Posts: 17499
Threads: 464
Joined: March 29, 2015
Reputation:
30
An Old Science book from 1650
June 9, 2016 at 6:13 am
teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries. It was even possible for the most venerated patriarchs of the Church, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, to conclude that heretics should be tortured (Augustine) or killed outright (Aquinas). Martin Luther and John Calvin advocated the wholesale murder of heretics, apostates, Jews, and witches. - Sam Harris, "Letter To A Christian Nation"
Posts: 5690
Threads: 8
Joined: April 3, 2014
Reputation:
68
RE: An Old Science book from 1650
June 9, 2016 at 6:43 am
That's cool man.
Posts: 20476
Threads: 447
Joined: June 16, 2014
Reputation:
110
RE: An Old Science book from 1650
June 9, 2016 at 7:28 am
I'd hate to be a sceptic 500 years ago!
I'd be secretly laughing at everything! (while agreeing with the authorities of course!)
The Earth was fucking woo central 500 years ago!
No God, No fear.
Know God, Know fear.
Posts: 5492
Threads: 53
Joined: September 4, 2014
Reputation:
55
RE: An Old Science book from 1650
June 9, 2016 at 8:40 am
So people just went about their day- going to work, eating dinner with their family, doing lawn maintenance- all while believing a bird with a human head existed?
I can't remember where this verse is from, I think it got removed from canon:
"I don't hang around with mostly men because I'm gay. It's because men are better than women. Better trained, better equipped...better. Just better! I'm not gay."
For context, this is the previous verse:
"Hi Jesus" -robvalue
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
258
RE: An Old Science book from 1650
June 9, 2016 at 12:17 pm
Old news even by 1650
Posts: 862
Threads: 51
Joined: May 14, 2014
Reputation:
11
RE: An Old Science book from 1650
June 9, 2016 at 2:13 pm
But still, a Christian apologist will readily insist that a snake can talk yet dismiss a 17th century multi-headed eel as myth.
The flaws are so blatantly obvious, but only to us heathens.
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
258
RE: An Old Science book from 1650
June 9, 2016 at 2:19 pm
That's what happens when you take off the Holy Blinders.
Posts: 13122
Threads: 130
Joined: October 18, 2014
Reputation:
55
RE: An Old Science book from 1650
June 9, 2016 at 2:27 pm
(This post was last modified: June 9, 2016 at 2:33 pm by abaris.)
(June 9, 2016 at 8:40 am)Exian Wrote: So people just went about their day- going to work, eating dinner with their family, doing lawn maintenance- all while believing a bird with a human head existed?
Don't forget the omnipresence of death back then. 1650 was 2 years after the 30 years war ended and between the regular outbreaks of the black death. Apart from the fact that pushing 40 was considered old age back then. People, in the largest part of the world, toiled the fields for some feudal lord.
So, no, they didn't just go about their day in our sense of the word. They were much more focussed on the next life, since it was their only hope. And science was still in it's infancy. Galen was still the ultimate authority when it came to medicine. Humoral pathology was state of the art, even if you could afford a doctor, who, most likely, would only perform some bloodletting as the ultimate therapy.
I happen to own two calendaries from 1647 and 1649. The one from 1649 holds handwritten notes by some monk where he talks about visiting the community and looking after the sick. A very different mindset, indeed. Our mindset would be more fitting for the much further removed classical age than it would fit into the world, only some 360 years in the past.
Posts: 6859
Threads: 50
Joined: September 14, 2014
Reputation:
43
RE: An Old Science book from 1650
June 9, 2016 at 3:03 pm
Wow, I like those illustrations. I kind of want some of those in my pet collection! so cute
I wonder if in the future scientists can create these, I'd definitely buy them.
Quote:To know yet to think that one does not know is best; Not to know yet to think that one knows will lead to difficulty.
- Lau Tzu
Join me on atheistforums Slack (pester tibs via pm if you need invite)
Posts: 5492
Threads: 53
Joined: September 4, 2014
Reputation:
55
RE: An Old Science book from 1650
June 9, 2016 at 4:42 pm
(June 9, 2016 at 2:27 pm)abaris Wrote: (June 9, 2016 at 8:40 am)Exian Wrote: So people just went about their day- going to work, eating dinner with their family, doing lawn maintenance- all while believing a bird with a human head existed?
Don't forget the omnipresence of death back then. 1650 was 2 years after the 30 years war ended and between the regular outbreaks of the black death. Apart from the fact that pushing 40 was considered old age back then. People, in the largest part of the world, toiled the fields for some feudal lord.
So, no, they didn't just go about their day in our sense of the word. They were much more focussed on the next life, since it was their only hope. And science was still in it's infancy. Galen was still the ultimate authority when it came to medicine. Humoral pathology was state of the art, even if you could afford a doctor, who, most likely, would only perform some bloodletting as the ultimate therapy.
I happen to own two calendaries from 1647 and 1649. The one from 1649 holds handwritten notes by some monk where he talks about visiting the community and looking after the sick. A very different mindset, indeed. Our mindset would be more fitting for the much further removed classical age than it would fit into the world, only some 360 years in the past.
You know what though, I sometimes like to look at history with the idea that humans haven't changed that much. Sure, the culture has as you've said, but on a basic personal level, I bet they weren't all that different. That is to say, they varied widely just as we do. For every religious text or science book from those times that would have you believe the words contained in them were the center of the world, there were probably people who just didn't give a shit. A moderate for every extreme, at least somewhere. This is all besides the point, though.
I can't remember where this verse is from, I think it got removed from canon:
"I don't hang around with mostly men because I'm gay. It's because men are better than women. Better trained, better equipped...better. Just better! I'm not gay."
For context, this is the previous verse:
"Hi Jesus" -robvalue
|