everyone (else) seems to be hating on atheists

[Creed of Heresy]

I don't deny there was probably people who were atheists they just never suffered on the level that Christians were. I am not even sure how much Łyszczyński counts as that "precedence" which kept atheists in fear since he wasn't killed til the 17th century (toward the end of the Renaissance period), so for the bulk of Christian history, no atheist had ever been killed for being atheist. But yes, your own analysis of the situation seems to be pretty sensible, especially with respect to why atheism really wasn't much of an issue in the day--being unmentioned in the Roman Catechism and only mentioned very offhand in the Douay Catechism of 1649 for example.

No atheist had been killed that we know of. Remember, this case was a bit special because it was a nobleman, and this WAS towards the end of the Renaissance which was also the end of the church's virtually-final say in the political affairs of Europe. This DOES prove that there was basically a death-by-torture-and-decapitation policy in place by the church for the crime of atheism. And one has to consider that if this law existed, it was probably exercised quite often, considering that the man who ratted out our Polish nobleman seemed to see using this against him to get out of paying his debts was quite valid. If it was really all that vague and unheard of, I doubt he would have bothered. Hell knows there are a ton of laws we technically break every day and we never know of it. Shit, did you know that it's illegal to open an umbrella in the street because it "could spook horses?" This is actually a federal law! When was the last time someone was prosecuted for THAT, I wonder? Bet you none of the modern police force even have heard about it. And I sure as hell wouldn't think to rat on a hated enemy for opening an umbrella in the street to get back at him in some way; who would? Now, if he was blackmailing someone? Having sex with minors? A rapist? And I found out? Bet your ass I'd report him instantly...shit, I wouldn't even need an ulterior motive.

That being said (because I always have to nitpick it is in my nature ), um, most Islamic terrorists are actually relatively well educated: engineers being one of the most overrepresented professions: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/bruce-h...rists-4080 . They are basically young male intellectuals angry at the West. Though that might be another issue for another thread.

Most Islamic terrorists who are not the rank-and-file, you mean. The suicide bombers, the guys with AK-47s, often uneducated. Now if you mean the guys who craft the bombs, design them, plant them without blowing themselves up? Yes, those are the educated ones, and rarely actually join for the religious reasons but actually, as you said, for a vendetta. But by and large, the "dumb grunts" of the organizations ARE the "dumb grunts." Which is why they're expendable, too. Do you send the guy capable of building the bomb, of whom there are precious tens or scores, to blow himself up? Or do you send the starry-eyed zealout, ignorant of everything but his master's word, of whom there are hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands?

Also the Renaissance is different from the Enlightenment, the Renaissance was a cultural blossoming from 14th-17th centuries starting in Florence, Italy with devout Catholics Dante and Petrarch; and the Enlightenment was an 18th century philosophical movement which started with Locke and Voltaire and all those other famous 18th century philosophers. (followed by the Romantic movement in backlash to that)

It can get a bit "technical" there but many people tend to equate the Renaissance as the precursor to the Enlightenment and therefore tend to consider it part of the "Enlightenment era" even if not part of the Enlightenment itself. I'm one of those people, since I connect the events within the Renaissance as being many of the direct precursors to the Enlightenment itself.

Take in mind that I am not arguing the idea of atheistic persecution because I WANT to believe that atheists have been persecuted. It would not affect me regardless. I was not alive in those days, so I have no personal feelings about it. I DO, however, think that all crimes against humanity should never be forgotten and that those who perpetrated them should never escape justice in some way. If those guilty are dead and gone, then their memory should be spat upon, like individuals such as Hitler and Stalin, and devoid of any reverence or respect. Do I feel any animosity from the catholic church today directly? Well, the Pope hasn't deemed it necessary to come to my house and spit in my face, so...I'm going to have to say "no" to that. But the followers themselves...yes, I get a decent bit of bile and spite sent my way every so often and for the most part my issue is with them, but invariably when people start using their texts or preachers' words to justify it, then my complaint has to climb the chain. And responsibility carries that pretty high, sometimes; usually all the way to the top.

[Epimethean]

Without the Medici, the Renaissance might never have gained traction, and we know the Medici made some absolutely spectacular popes ...

[downbeatplumb]

People were persecuted for not towing the church line all the time. They might not all be atheists but only because the phrase had not fully solidified until people started to think about alternatives to creation it was the only game in town.

so you can count galileo and spinoza to the persecuted.

[Shell B]

You can count numerous people. The church persecutes those who do not agree with their precise mode of thinking. Bottom line. If we're asking who does the bulk of persecuting, which Aiza seems to want to do, diminishing the persecution of others in favor of putting her faith on a pedestal as if numbers counted, the church has done most of it. That might be because there are just more religious people than atheists in history, but that's kind of irrelevant.

Hey guys, only two blue fish have ever been persecuted by green fish! That means green fish are better than blue fish.

Gosh, this Aiza nonsense is tiring. Sorry, there, but you have one hell of a hard on for Catholicism and you will construct walls to protect that hard on that rival the Great Wall of China. There is no way a single fact that goes against your church could penetrate that nonsense. You're either a Poe or a perfect addition to your faith. If it is the latter, I have no fucking clue what you are even doing here. Fraternizing with heathens. For shame!

[Creed of Heresy]

No penetration? That is a very catholic thing, I have noticed. But only with women. Little boys are A-OK. *rimshot*

[Aiza]

Galileo was a devout Catholic.

This DOES prove that there was basically a death-by-torture-and-decapitation policy in place by the church for the crime of atheism. And one has to consider that if this law existed, it was probably exercised quite often, considering that the man who ratted out our Polish nobleman seemed to see using this against him to get out of paying his debts was quite valid.

No it doesn't. There have been laws against heresy and going apostate, and that's really all you need, and law codes like the one we have in modern day haven't always been the case. Its not like there are no records from this time: the Church keeps very good records, as it needs to.

Most Islamic terrorists who are not the rank-and-file, you mean. The suicide bombers, the guys with AK-47s, often uneducated.

Suicide bombers are often educated as well:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/20..._educatio/

Whereas uneducated bombers are less likely to go through with things (and more likely to get caught when they do), educated bombers are much more likely to have conviction to go through with it and know how to make their suicide attack as deadly as possible.

2/3 of the 9-11 bombers attended college: Mohammad Atta (the lead pilot) went to a German University and got a degree in urban planning before he crashed his plane into the Twin Towers.

Well-educated people (especially engineers) are overrepresented to say the least, in suicidal attacks and otherwise. But maybe you are right that you probably don't want to send a bomb crafter in to detonate his own bomb.

It can get a bit "technical" there but many people tend to equate the Renaissance as the precursor to the Enlightenment and therefore tend to consider it part of the "Enlightenment era" even if not part of the Enlightenment itself. I'm one of those people, since I connect the events within the Renaissance as being many of the direct precursors to the Enlightenment itself.

They are very different in their natures though, and by that logic the Enlightenment era would run from the 14th century. Its a direct precurser in the way that one follows the other and that every philosophical movement is a reaction to the one which came before it (or the events which came before it), but that doesn't make them the same.

I am sorry that people have sent bile your way.

[Epimethean]

"Galileo was a devout Catholic."

Too bad he was foolish there, but really, he had little chance of escape from the infernal machine of the church. Little good his faith in her did him.

I do like how the RCC has twisted and turned as the light of reason has been brought to bear on its worm-riddled inner workings.


In 1992, it was reported in the news that the Catholic Church had turned around towards vindicating Galileo[51]:
Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture....
—Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - November 4, 1992
In 2000, Pope John Paul II issued a formal apology for all the mistakes committed by some Catholics in the last 2,000 years of the Catholic Church's history, including the trial of Galileo among others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_aff...urch_views

[Shell B]

I'm baffled by the dodging here. It's seriously so fucking deluded. Say I am persecuting green people, but I can't tell the difference between green people and blue people, so I persecute blue people as well as green. I'm still fucking persecuting green people, even if they hide from me and I wind up only persecuting blue people in my ignorant, hate-filled spree. You're not protecting Christians by saying they don't persecute atheists by pointing out cases of mistaken identity, Aiza. I know that facing reality is hard and looking at the bad in something you love is even harder, but I really want to know how you convince yourself that your arguments are good? Is it really so important that you protect your new found faith that you are willing to twist facts and use semantics to ensure that your spiritual position is secure? If so, that is fine, but it literally gives me the chills that you cannot even admit to a bit of twisting and dodging. Your position, in all seriousness, creeps me out. It makes me long for a day when people do not deny facts to support preconceived conclusions. If someone told me the sky was falling and the evidence was there to prove it, I might be scared and I might not like this reality, but I would rather die than contort reality to comfort myself.

[Norfolk And Chance]

SMURF HATER

[Reforged]

SMURF HATER

No such thing, anyone who claims to be is a hypocrite because there isn't a man or woman alive who wouldn't smurf the smurfing smurf out of Smurfette.
Same goes for the Flinstones, there isn't a single person here who wouldn't rock Wilmas world.

... I may of shared too much.