489d5d0e   
   XPost: alt.atheism, aus.poliitcs, talk.atheism   
   XPost: aus.culture.true-blue   
   From: fasgnadh@yahoo.com.au   
      
   Bill wrote:   
   > On Oct 18, 10:04 pm, Jimbo  wrote:   
   >> On Oct 18, 8:28 pm, Bill  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>> On Oct 18, 5:10 pm, Les  wrote:   
   >>>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 14:04:46 -0700 (PDT), Bill    
   >>>> wrote:   
   >>>>> On Oct 18, 3:02 pm, Jimbo  wrote:   
   >>>>>> On Oct 18, 12:11 pm, Bill  wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On Oct 18, 7:43 am, Jimbo  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On Oct 17, 11:19 pm, Bill  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On Oct 17, 8:33 pm, Jimbo  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On Oct 17, 11:38 am, Bill  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 17, 9:54 am, Jimbo  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, mythology.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, hard fact.   
   >>>>>>>>>>> There are few hard facts in any history   
   >>>>>>>>>> Actually, there are quite a few.   
   >>>>>>>>>>> and the farther back we go the   
   >>>>>>>>>>> fewer facts we find. The only fact is that some people believe   
   their   
   >>>>>>>>>>> interpretations of history are factual.   
   >>>>>>>>>> And yet, you have presented zero counter points to what I have said.   
   >>>>>>>>>> We know for a fact that the church destroyed, and attempted to   
   destroy   
   >>>>>>>>>> (and some by their own admission) numerous documents (Gnostic,   
   Sempem   
   >>>>>>>>>> Sporellius, and other opposing points of view) regarding religion   
   and   
   >>>>>>>>>> other forms of knowledge.  We know that the Bible, and other   
   documents   
   >>>>>>>>>> was not allowed to be translated into English and taught.   These   
   are   
   >>>>>>>>>> points of known fact that you have simply waved your hand at, and in   
   >>>>>>>>>> the face of such bald denial, engaged in insult instead of rebuttal.   
   >>>>>>>>>> You are not nearly as intelligent as you would wish people to   
   believe.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> This particular variation lives only in the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> strawman rendition popular in this newsgroup.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> LOL!   You have no knowledge of what I am talking about, ergo you   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> dismiess it.   Typical of one trying to protect thier point of   
   view,   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> rather than engage in honest discussion.   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Odd that you think I'm protecting some point of view   
   >>>>>>>>>> Not at all odd, since you present all of the earmarks of someone   
   >>>>>>>>>> protecting a point of view, rather than honest discussion.   
   >>>>>>>>> I notice that you and many others here always cite the abuses of the   
   >>>>>>>>> Roman Catholic Church and ignore other major branches of   
   Christianity.   
   >>>>>>>> Mostly because, in Western Civilization, and during the time period   
   >>>>>>>> being discussed, the Roman Catholic church abuses were the most   
   >>>>>>>> profound.  There were others, of course.   It is good to see that you,   
   >>>>>>>> at the least, acknowledge abuses by the church.   We can discuss the   
   >>>>>>>> Byzantine Empire, and their quest to regain the entire Roman Empire,   
   >>>>>>>> and the disaster they eventually wrought if you wish.   
   >>>>>>>>> I don't dispute that much of western European history seems dominated   
   >>>>>>>>> by dimwits but that's hardly fair. Throughout history people do what   
   >>>>>>>>> seems best to them, what serves their purposes and what fits with   
   what   
   >>>>>>>>> they think is true. It's just shallow arrogance to condemn earlier   
   >>>>>>>>> generations for being ignorant of what we find obvious.   
   >>>>>>>> I neither blame them, nor put them on a pedestal.   However, in the   
   >>>>>>>> light of day, the claims often made by the current church, and many of   
   >>>>>>>> its adherrants, to advance this new revisionism that the church, and   
   >>>>>>>> christianity in general, have been the "shining light" of Western   
   >>>>>>>> Civilization has been and is such a blantant attempt to recast history   
   >>>>>>>> in favor of the church, and religion in general, that it has to be   
   >>>>>>>> challenged.   
   >>>>>>> Your view is just as revisionist. You seem to believe that there was   
   >>>>>>> some alternative knowledge available to earlier generations that they   
   >>>>>>> deliberately ignored. There was no science anywhere until it developed   
   >>>>>>> in western Europe in the 17th century.   
   >>>>>> More revisionism.  Rome had developed to a point where medicine was   
   >>>>>> being practiced, and the first steam engine had been created.   During   
   >>>>>> the 1345 plague, the church deliberately quashed methods that had   
   >>>>>> halted a similar outbreak in 220 BCE because they were pagan methods.   
   >>>>>> The Turks and other areas of the Middle East had no problems using   
   >>>>>> methods and suffered far less because of it.  Heron from Alexandria   
   >>>>>> (Heron Alexandrinus) was a Mathematician, Physicist and Engineer who   
   >>>>>> lived in 10-70 AD    Also known as Michanikos, the Machine Man, he   
   >>>>>> invented numerous machines, including the Aeolipile (Wind or Steam   
   >>>>>> ball).  The Aeolipile was the world's first steam engine.  Heron also   
   >>>>>> wrote numerous books.  The church sat on this information for almost   
   >>>>>> 900 years, and may have been sitting on it still except for some monk   
   >>>>>> translated it to Arabic and started sneaking copies out.   
   >>>>>> This is not revisionism, and is only a couple of examples.  This is   
   >>>>>> known historical fact.   
   >>>>>>> suppressing science why did it only arise in areas nominally Christian?   
   >>>>>> It didn't.  After the bloody christianization of Europe, Christians   
   >>>>>> only recognized scientific advance from Christians.   Binoculars were   
   >>>>>> invented in Persia 200 years before they appeared in Europe (About 300   
   >>>>>> years after the final crusade), however history books in Christian   
   >>>>>> countries still attribute them to a French inventor.   
   >>>>>> The other reason is that people in Western Civilization finally   
   >>>>>> started tossing off the absolute edicts of the church as the one and   
   >>>>>> only source for science and were freed to pursue their own research.   
   >>>>> If these minor historical facts were thought significant why wasn't   
   >>>>> there an Industrial Revolution? Pagans (non-Christians) were no more   
   >>>>> successful developing science and technology and the little that was   
   >>>>> invented (steam enigines, etc.) were never more than curiosities. For   
   >>>>> your argument to work there has to be examples of civilizations that   
   >>>>> advanced at a greater rate than any of those dominated by   
   >>>>> Christianity. There are none.   
   >>>> Change like an industrial  revolution only occurs as a necessity.   
   >>>> it does not occur spontaneously out of the blue. It occurred in   
   >>>> the west because of rapidly rising populations and because we   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)