Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
When did Gemma O Doherty go batshyt crazy?
Options
Comments
-
Auntie Semite wrote: »People speculate about and predict the future direction of government policy all the time. It is entirely normal to do so.
..based, as aloneforever99 pointed, on facts.0 -
Seriously, do people still believe anything that comes out of that crackpot Alex Jones' mouth?
The Frogs are Gay? Sandy Hook was a false flag? Soros is the Devil Incarnate?
Gimme a ****ing break....0 -
Will you ever shut the fock up about stuff you don't now about. The vast majority of abortions will be performed at less than 12 weeks using 2 sets of tablets given to the mother and the mother will go home to perform the task.
This rubbish about the state selling body parts is absolute excrement.
There is absolutely no need for abusive language, this is a discussion forum is it not?
I prefer to keep things civil.
What I said about the state selling body parts was that it was my belief, not a fact. I clearly stated that I had no proof. It is something I have suspicions about. Time will tell whether it actually happens or not. If not then I will accept that I was wrong. There is nothing wrong with worrying (and articulating those worries) about the direction society is going.
I have no problem if people reject what I'm saying, or laugh at it or whatever. I completely understand that people might have this view but as I said there is no need for abuse.0 -
aloneforever99 wrote: »You realise those links discuss the ethics of using foetal material with consent for medical research? Not governments stealing and selling foetuses to the highest bidder.
The links prove that foetal tissue is indeed used for medical research. My impression was that you believed it wasn't and was a conspiracy theory.
Who said anything about stealing? I'm not suggesting that anything illegal will occur. If what I believe might happen does occur I have no doubt it will be legal and above board. Its something I believe is coming down the line (but will be hushed up)0 -
Auntie Semite wrote: »What I said about the state selling body parts was that it was my belief, not a fact. I clearly stated that I had no proof. It is something I have suspicions about. Time will tell whether it actually happens or not. If not then I will accept that I was wrong. There is nothing wrong with worrying (and articulating those worries) about the direction society is going.
I have no problem if people reject what I'm saying, or laugh at it or whatever. I completely understand that people might have this view but as I said there is no need for abuse.
A belief based on nothing is a conspiracy theory.0 -
Advertisement
-
Jones was not far off the mark about Frogs. Herbicides have been proven to disrupt frog development to the extent that they develop female organs and mate with same sex Frogs.Ulysses Gaze wrote: »Seriously, do people still believe anything that comes out of that crackpot Alex Jones' mouth?
The Frogs are Gay? Sandy Hook was a false flag? Soros is the Devil Incarnate?
Gimme a ****ing break....
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/environment/frog-pesticides-female-fertility-chemicals-linuron-endangered-species-extinction-a8399401.html%3famp
https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2018-06-endocrine-disrupting-pesticides-impair-frog-reproduction.amp
'A March 1 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study on the developmental changes wrought in male frogs by groundwater atrazine concentrations regularly found in the United States, where approximately 80 million pounds of the herbicide are used every year. The frogs had low levels of sperm and testosterone; some even produced estrogen, developed female reproductive organs and were ultimately impregnated by their former gender mates'
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/common-herbicide-turns-male-frogs-into-females/
George Soros.. Well that's a matter of perception.
As for Sandy Hook I'm not an expert but I believe the basis of his claims (I don't believe his claims) was that the parents of the victims were 'crisis actors' who appeared at other school shootings. I think he is being brought to court over it and is in big trouble and ultimately will be financially ruined over it.0 -
Dear lord, you are so full of nonsense.......0
-
aloneforever99 wrote: »A belief based on nothing is a conspiracy theory.
You can call my belief about what will happen in this country a conspiracy theory if you like.. That's fine.
Nothing has happened yet so it is just speculation on my part
But the claim that foetal tissue is used for medical research is a fact. All you have to do is look it up to confirm it0 -
Dear lord, you are so full of nonsense.......
Which part is nonsense? Are you referring to Alex Jones? I am neither a fan nor an advocate of Jones but His assertion about frogs is mostly correct. The poster who rubbished his claims about frogs is in fact wrong.
Do the Scientific American publish junk science? They're not known for doing so. I take it you have not read the links. They are all credible papers and reputable publications.
George Soros I have not expressed an opinion on either way. I merely stated that it was a matter of perception whether someone believed he was the devil incarnate or not. He used to be known as the man who broke the bank of England and was widely considered at the time to be an extremely immoral character (although this incident is not the basis for Jones feelings on him)
I have said I do not believe the Jones narrative on Sandy Hook so what is the problem there?
You see (without trying to be insulting) I actually know about Alex Jones and am familiar with his history and his discourse. Therefore I can confidently speak about him without making incorrect statements IE the frogs.0 -
Wanderer78 wrote: »All ideologies have their weaknesses and failures, including socialism, but I'm glad we re moving away from our more conservative roots, thankfully it seems many younger generations want the same, there will of course be failures along the way
This I think will prove to be an understatement.0 -
Advertisement
-
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Yeah well self-praise is no praise.
The bible is full of supposed quotes from Jesus saying how great he is and that he is god, doesn't make it true.
But God is great. That is truth.0 -
Didn't Alex Jones list his occupation as "performance artist" in court?0
-
aloneforever99 wrote: »Yes, but people usually speculate rationally and using facts.
No, no, RacistNameBUTIT'SOKCOSIT'SONLYAJOKE is right! I, for one, would like to speculate about government policy in the event of an invasion by molemen from under the Earth! I read a tweet once about a blog post that reviewed a podcast called something like... er, Nightvale... where this very topic was discussed at length for several episodes, so obviously it's very concerning to a lot of people!
Obviously if I'm wrong and the molemen don't attack, I'll hold my hands up and apologise.0 -
Auntie Semite wrote: »this is a discussion forum is it not?
Says the person who has ignored the content of not one but four of my posts so far. Check your pedestal is actually there before you shout at people from it.
Abortion in Ireland has been pointed out to you as a pill taken before 12 weeks of pregnancy. If you think there are useful body parts to be sold at that point then you are in fantasy land really.
Where a still birth or other kind of death occurs much later in pregnancy - relatively very rare - if the mother feels she wishes to donate what is left to worth and useful causes then absolutely allow her to do that.
As for burials - why would we want to implement that? If the woman wants to more power to her. We should stay out of it.realitykeeper wrote: »But God is great. That is truth.
Maybe show it exists before you start making claims about how great it is. You have not even gotten that far yet. Keeping reality out of the conversation _again_.0 -
And neither do they. So why are you repeating an entirely baseless belief?
Fake news shock jockery why elseIt was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Terry Pratchet
0 -
realitykeeper wrote:This I think will prove to be an understatement.
No human has the ability to accurately predict the future, we have no clue of what the future holds, there could be of course detrimental events ahead of us, for the overall existence of humanity, environmentally, things don't look too good, but it's very important to have hope, and to believe humans can prevent these detrimental events.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Says the person who has ignored the content of not one but four of my posts so far. Check your pedestal is actually there before you shout at people from it.
Abortion in Ireland has been pointed out to you as a pill taken before 12 weeks of pregnancy. If you think there are useful body parts to be sold at that point then you are in fantasy land really.
Where a still birth or other kind of death occurs much later in pregnancy - relatively very rare - if the mother feels she wishes to donate what is left to worth and useful causes then absolutely allow her to do that.
As for burials - why would we want to implement that? If the woman wants to more power to her. We should stay out of it.
Maybe show it exists before you start making claims about how great it is. You have not even gotten that far yet. Keeping reality out of the conversation _again_.
I'm not seeing where I ignored your posts. I replied to multiple points you made yesterday but they are contained within the quote. My replies are under each of your points.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Says the person who has ignored the content of not one but four of my posts so far. Check your pedestal is actually there before you shout at people from it.
Abortion in Ireland has been pointed out to you as a pill taken before 12 weeks of pregnancy. If you think there are useful body parts to be sold at that point then you are in fantasy land really.
Where a still birth or other kind of death occurs much later in pregnancy - relatively very rare - if the mother feels she wishes to donate what is left to worth and useful causes then absolutely allow her to do that.
As for burials - why would we want to implement that? If the woman wants to more power to her. We should stay out of it.
I never said anything about (pre 12 week) body parts being used.
If a woman wishes to donate that's fine I have not said otherwise.
My point about the burials was about my suspicion about Kate O Connel indignation over burials. I believe her real motivation is that the state wishes to use the parts. I have stated from the beginning and on multiple occasions that I have no proof and that it is speculation on my part. Time will tell.
A number of posters claimed that body parts were not used for medical research at all, anywhere, and I provided links to prove that they indeed are (sometimes) used for this reason.
So it's not so far fetched to speculate about this.
RE Kate O Connell she has stated that abortion regret does not exist and is 'makey uppey'
this is absolutely false as proven by the many women who have expressed their regret at having abortions so you might forgive me for having my suspicions about Kate O Connell truthfulness.0 -
Auntie Semite wrote: »I'm not seeing where I ignored your posts.
Well it is not my fault you can not keep up. Here is a break down for you as to what you ignored and why you have no platform to be patronizing others by reminding them it is a discussion forum. When _you_ start discussing honestly _then_ you have a platform to tell others this.
POST #0804 - 100% Ignored. No reply at all.
POST #0869 - Hit reply on the whole post but replied to basically one point in it and ignored the rest.
POST #0941 - 100% Ignored. No reply at all.
POST #1005 - 100% Ignored. No reply at all.
POST #1012 - You hit reply on the entire post, twice for some reason, but replied to almost nothing in the post.
POST #1016 - You hit reply on the entire post again, but replied to pretty much no points within it.
POST #1095 - You hit reply on the entire post again, but replied to pretty much no points within it.Auntie Semite wrote: »I replied to multiple points you made yesterday but they are contained within the quote. My replies are under each of your points.
This is a very dishonest way to reply - hiding your text inside that of another. You know what the word "QUOTE" means right? It means a record of what another person said. Let me use a dictionary to help you "repeat or copy out (words from a text or speech written or spoken by another person)."
Putting your words inside the quote of my post hides your words for one. And for two it makes it look like _I_ said the things in the quote. For three it makes it near impossible to reply to you because first I have to seperate my words out from yours and when I hit the "reply" button your text is removed entirely.
So this is a massively dishonest move from you. Stop it.
I will return to the posts where you claim to have done this and reply to what you hid in my mouth - - -0 -
Ash.J.Williams wrote: »Didn't Alex Jones list his occupation as "performance artist" in court?
Yes, he was engaged in a custody battle with his ex wife, who claimed that his radio/TV show persona was the same as his private domestic persona. In other words he was as crazy at home as he is on TV.
He was forced to admit that his public persona was an act for entertainment purposes.
It did a lot of damage to his credibility in the eyes of his viewers. Obviously for many many people he had no credibility whatsoever in the first place.0 -
Advertisement
-
[Deleted User] wrote: »Well it is not my fault you can not keep up. Here is a break down for you as to what you ignored and why you have no platform to be patronizing others by reminding them it is a discussion forum. When _you_ start discussing honestly _then_ you have a platform to tell others this.
POST #0804 - 100% Ignored. No reply at all.
POST #0869 - Hit reply on the whole post but replied to basically one point in it and ignored the rest.
POST #0941 - 100% Ignored. No reply at all.
POST #1005 - 100% Ignored. No reply at all.
POST #1012 - You hit reply on the entire post, twice for some reason, but replied to almost nothing in the post.
POST #1016 - You hit reply on the entire post again, but replied to pretty much no points within it.
POST #1095 - You hit reply on the entire post again, but replied to pretty much no points within it.
This is a very dishonest way to reply - hiding your text inside that of another. You know what the word "QUOTE" means right? It means a record of what another person said. Let me use a dictionary to help you "repeat or copy out (words from a text or speech written or spoken by another person)."
Putting your words inside the quote of my post hides your words for one. And for two it makes it look like _I_ said the things in the quote. For three it makes it near impossible to reply to you because first I have to seperate my words out from yours and when I hit the "reply" button your text is removed entirely.
So this is a massively dishonest move from you. Stop it.
I will return to the posts where you claim to have done this and reply to what you hid in my mouth - - -
I assure you I'm not doing this on purpose.
It happened yesterday also. I'm new to this.
I will go back to the posts and attempt to reply individually0 -
I'm not seeing any numbers on posts either what am I doing wrong?0
-
Auntie Semite wrote: »Its not at all about making correlation-causation errors.
But it really is for the reasons I just explained but you ignored in both of your replies to my post. Which is that so far all you have done is list things _people_ have done who happened to be Christian or Muslim _while they were doing it_.
That is a correlation. A causal link would be to show that they did those things _because_ they were religious or because of their religion. This you have not done at all. Even once. Therefore it is - despite this feeble protest - a correlation and causation error you are making.Auntie Semite wrote: »I don't see any disagreement here. I merely stated a fact of history.
What you appear to have done is stated a _part_ of history that suited your narrative and ignored the rest. And the statement you made was the same correlation-causation error as before. In that you claimed "islam" itself "had a role in driving architectural innovation, Mathematics, Astronomy" when in fact the people who h ad a role in it just happened to be Muslim. You have not causal linked their religion to this in any way.
Worse though you ignored the opposite. It was Islam that positively had a role in them no longer doing this. Where you fail entirely to show Islam had anything to do with them doing it - I can actively quote you specifically religious texts that did the opposite. So the "fact of history" you stated is incomplete, misleading, and a misrepresentation of the reality there.Auntie Semite wrote: »The Islamic system (political and religious) of the time facilitated these innovations both philosophical and technological. It provided the means, funding and encouraged the motivation to do so. So it did have something to do with Islam. It had something to do with the type of Islam which was prevalent and practiced at the time. (at the time being the key term here) if a system encourages, facilitates, funds and promotes innovation and that innovation actually takes place then you can reasonably assert that the innovation had something to do with the system.
Quite a lot of assertion there without a single citation from any historical text showing it to be true. However even then at best you are showing a particular religion or church to have been a broker of funds. That much at least I would not disagree with you on. Religions have been in that business for a long time.
But again that does not show the religion _itself_ had anything to do with these things. Just that the people practicing those religions did or the structures around that religion. Nothing to do with Islam or Christianity in and of itself - their actual beliefs and practices - are being linked causally to your correlations here.Auntie Semite wrote: »This is not worth replying to.
Dodge dodge dodge. Run forest, run!!!! You can not reply to it or rebut it so you project the lack of value in your response onto what you can not reply to. Dodge and ignore your MO since joining the forum.
The simple fact is that it is worth replying to because it is core to my point. People doing something while they happened to be religious - does not mean religion had anything to do with it. Whether they were doing science or plucking chickens. Or whether the lab or the slaughter house was funded by a religious structure or not.Auntie Semite wrote: »I am not making any leaps I would suggest that you are.
Note the difference between us then. When I said yuo were making leaps I said where and how. I was specific. You? You just float it out there vaguely with no links, citations, quotes, detail, substance or content. So you can "suggest" it all you like - but unlike me that would be all you are doing. I could "suggest" you have 17 heads with a purple pimple on each nose. Would not mean it is true or I have made any move to show it to be true - now would it?Auntie Semite wrote: »I have not elevated anything, merely suggested that the system of Christianity brought its own benifits and advancements. I have not denied that Christianity had been a negative force at times (many times) in society.
Ah more "suggestions" then is it? You keep asserting it - you have yet to show one of these supposes benefits. Even at the granular level - forget what I then said about zooming out and seeing the cost of any perceived benefit too. none of that you have engaged with or addressed. Just dodged.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »But it really is for the reasons I just explained but you ignored in both of your replies to my post. Which is that so far all you have done is list things _people_ have done who happened to be Christian or Muslim _while they were doing it_.
That is a correlation. A causal link would be to show that they did those things _because_ they were religious or because of their religion. This you have not done at all. Even once. Therefore it is - despite this feeble protest - a correlation and causation error you are making.
What you appear to have done is stated a _part_ of history that suited your narrative and ignored the rest. And the statement you made was the same correlation-causation error as before. In that you claimed "islam" itself "had a role in driving architectural innovation, Mathematics, Astronomy" when in fact the people who h ad a role in it just happened to be Muslim. You have not causal linked their religion to this in any way.
Worse though you ignored the opposite. It was Islam that positively had a role in them no longer doing this. Where you fail entirely to show Islam had anything to do with them doing it - I can actively quote you specifically religious texts that did the opposite. So the "fact of history" you stated is incomplete, misleading, and a misrepresentation of the reality there.
Quite a lot of assertion there without a single citation from any historical text showing it to be true. However even then at best you are showing a particular religion or church to have been a broker of funds. That much at least I would not disagree with you on. Religions have been in that business for a long time.
But again that does not show the religion _itself_ had anything to do with these things. Just that the people practicing those religions did or the structures around that religion. Nothing to do with Islam or Christianity in and of itself - their actual beliefs and practices - are being linked causally to your correlations here.
Dodge dodge dodge. Run forest, run!!!! You can not reply to it or rebut it so you project the lack of value in your response onto what you can not reply to. Dodge and ignore your MO since joining the forum.
The simple fact is that it is worth replying to because it is core to my point. People doing something while they happened to be religious - does not mean religion had anything to do with it. Whether they were doing science or plucking chickens. Or whether the lab or the slaughter house was funded by a religious structure or not.
Note the difference between us then. When I said yuo were making leaps I said where and how. I was specific. You? You just float it out there vaguely with no links, citations, quotes, detail, substance or content. So you can "suggest" it all you like - but unlike me that would be all you are doing. I could "suggest" you have 17 heads with a purple pimple on each nose. Would not mean it is true or I have made any move to show it to be true - now would it?
Ah more "suggestions" then is it? You keep asserting it - you have yet to show one of these supposes benefits. Even at the granular level - forget what I then said about zooming out and seeing the cost of any perceived benefit too. none of that you have engaged with or addressed. Just dodged.
I said that the religious system of the time facilitated these things.. Which it did.
Any system is not merely the system itself but the real life application of it. For example any architect building early cathedrals was not merely a person who happened to be religious but built them for the purpose of that religion. And to glorify God, so the religious system did have something to do with it.
I did not say once that a particular religion was alone was responsible for anything.
You have not cited a single text historical or otherwise yourself either.0 -
Auntie Semite wrote: »I said that the religious system of the time facilitated these things.. Which it did.
You are back pedaling to hide behind the least nonsense of your rhetoric but nonsense it remains. You said a _lot_ more than that. You said it was "a role in driving" those things which is a lot more than merely facilitating them. You said it was part of the process with active benefits because of that. You said specifically "Christianity brought" many of the things that were benefits. Not Christians, not facilitated by Church money. Christianity specifically brought them you claim. And that is only a snippet of your narratives.
So basically you attempt to paint as shining a picture as you can of religions role in all of this - and then when anyone turns a light on what you are saying you retreat behind the most innocuous bits to hide and pretend you were saying nothing much else all the while.Auntie Semite wrote: »For example any architect building early cathedrals was not merely a person who happened to be religious but built them for the purpose of that religion. And to glorify God, so the religious system did have something to do with it.
Again - money. They controlled the money. Little more. If you were an artist or architect at the time then it paid to do religious works. Had the religion not been there and the money elsewhere - the same artists and architects and authors would likely have done something else. Again this is what I have been saying all along about correlation. You are not backing up any claims religion specifically had anything to do with this stuff. Just like you ran away from my post replying to your claims about the family unit and never replied to that stuff from me either. You simply can not back _any_ of this nonsense up.
The only bit you are defending - is the bit that I certainly have not questioned. Which is that they had the money and so had the influence. You love throwing around the word "benefits" without actually showing any of them.
Further let us not act like throwing money at glorifying a being you and no one else can even begin to show even exists in the first place is a good thing or a benefit to society or any of that. People are starving - research is hampered - diseases need curing - education need spreading. And people want to waste money on their hobby and imaginary best friend and act like this is beneficial or useful?
So if your argument is now being watered down to Religions in the past have been known to pump money into bigging up themselves - then you will get no rebuttal from me!Auntie Semite wrote: »I did not say once that a particular religion was alone was responsible for anything.
Erm did I say you did? You are now not only not defending your positions but you are defending against things I did not say too also. Which is plain weird to be honest. Lets not turn this into a lie fest though shall we. You very must singled out particular religions and you very much did say what you imagined it to be responsible for. Here for example is a quote directly from you:
"Christianity brought education, learning, improvements in Hospitals/Hospice and medical care, infrastructure, organization, Architecture and central planning to Europe."
And what I keep pointing out is that _Christians_ having done those things is _not_ the same as Christianity having done them. To show Christianity was responsible for any of those things you would have to argue that those things would not have happened without Christianity or without those people being Christian or Muslim or whatever claim you are making at the time.
You are basically clinging to a vague correlation and refuting to let go lest you drown.Auntie Semite wrote: »You have not cited a single text historical or otherwise yourself either.
Again the difference is I have asked you to - you have not. Just like with your "suggestion" about me personally the difference was I offered substance while saying it and you did not.
I have been asking you to back up your positions and questioning your positions. I have not expressed many of my own while doing that. You can be sure that when I do express my own positions I do offer citations and back up for them. Either directly while doing it - or afterwards when asked to. So you do not get to pretend I have not offered what you have nowhere actually asked me to. I however have asked you to back up your claims frequently. You have either dodged doing this - or you have ignored entire posts entirely. So lets not get into a pissing competition on who is being honest in this exchange - coz it aint you.Auntie Semite wrote: »I will go back to the posts and attempt to reply individually
Whenever you are ready. They ain't going anywhere. Nor am I. I have time.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »But it really is for the reasons I just explained but you ignored in both of your replies to my post. Which is that so far all you have done is list things _people_ have done who happened to be Christian or Muslim _while they were doing it_.
That is a correlation. A causal link would be to show that they did those things _because_ they were religious or because of their religion. This you have not done at all. Even once. Therefore it is - despite this feeble protest - a correlation and causation error you are making.
What you appear to have done is stated a _part_ of history that suited your narrative and ignored the rest. And the statement you made was the same correlation-causation error as before. In that you claimed "islam" itself "had a role in driving architectural innovation, Mathematics, Astronomy" when in fact the people who h ad a role in it just happened to be Muslim. You have not causal linked their religion to this in any way.
Worse though you ignored the opposite. It was Islam that positively had a role in them no longer doing this. Where you fail entirely to show Islam had anything to do with them doing it - I can actively quote you specifically religious texts that did the opposite. So the "fact of history" you stated is incomplete, misleading, and a misrepresentation of the reality there.
Quite a lot of assertion there without a single citation from any historical text showing it to be true. However even then at best you are showing a particular religion or church to have been a broker of funds. That much at least I would not disagree with you on. Religions have been in that business for a long time.
But again that does not show the religion _itself_ had anything to do with these things. Just that the people practicing those religions did or the structures around that religion. Nothing to do with Islam or Christianity in and of itself - their actual beliefs and practices - are being linked causally to your correlations here.
Dodge dodge dodge. Run forest, run!!!! You can not reply to it or rebut it so you project the lack of value in your response onto what you can not reply to. Dodge and ignore your MO since joining the forum.
The simple fact is that it is worth replying to because it is core to my point. People doing something while they happened to be religious - does not mean religion had anything to do with it. Whether they were doing science or plucking chickens. Or whether the lab or the slaughter house was funded by a religious structure or not.
Note the difference between us then. When I said yuo were making leaps I said where and how. I was specific. You? You just float it out there vaguely with no links, citations, quotes, detail, substance or content. So you can "suggest" it all you like - but unlike me that would be all you are doing. I could "suggest" you have 17 heads with a purple pimple on each nose. Would not mean it is true or I have made any move to show it to be true - now would it?
Ah more "suggestions" then is it? You keep asserting it - you have yet to show one of these supposes benefits. Even at the granular level - forget what I then said about zooming out and seeing the cost of any perceived benefit too. none of that you have engaged with or addressed. Just dodged.
The development of Mathematics under a particular time of of Islamic hegemony did occur. And it was the application of the religious system at the time that encouraged and facilitated this innovation. More importantly it encouraged individuals to learn and developed institutions of learning to drive this. This is not to say that Islam alone could have done this or that others would not have. But that it did happen that way. I'm not religious nor am I trying to claim any special status for religion just acknowledging that many innovations occurred under particular religious systems at particular times.0 -
Shes only got "almost" 600 people signed up to this new anti corruption thing.
Less than 600! And youre guaranteed half of them are Gemmas mates and bots.
Less than 600!
0 -
I really do not get why you are replying to the same posts multiple times and quoting the entire post each time to do it.Auntie Semite wrote: »The development of Mathematics under a particular time of of Islamic hegemony did occur.
Yay more correlation. Great. But is that really all you got? You are repeating things I have not questioned. So get hip to the program here would ya? I will break it down bite size for you, howabout dat?
1) I am aware of the science progress made in the Islamic world at that time. No one has disputed that.
2) I am not aware that the religion itself specifically had _anything_ to do with it however.
3) I am aware of religious texts written by religious people which worked _against_ that progress however.Auntie Semite wrote: »And it was the application of the religious system at the time that encouraged and facilitated this innovation.
Specifics please? Which system? What application? And how did one support the other? And how are you distinguishing between "religious system" and the actual religion itself because remember int he pots I first replied to it was the latter - and you are now back-peddling to the former - you were crediting these things to.Auntie Semite wrote: »More importantly it encouraged individuals to learn and developed institutions of learning to drive this. This is not to say that Islam alone could have done this or that others would not have. But that it did happen that way.
Exactly my point and exactly why you can not back up your claims. There is no reason to think these things happened because of the religion just because they happened congruant to it. The fact the same things happen all over the world regardless of the religion shows these things likely happen anyway with or without religion.
The fact people doing it happened to be religious does not support your position. The fact that people wanting to do it had to go where the money was to do it - which happened to be religious institutions does not support your position.
For example if I wanted to do charitable charity work and become involved in a charitable activity I would go to the organization that would best facilitate me doing that. Religions currently have a large part of the brokerage market sown up - much to their own profit of course - when it comes to charity. So more likely than not I would end up working with, for, or under a charity related to a particular church or religion.
It would be a complete error if someone looked back on my work 100 years from now and credited any of it to religion however. Religion did not cause me to do it, motivate me to do it, or facilitate me in doing it. Businesses associated with religion did - solely by virtue of their having had the funds.
You need to look at the bigger picture here and separate in your head what impact _religion_ has and had and what impact institutions and businesses profiting from the religious business model have and had. The two are not the same.Auntie Semite wrote: »I'm not religious nor am I trying to claim any special status for religion just acknowledging that many innovations occurred under particular religious systems at particular times.
Which is the dilute back pedal I have no issue with. I absolutely know these things happened under the purview of a religious system at that time. The difference is I am teasing out what that actually means and implies and have had you constantly back pedal from your original position to more mundane ones as a result. And I think we are slowly therefore on a trend towards basic agreement on much of it.
The fact religion was in control of structures at the time does not mean they brought anything _to_ those structures either. None of the "benefits" you keep asserting but not supporting. You are mistaking who is in control with what the people in control are actually influencing and changing and doing - and what would have happened without them all the same anyway. _People_ would likely have always tended in the directions we see with or without religious institutions profitting and controlling by association.0 -
Islamic geometry innovated due to religious laws.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/alexs-adventures-in-numberland/2015/feb/10/muslim-rule-and-compass-the-magic-of-islamic-geometric-design
Quote
'Islamic craftsmen turned geometry into an art form because pictures of people were not allowed in holy places'
So the innovation was a direct result of that particular religious dogma IE the religion.
Ancient Islamic architects created perfect quasicrystals
https://physicsworld.com/a/ancient-islamic-architects-created-perfect-quasicrystals/
Quote 'The strong geometries seen in Islamic architecture are said to reflect the deep philosophical and cosmological approach of the Islamic faith'
'Worshippers viewed the repetitive geometric formations as a reflection of the unity that can be derived from the multiplicity of forms. “The act of making the geometry was part of the worship'
The mathematics itself was part of the religious ideology and worship.
The Father of Algebra Al Khwarizimi
https://www.google.com/amp/s/themuslimtimes.info/2013/09/03/the-father-of-algebra-muhammad-ibn-musa-al-khwarizmi/amp/
'The Islamic law of inheritance served as an impetus behind the development of algebra (derived from the Arabic al-jabr) by Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī and other medieval Islamic mathematicians. Al-Khwārizmī’s Hisab al-jabr w’al-muqabala devoted a chapter on the solution to the Islamic law of inheritance using algebra'
Again the innovation was a direct result of Islamic laws IE the religion.
The examples above prove that the development of Mathematics in these instances was precisely as a result of the Islamic religion.0 -
Advertisement
-
Fairly gone off topic here lads..........0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement