Originally posted by lucifershammerAnd this justifies burning someone alive?
The dancing woman wasn't trying to get raped, either.
Galileo wasn't simply trying to "understand the world and share his ideas" - he wanted the Church to bend to his will and declare his ideas true (even ignoring the findings of fellow-heliocentricist Kepler in the process).
Originally posted by DragonFriendIt is not the unwillingness to change the basis of belief. It is the unwillingness accept and steadfast argumentative defense of blatant inconsistencies and contradictions within the belief that Christians give.
I understand why the Christians are here discussing God, but why are the skeptics here? If I can speak generally, the thing skeptics dislike about Christians most is that we're unwilling to change the basis of our faith. So what do the skeptics hope to accomplish with these discussions?
DF
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou've repeatedly made the claim that Galileo tried to get the Church to officially endorse his theories, please offer SOME evidence to support this assertion. If you knew the history, you'd know that some in the Church were lobbying for Galileo's theories and heliocentrism in general to be declared heresy. What was the penalty for heresy, LH? Galileo then tried to get the Church to not declare them heresies; I find no evidence that he attempted to get the Church to officially endorse heliocentrism, except to the extent that he believed it was true (which it was and is) and thus didn't think the Church should adopt an incorrect position.
1. Galileo didn't just "[write] his theories and [try] to avoid being killed for it". He tried to get the Church to officially endorse his theories as truth (and he couldn't even prove it).
2. Galileo was a prominent public personality in his time. When someone with his level of public visibility and learning begins a PR campaign, it is not hard to ...[text shortened]... nfluential and had too many powerful friends for his case to come up before the Inquisition.
2 and 3 are your opinions based on no facts whatsoever. I don't see ANY indications in Galileo's letters that he thought it unlikely he would be brought before the Inquistion; every thing in them shows that he feared that he would be. You can ignore the Bruno case all you want, but I'm quite sure it was fresh in Galileo's mind. Probably it was because Galileo was so well known that the Inquistion choose him.
Originally posted by no1marauderThat is my understanding of the history as well. I would like to see evidence of Galileo trying to get the church to endorse his theories as well, LH....
You've repeatedly made the claim that Galileo tried to get the Church to officially endorse his theories, please offer SOME evidence to support this assertion. If you knew the history, you'd know that some in the Church were lobbying for Galileo's theories and heliocentrism in general to be declared heresy. What was the penalty for heresy, LH? Galileo th ...[text shortened]... mind. Probably it was because Galileo was so well known that the Inquistion choose him.
Originally posted by ivanhoeStop spamming; if you're sooooooooooooo interested in that thread, post there. We're interested in this thread, so we're, unlike you, making on-topic posts (at least on the topic some people choose to deal with).
Why are the skeptics here ?
Why are the skeptics here at all ?
They are here to bicker about history and to not post in threads dealing with the current "Cartoon War" ...... that's why they are here.
Originally posted by no1marauderBut of course - for a commodity.
As a laissez faire capitalist, don't you feel the price of a commodity is set by the free market and thus must always be "just right"?
However, I also believe that fraud is a real phenomenon and one that violates the boundaries of capitalism. The selling of indulgences is an example thereof, since the customer was being sold not a commodity but merely deceit. The customer did not receive what he intended to pay for. Thus, any price at all for the bogus goods that were being sold was too high.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIs it not the responsibility of the consumer to make an independent inquiry into the utility of the product? If he truly believes that the indulgence will have the effect he desires, then isn't he getting his money's worth? It's not as if the people selling the indulgence are telling him that the indulgence will cure bird flu knowing it will not (fraud), both the buyer and the seller believe that the indulgence will do exactly what it was advertised to do. From a laissez faire perspective, the RCC should have every moral right to sell indulgences at a price the market will bear.
But of course - for a commodity.
However, I also believe that fraud is a real phenomenon and one that violates the boundaries of capitalism. The selling of indulgences is an example thereof, since the customer was being sold not a commodity but merely deceit. The customer did not receive what he intended to pay for. Thus, any price at all for the bogus goods that were being sold was too high.
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderThe buyer only believes it because the seller told him to. This would be analogous to me telling you the car I will sell you runs great, and you taking my word for it.
both the buyer and the seller believe that the indulgence will do exactly what it was advertised to do.
The seller has no basis to believe it other than his own creative fantasy. This would be analogous to me building a car in my garage out of tinker toys and never attempting to drive it, but merely imagining that it runs great.
If I sell you my tinker toy car after creating an advertisement whose claims I believe (albeit without any reasonable basis) such as "Runs Great!", and you buy it under the expectation that its claims are true, have I or have I not defrauded you if it turns out that the car does not run?
I say that I have.
Consider this excerpt from a legal expert's description of false advertisement:
http://www.poznaklaw.com/articles/falsead.htm
"As you might expect, the term includes advertisements that are in fact untrue. However, the term false advertising extends well beyond untrue advertisements. It also includes advertisements that make representations that the advertiser has no reasonable basis to believe, even if the representations turn out to be true."
There is a reason we have laws against false advertising. It is because that practice does not play within the rules of capitalism. Thus, any capitalistic analysis that you would perform does not apply to the pricing of indulgences.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI have found no case law or statutory prohibitions against the selling of indulgences. In order to prevail on the classical claim of false advertising, the aggrieved party has the burden of proving that the claims made were actually false. I am curious as to how one would meet that burden of proof in a false advertising litigation concerning indulgences.
The buyer only believes it because the seller told him to. This would be analogous to me telling you the car I will sell you runs great, and you taking my word for it.
The seller has no basis to believe it other than his own creative fantasy. This would be analogous to me building a car in my garage out of tinker toys and never attempting to dri capitalistic analysis that you would perform does not apply to the pricing of indulgences.
As mentioned in your cited article, the law now also recognizes a claim under the general rubric of false advertising where an advertiser makes claims he has no reasonable basis to believe but prove true IF the customer is somehow damaged. I doubt whether a court of law would conclude that the RCC's belief that it is God's true church on Earth is not reasonable. I doubt whether it would get into the theological issues regarding indulgences. And I doubt that it could given the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment.
Originally posted by no1marauderDon't you, as a skeptic, have anything to say about the cartoon war being a valiant "Warrior against Prejudice and Bigotry" and an even more valiant "Warrior against the Ennemies of Free Speech" ?
Stop spamming; if you're sooooooooooooo interested in that thread, post there. We're interested in this thread, so we're, unlike you, making on-topic posts (at least on the topic some people choose to deal with).
.... or is the world situation becoming a bit tooooooo complex and tooooooo confusing for your skeptic little mind ?
2 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeI'm trying to avoid Debates as much as possible; it's become a sewer. I'm sure you're quite capable of waging your Holy War against Muslims on your own and with the ignorant bigots who infest Debates. The world situation is fairly clear to me; Western rich guys are trying to dominant and control the world and some of the average Joes are resisting it. Some of the AJ's have ideologies I'm sympathetic to and some have ideologies I'm not sympathetic to. Either way, it's none of my business what happens in somebody else's country; certainly not if it means ultimately supporting mass murder for the result of further control of the world by Western capitalists.
Don't you, as a skeptic, have anything to say about the cartoon war being a valiant "Warrior against Prejudice and Bigotry" and an even more valiant "Warrior against the Ennemies of Free Speech" ?
.... or is the world situation becoming a bit tooooooo complex and tooooooo confusing for your skeptic little mind ?
1 edit
Originally posted by no1maraudermarauder: "I'm trying to avoid Debates as much as possible; ... "
I'm trying to avoid Debates as much as possible; it's become a sewer. I'm sure you're quite capable of waging your Holy War against Muslims on your own and with the ignorant bigots who infest Debates. The world situation is fairly clear to me; Western rich guys are trying to dominant and control the world and some of the average Joes are resisting it. So ting mass murder for the result of further control of the world by Western capitalists.
Good.
marauder: "The world situation is fairly clear to me; ... "
Good.
marauder: "Western rich guys are trying to dominant and control the world and some of the average Joes are resisting it. Some of the AJ's have ideologies I'm sympathetic to and some have idelogies I'm not sympathetic to."
Interesting.
marauder: "Either way, it's none of my business what happens in somebody else's country; ... "
Interesting.
marauder: "certainly not if it means ultimately supporting mass murder for the result of further control of the world by Western capitalists ... "
Most refreshing and original analyses, I must say.
Say hi to your Marsian friends,
Cheers,
Ivanhoe.