Freethought & Rationalism Archive

livius drusus · 06-05-2003, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Goliath
livius drusus,

Yes, my sources are textbooks. However, they appear to be at least as legitimate as Bede's article. Regardless, I'm not interested in discussing history, merely because I have better things to do than to get into a "You're wrong because this guy who wrote this stuff in this book says so! So there! Nah-nah-nah-boo-boo!" kind of pissing match.

You raised the issue of the library, Goliath. Asking you to provide evidence for your assertion is not the childish appeal to secondary source authority that you seem to think all history is. In any case, you'd rather not discuss it any further and I am more than glad to accomodate you.

Biff the unclean · 06-05-2003, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by livius drusus
That is a gratuitous ad hominem snipe and like all its ilk, detracts from the discussion. Address Bede's arguments or do not. It's as simple as that.

Gratuitous? Hardly, it was scarcasm in response to pompus snide remarks made towards Secularfuture. Secular apparently did not come up to high Oxford standards because he cut to the heart of the matter instead of farting around.

06-05-2003, 03:45 PM

Hi Liv,

Thanks for your comments. I certainly agree that no one should be expected to read through a 9 page thread before contributing. However, SecularFuture said exactly the same thing as just now (with the same smilie) at the top of page 4. You were not to know he did this but surely that is simply trolling?

B

Llyricist · 06-05-2003, 08:01 PM

Quote:

SecularFuture said exactly the same thing as just now (with the same smilie) at the top of page 4. You were not to know he did this but surely that is simply trolling?

For one thing, Secular Future did NOT say exactly the same thing, he added more explanatory comments to his proposition the second time. Which by the way, actually addresses your OP in the way you meant it, and was NEVER responded to the first time. Can you blame him for bringing it up again? It shows bad on you that instead of refuting his proposition, you merely complain that he "won't go away"

SecularFuture · 06-05-2003, 11:32 PM

Bede

Quote:

�PS: Mods, is there any way a thread can be classed as a bit more serious? SecularFuture's effort can only be classed as trolling after all that has gone before.�

Trolling? Are you saying that my point is not valid? I revised my comments and posted them again. Is there something wrong with that?

And I like playing the violin.

SecularFuture · 06-05-2003, 11:35 PM

livius drusus

Quote:

� Even if there were, I'm afraid there would always be people posting in reply to the OP without considering the multiple pages of discussion since then.�

I�m sorry, but there�s just too much to read in this thread. I saw the question, and I just wanted to offer my two cents on the subject. And I posted twice because I found a better way to make my point.

livius drusus · 06-06-2003, 01:42 PM

I have split the discussion of the role Christian universities played in the rise of science to a new thread. Please continue the general discussion, only without the snideness that seems to have snuck in here, there and everywhere.

Thank you,
livius drusus
Moderator - GRD

luvluv · 06-06-2003, 08:43 PM

Golliath:

What I don't get is how you can look down your nose at the historian's method, and then claim one historical fact (supposedly gleaned by those same methods) to be unassailably true.

If the historians enterprise is so shot through with uncertainty, why are you so sure that the Great Library was burned by Christians? Wouldn't it be more consistent to simply say you don't know who burned the Library down? Denigrating the use of authority on one hand, and then saying (on the basis of the authority of your textbooks) that it was Christians who burned down the Great Library until someone can prove (mathematically) otherwise, seems to be a less consistent position than simple skepticism.

Goliath · 06-06-2003, 08:53 PM

luvllluv,

Quote:

What I don't get is how you can look down your nose at the historian's method, and then claim one historical fact (supposedly gleaned by those same methods) to be unassailably true.

And when have I said that the sacking of the Great Library by xians was "unassailably true"? It is merely the conclusion that I have reached, given the evidence that I've seen. Do you enjoy putting words in my mouth, xian?

Sincerely,

Goliath

luvluv · 06-07-2003, 02:22 PM

But if the historian's methodology is so fraught with difficulties, how can you reach any conclusions with any degree of confidence, atheist?

More to the point, why enter into the fray of a historical dispute at all, atheist?

How could you construct a historical argument supporting the notion that Christianity is inhibitive of science AND IN THE SAME THREAD denigrate historical argument, atheist?

And if your conclusions are only based on what you've read, and you admit you haven't read much scholarly opinion on the subject, why should anyone put any stock into your opinion at all over that of folks like Hobling and Bede who seem to have put a little bit more effort into their arguments, atheist?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-05-2003, 03:45 PM	#193
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Hi Liv, Thanks for your comments. I certainly agree that no one should be expected to read through a 9 page thread before contributing. However, SecularFuture said exactly the same thing as just now (with the same smilie) at the top of page 4. You were not to know he did this but surely that is simply trolling? B

06-06-2003, 01:42 PM	#197
livius drusus Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Selva Oscura Posts: 4,120	I have split the discussion of the role Christian universities played in the rise of science to a new thread. Please continue the general discussion, only without the snideness that seems to have snuck in here, there and everywhere. Thank you, livius drusus Moderator - GRD

06-06-2003, 08:43 PM	#198
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Golliath: What I don't get is how you can look down your nose at the historian's method, and then claim one historical fact (supposedly gleaned by those same methods) to be unassailably true. If the historians enterprise is so shot through with uncertainty, why are you so sure that the Great Library was burned by Christians? Wouldn't it be more consistent to simply say you don't know who burned the Library down? Denigrating the use of authority on one hand, and then saying (on the basis of the authority of your textbooks) that it was Christians who burned down the Great Library until someone can prove (mathematically) otherwise, seems to be a less consistent position than simple skepticism.

06-07-2003, 02:22 PM	#200
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	But if the historian's methodology is so fraught with difficulties, how can you reach any conclusions with any degree of confidence, atheist? More to the point, why enter into the fray of a historical dispute at all, atheist? How could you construct a historical argument supporting the notion that Christianity is inhibitive of science AND IN THE SAME THREAD denigrate historical argument, atheist? And if your conclusions are only based on what you've read, and you admit you haven't read much scholarly opinion on the subject, why should anyone put any stock into your opinion at all over that of folks like Hobling and Bede who seem to have put a little bit more effort into their arguments, atheist?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.