Here a good one from the catholics: http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/his...hurch.html

Read the dodge in "Conclusion". (basically that the church never killed anyone)

(February 18, 2020 at 9:30 am)SUNGULA Wrote: History for atheists is run by a historically illiterate hack

Gosh. Really? So "historically illiterate", how exactly?

(February 18, 2020 at 1:59 pm)TimOneill Wrote:

(February 18, 2020 at 9:30 am)SUNGULA Wrote: History for atheists is run by a historically illiterate hack

Gosh. Really? So "historically illiterate", how exactly?

Ah Mr O'neil i'm touched my comment struck enough of a nerve to send you running here to defend your honor  .Or do you just creep this site looking for things to get upset about ? None the less i stand by this statement as it is documented fact you are both dishonest and ignorant .If that fact triggers you i can't help you .

(February 18, 2020 at 9:25 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: So, you're excusing the Church for burning Bruno.  Got it.

I have said twice now that they should not have burned him.

---

(February 18, 2020 at 11:01 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Good point Bel, he was not executed for science, he was executed for thinking and speaking (rather unscientific for the most part) ideas the church disapproved of. He was more a martyr for free speech.

I addressed this already.

He was executed for going to Italy and calling for the overthrow of the church, to replace it with strange superstitious ideas based on fake Egyptian tablets. 

Lots of people were writing freely about Hermes Trismegistus and similar ideas who were not burned at the stake.

---

(February 18, 2020 at 9:30 am)SUNGULA Wrote: History for atheists is run by a historically illiterate hack

You write personal insults that are assertions unsupported by facts. 

Tim O'Neill doesn't. 

You are the hack, not him.

If you are at all serious in your claim here (which I don't believe you are) please cite evidence.

Quote:You write personal insults that are assertions unsupported by facts. 

Nope facts 

Quote:Tim O'Neill doesn't. 

Tim writes rubbish 

Quote:You are the hack, not him.

False it's still him i'm afraid 

Quote:If you are at all serious in your claim here (which I don't believe you are) please cite evidence.

To whom am i trying to prove this too? One of his fanboys ? Tim himself ? 

Now kindly go apply the cream to your butthurt or Tim's for that matter 

(February 18, 2020 at 5:43 pm)SUNGULA Wrote:

Quote:You write personal insults that are assertions unsupported by facts. 

Nope facts 

Quote:Tim O'Neill doesn't. 

Tim writes rubbish 

Quote:You are the hack, not him.

False it's still him i'm afraid 

Quote:If you are at all serious in your claim here (which I don't believe you are) please cite evidence.

To whom am i trying to prove this too? One of his fanboys ? Tim himself ? 

Now kindly go apply the cream to your butthurt or Tim's for that matter 

What's asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. So everything you've written here means nothing.

Provide citations for you claims or go away, please.

Quote:What's asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. 

By all means dismiss my facts .But unfortunately that doesn't change reality  

Quote:So everything you've written here means nothing.

Too you i imagine it wouldn't . But unfortunately that doesn't change reality  

Quote:Provide citations for you claims or go away, please.

To whom am i doing this for ? You ? Tim? Who am i trying to convince ?


And your request is denied .Now about that cream 

(February 18, 2020 at 5:32 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(February 18, 2020 at 9:25 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: So, you're excusing the Church for burning Bruno.  Got it.

I have said twice now that they should not have burned him.

---

And you also said 'other times, other customs', which is nothing more or less than an attempted exoneration of reprehensible behavior.  The Church could have imprisoned Bruno.  They could have forbidden the publication of any of his writings on pain of excommunication (which still carried some weight). They could have banned him from Italy.  They could have banished him from Europe altogether.  But they chose to set him on fire.  And your excuse for them doing so was that Bruno was a very naughty boy.

Boru

(February 18, 2020 at 5:21 pm)SUNGULA Wrote:

(February 18, 2020 at 1:59 pm)TimOneill Wrote: Gosh. Really? So "historically illiterate", how exactly?

Ah Mr O'neil i'm touched my comment struck enough of a nerve to send you running here to defend your honor  .Or do you just creep this site looking for things to get upset about ? None the less i stand by this statement as it is documented fact you are both dishonest and ignorant .If that fact triggers you i can't help you .

What weird behaviour. No, your comment didn't send me "running here". I saw some traffic to my site from this forum and saw that it corresponded to a similar level of traffic to my Giordano Bruno article, so I followed the link to see what was being discussed. Then I saw your bizarre and unsubstantiated slur. But since you've now come back no less than three times to double down on your slur, perhaps you could actually display some vaguely rational behaviour and ... finally substantiate it. Or at least try to.

You now claim that "it is documented fact you are both dishonest and ignorant". Really? Okay - where exactly is this remarkable "fact" somehow "documented" and by whom? Let's see if we can get something more than bratty sneering and substance-free bluster from you. Put up or shut up.

Quote:What weird behaviour. 

No really 

Quote:No, your comment didn't send me "running here".

Good to know id hate to think your that sensitive 

Quote: I saw some traffic to my site from this forum and saw that it corresponded to a similar level of traffic to my Giordano Bruno article, so I followed the link to see what was being discussed. 

Okay 

Quote:Then I saw your bizarre and unsubstantiated slur. 

Too bad it's not 

Quote:But since you've now come back no less than three times to double down on your slur,

Double down really ? I think the opposite has occurred, And i think you are confusing slur with fact . I imagine that's a common mistake for  you Tim

Quote: perhaps you could actually display some vaguely rational behaviour and ... finally substantiate it. Or at least try to.

Too whom ? You Tim ? Your sycophants?

Quote:You now claim that "it is documented fact you are both dishonest and ignorant". 

It is 

Quote:Really? Okay - where exactly is this remarkable "fact" somehow "documented" and by whom?

Again Tim to whom? to whom ?

 

Quote:Let's see if we can get something more than bratty sneering and substance-free bluster from you. 

See Tim there is that confusion again 

Quote:Put up or shut up

To whom Tim? to whom?