PhoneMain wrote: » Fairly gone off topic here lads..........
Auntie Semite wrote: » Symbolic and liturgical meanings of gothic architecture.https://study.com/academy/lesson/symbolic-liturgical-meanings-of-gothic-architecture.html#/transcriptHeader Quote 'In Christianity, there is a strong theme of spirituality and materiality being opposing forces. The world in which we live is the material world. It is full of temptation and sin, which threaten one's salvation and entrance into Heaven, which is the spiritual world. The entrance is part of the west face, so called because it traditionally faces west. It's here that people enter the church through the narthex, or where the symbolic foot touches the ground. The west face is a point of transition from the outside, material world into the divine world of the church. There are traditionally three doors in the narthex, reflecting the belief in the Holy Trinity. The Trinity teaches that God is composed of three natures: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There's also three major elements to the west face: the two towers plus the section in the middle. These also symbolizes the Trinity. The innovations and modernisation in Gothic Architecture reflected the religious beliefs of the builders. There is no question of this.
DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: » You're making too much sense in the thread. That's why your name is being targeted. It's an attempt at deflection.
Auntie Semite wrote: » Islamic geometry innovated due to religious laws.
Auntie Semite wrote: » So the innovation was a direct result of that particular religious dogma IE the religion.
Auntie Semite wrote: » Again the innovation was a direct result of Islamic laws IE the religion.
Auntie Semite wrote: » The examples above prove that the development of Mathematics in these instances was precisely as a result of the Islamic religion.
PhoneMain wrote: » She's ****eing on about Vaccines again
The Nal wrote: » Shes so afraid of life. It must be miserable being her.
[Deleted User] wrote: » So a few pretty patterns on a wall. That is your wonderful contribution from religion to the world? Well blow me over - the entire course of human history changed! Wow! Not. But a Perfect link supporting my position not yours so thanks for that! Lets break it down for you. 1) Firstly as the article states it was "Islamic craftsmen turned geometry into an art form". That is what I have been saying all along. Religion did not do it - people who happened to be religious did! Your old correlation error. Again. You do love it so. 2) Second the article says due to their religion "pictures of people were not allowed". This is not a good thing. They were curtailing the artists. Whatever they produced under constraints - who knows what they would have or could have achieved without constraints! You might as well be promoting poverty because people under the constraints of poverty produce better music or something. We have great works of art like the sistine chapel but we simply have no idea what free artists might have produced without the constraints of religious sensibilities, demands and purse strings. 3) I already pre-empted this nonsense from you - probably in one of the posts you dodged and ignored - when I warned against going too granular on looking at these "benefits" you imagine in religion. Because when you zoom in too closely on your perceived positive you miss the mass of negative around it caused by that religion. Such as the pointless and harmful curtailing of artistic freedom to pander to religion nonsense. 4) Third the article makes the same error you do by claiming Islam gave us " algebra, the trigonometry, the optics, the astronomy and the many other scientific advances and inventions of the Islamic Golden Age". So to support the error I keep correcting you have merely cited someone else making the same error. How does that help anyone? That people during that age did it does not mean Islam had anything to do with it - just like me doing charity work under a religious organization in Ireland does not mean Christianity has all that much to do with it. 5) You have absolutely no evidence the innovations would not have occurred anyway. Every attempt you make to correlate X and Y so far makes this failing. To move from correlation to causation you have to show it was unlikely or impossible such things would not have occurred anyway. Not only is this hard to do it is also very unlikely given how much humans find geometric patters appealing. Your own article supports that position too where it says "Geometry is really a universal language, everyone can – and does – relate to it instinctively". Artists would likely hit upon that kind of art anyway. Especially given as the article also stated quite clearly for you "Islamic design is based on Greek geometry" so that stuff was already there! 6) The benefits here were not done due to religion or because of religion but _despite it_. Pointless rules were placed on artists and locations and people managed to find ways - drawing on already existing things in other cultures like the greeks - to over come it. This is not a credit to religion. It is a big two fingers to it! Nope the innovation existed in Greek sources already. The artists were merely forced to turn to it due to nonsense religious constraints that were put on them and who knows what they might have produced if they had been given actual free artistic license to produce. You have no idea what they would have or could have produced otherwise. You only know what they _did_ produce under pointless constraints. What their innovations could have been with full freedom we shall now never know. Nope he just devoted / dedicated a chapter. That hardly is a causal link to religion. My friend wrote a book once and he devoted / dedicated the entire thing to his wife. His wife had _nothing_ to do with the book other than that though. He dedicated it to her as a mark of respect and love. Not because she had anything whatsoever to do with the book or any credit for it. No your examples who things that existed already being applied under religious constraints. A massively different reality than the one you are simply inventing. Do try harder.
Odhinn wrote: » Meanwhile, on the O'Doherty ranch, shes posting katie hopkins in an idf t-shirt while talking about IS training in the wicklow mountainshttps://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100011070254271
jeremyj1968 wrote: » Just remember that when you are calling Gemma "nuts" for questioning vaccines, you are also criticising many parents who say that their children were severely harmed by vaccines. Including Jonathan Irwin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeP-eIyibQM I find it interesting that when the radio station found out that Irwin was friend with Pat Hickey they would phone him up to speak about that, but would not find it important to have him speak this more serious topic. There is a government brain washing advertisement campaign - "The HPV vaccine is completely safe, the HPV vaccine is completely safe". There is a completely unwillingness to admit that no vaccine is 100% safe, and it is possible that some people may have an averse reaction. I just hope that they are right, and Jonathan Irwin and the other parents are wrong - because if they are not there will be more payouts again in a few years time.
batgoat wrote: » Quality, linking to a video from a conspiracy documentary by Andrew Wakefield. Happy to criticise such an exploitative individual.
jeremyj1968 wrote: » Do you think Jonathan Irwin is lying?
PhoneMain wrote: » I just think they're wrong. They're forming opinions based on anecdotal evidence. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, even if they're wrong. What they shouldn't do is push that opinion as fact.
jeremyj1968 wrote: » Okay, so given that they are not lying, would it not be a good idea to speak to those parents and investigate their cases, instead of the state shouting "There is no problem here, the vaccine is completely safe" and calling them emotional terrorists. Or would it be better to just ignore those parents and assume that the vaccine is safe? I'm just glad that I'm not a parent and having to make that decision. Irwin said that his missus felt tremendous amount of guilt after their daughter suffered issues after them agreeing to have the vaccine.
aloneforever99 wrote: » Of 18,000 followers, that post has only 50 likes and is being torn apart in the comments. She also has 25k twitter followers, but only gets a handful of retweets. And she has 8 supporters on patreon.
PhoneMain wrote: » Yes no vaccine is 100% safe. Just like no medication is 100% safe. Paracetamol can cause liver damage, Ibuprofen can damage your kidneys and stomach. Aspirin causes increased bleeding. There's no doctor in the world will argue against that. I asked a consultant paediatrician the last day how we deal with patients who are anti vacc. He told me he viewed the 3 greatest medical breakthroughs were Antibiotics, Insulin and Vaccinations. He said there's absolutely no evidence to show that these vaccines are causing these side effects. He said that with the swine flu vaccine, the adverse effects of the vaccine were noted in the following year. He also very tellingly said that the effects that groups like Regret espouse are different in every country e.g. it's chronic fatigue syndrome in Ireland, it's something else in another country. But he's only a consultant paediatrician, what would he know.
Ipso wrote: » And a car seat belt could really hurt you, but will also save your life.
PhoneMain wrote: » You're just a stooge for Big Carma
Auntie Semite wrote: » I've proven my point, there's no need to continue this discussion.
Auntie Semite wrote: » I any case you don't even seem to understand the original point I was making and ascribe all sorts of nonsense to what I was saying.
Auntie Semite wrote: » One example I would use that you claim I said Islam gave us algebra I said nothing of the sort
Auntie Semite wrote: » The very fact that you are such a profoundly dishonest debater
Auntie Semite wrote: » You are also a habitual goal post shifter.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b605825002726fa398519aca553ff0db.svg)
