book which bears particular relevance here:

“The effects of the Malleus Maleficarum spread far beyond Germany, greatly impacting France and Italy and, to a lesser extent, England.

...

“Despite popular belief that the Malleus Maleficarum was the classic Roman Catholic text on ...[text shortened]... officially used by the Catholic Church and was, in fact, condemned by the Inquisition in 1490.”

Ah, I tried looking for that kind of thing but the excerpt I found didn't seem to have the info I wanted.

EDIT - Where's the link?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Ah, I tried looking for that kind of thing but the excerpt I found didn't seem to have the info I wanted.

EDIT - Where's the link?

This blogger writes a review of the book and quotes extensively:

http://mycaseagainstgod.blogspot.com/2006/05/trading-in-science-for-history-bible.html