Why are the skeptics here?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If Rob is interested in the facts and not his prejudices, he may also want to check out the works of the Jesuit scientists:

http://libraries.luc.edu/about/exhibits/jesuits/

It's not for nothing that half the craters on the moon are named after Jesuits.

Gallileao (probably spelt wrong - too lazy to look it up) put forward the theory (after others had thought of it) that the Earth traveled around the sun and not the other way around. The church then had him tortured until he renounced his theory.

Based on what we know today it is safe to say that yes, the church did impede on scientific advancement when it went against the word of dog.

Originally posted by rwingett
The Enlightenment was responsible for finally pushing civilization out of the Dark Ages, where the Church would have been more than happy to keep it for all eternity. The Church has been a hindrance to every scientific advancement ever made. It was only by weakening the Church's stranglehold on the intellect of man that we were finally able to make some pro ess a religion involves itself in the running of the state, the better off it will be as well.

Rwingo: "The Church has been a hindrance to every scientific advancement ever made."

Please, every serious unbiased history student will tell you differently. It is simply not true, on the contrary, the Church has always promoted scientific research. It is about time you say goodbye to these deliberate twistings of history ..... and please, don't give me that Galileo story. It has become a liberal myth based on facts made suitable for the aim of bashing the Church. It is about time that historians without a political agenda start investigating it in an impartial way.

The most important source of Western civilisation has been and will be the Church, whether you like it or not. Science can never replace the Faith and Faith can never replace science. Civilisation is not something science can prescribe. Science does not give birth to civilisation, Faith gives birth to both.

You always make this one fatal mistake, namely to equate the Christian Faith with the habitat, the culture it has to operate in. In 100 years people who'll use the same reasoning as you do will accuse the Church of allowing abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide. The fact that the Church strongly opposed these concepts doesn't matter to people who reason in the way you do. They will point at the masses of lay people, Catholic politicians, Heads of State, priests, pastors and preachers, we call them liberals in our days, who advocated, preached, supported and implemented these practises in cooperation with their secular friends, people like you. Oh yes, the Church is guilty and it can be proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Correct, Rwingo ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Rwingo: "The Church has been a hindrance to every scientific advancement ever made."

Please, every serious unbiased history student will tell you differently. It is simply not true, on the contrary, the Church has always promoted scientific research. It is about time you say goodbye to these deliberate twistings of history ..... and please, don't give me ...[text shortened]... s, the Church is guilty and it can be proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Correct, Rwingo ?

Yes, yes, we've heard this song and dance many times before. Why don't you and Lucifershammer get your Papal chorus line in action? You could collaborate on a musical on how wonderful the Church has been throughout history. A few catchy tunes, a little whitewash, and all is forgiven. No thanks, I'm not buying.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Ahh, the altruism waifs like a fragrant offering to the heavens. Surely there is a place reserved for such selfless giving in the pantheon of the final resting place.

Logic reigns supreme, except of course, in wingnut's post. The advancement of civilization came about in the most profound manner immediately following the Church's return to doctrine, a ...[text shortened]... o doctrine, and its impact on what we call Western Civilization.

Don't be afraid of books.

Sorry, I thought that 'advancement of civilisation' was more to do with the Renaissance than the scripture.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_the_Jesuits

Politics. Always happens - no matter what walk of life.

Originally posted by Rolfey
Gallileao (probably spelt wrong - too lazy to look it up) put forward the theory (after others had thought of it) that the Earth traveled around the sun and not the other way around. The church then had him tortured until he renounced his theory.

Based on what we know today it is safe to say that yes, the church did impede on scientific advancement when it went against the word of dog.

1. Galileo.
2. Copernicus came up with the heliocentric theory. Galileo mainly did a PR job on it.
3. He was not tortured.
4. Learn your history. Seriously.

Originally posted by rwingett
Yes, yes, we've heard this song and dance many times before. Why don't you and Lucifershammer get your Papal chorus line in action? You could collaborate on a musical on how wonderful the Church has been throughout history. A few catchy tunes, a little whitewash, and all is forgiven. No thanks, I'm not buying.

Johnson-Scribbles.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Johnson-Scribbles.

Why don't we just number our arguments? This will save us the trouble of actually typing them out. When I launch into my polemic against religion, I could label it, say, number 1. When you give your standard apologetic claptrap, you could label it number 8, or something. Then a typical conversation between us would look like this:

rwingett: number 1

lucifershammer: number 8

You see? It would be just as entertaining, and as informative, as the thread that just preceeded this post. And since neither of us actually reads what the other says, nothing would be lost in translation.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
1. Galileo.
2. Copernicus came up with the heliocentric theory. Galileo mainly did a PR job on it.
3. He was not tortured.
4. Learn your history. Seriously.

1. thank you
2. i did say after someone else thought of it first...
3. he was threatened during captivity that he would be physically tortured if he did not renounce his claim. this is still a form of torture, just not taken to the physical level yet.
4. i was not wrong.

Originally posted by rwingett
Why don't we just number our arguments? This will save us the trouble of actually typing them out. When I launch into my polemic against religion, I could label it, say, number 1. When you give your standard apologetic claptrap, you could label it number 8, or something. Then a typical conversation between us would look like this:

rwingett: number 1

l ...[text shortened]... d since neither of us actually reads what the other says, nothing would be lost in translation.

You'd need to refer to the 'Nipples' thread to see what I mean. I do like Halitose's description of the kind of argument you're using as well - argumentum ad megasmugness.

For a guy who went through all the trouble of getting into a formal high school-style debate with Scribbles, you don't seem to want to address points made in this thread (although, to be fair, I thought you were the only person actually trying to make a case in the Rand v. Goldman thread). Especially disappointing from a person who insisted my posts be unified and coherent (I'm paraphrasing here - you didn't seem to like the fact that I pick out individual assertions to refute on a point-by-point basis).

Pity.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I thought you were the only person actually trying to make a case in the Rand v. Goldman thread

Really? Did you read the entire thread? I'll count your absence from the panel as a blessing from above if you truly failed to notice that I was at least attempting to make a case.

Originally posted by Rolfey
1. thank you
2. i did say after someone else thought of it first...
3. he was threatened during captivity that he would be physically tortured if he did not renounce his claim. this is still a form of torture, just not taken to the physical level yet.
4. i was not wrong.

3. Do you have any proof for that? Or are you just going to go with "Galileo had heard about Bruno etc."?
4. Really? How many trials did Galileo have? What were the charges brought against him? What did Cardinal Bellarmine (the head of the Roman Inquisition) say about Galileo's thesis before the trial? What were the conditions of Galileo's sentence? Where was he imprisoned? Why did Galileo come to Rome in the first place?

Maybe you already know the answers to all these questions. But, if you don't, then I seriously suggest you research this aspect of history.

Originally posted by rwingett
A few catchy tunes, a little whitewash, and all is forgiven. No thanks, I'm not buying.

Mmmmm. Whitewash. The Church has always been at war with Science.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
It is simply not true, on the contrary, the Church has always promoted scientific research.

What was the Church's stance during Tennessee v. Scopes? I don't recall the Catholic League donating to Scopes's legal fund.

How about during the most recent Kansas State Board of Education case involving the teaching of Intelligent Design? Did the Church rush to the aid of science?

According to http://www.americancatholic.org/News/StemCell/
"The Catholic Church is against stem-cell research because it involves the destruction of human embryos. Pope John Paul II says embryonic stem-cell research is related to abortion, euthanasia and other attacks on innocent life."

Do you wish to modify your claim?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
1. Galileo.
2. Copernicus came up with the heliocentric theory. Galileo mainly did a PR job on it.
3. He was not tortured.
4. Learn your history. Seriously.

Galileo's "PR job" was confirming a hypothesis through observation, the very basis of science. There's a prior thread buried somewhere here regarding the Galileo case where it was shown by examination of the documents of the trial that your claims regarding the matter i.e. Galileo was "meddling" in religion, etc. were almost entirely false.

Learn ACTUAL history. Seriously (we've gone through yours and Ivanhoe's equally spurious claims regarding the Inquistion; being an conservative Catholic apparently means you never change your apologetic stance on any matter regarding the RCC no matter how much it is shown to be at variance with reality).