Open letter to Thunderf00t

[theyounghistorian77]

You never will meet a serious historian to have such discussions!
You never will meet a disinterested person to claim again and again, that Christianity has impeded the development of science
- always have to be an atheist

at the same time as we have
German myths
or
Greek myths
Greek myths

Yes and whilst you're here Vyck, is there a possibility you may lend your opinions to this thread and/or knock some sense into it?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Obvious, an Atheist myths is a myth generally held by atheists, and that originated from a priori idea designed to discredit religion.

Okay, but you gave a few examples in your earlier post. One of those being that Galileo was savagely tortured by the Inquisition. I have never heard this before. Galileo was held under house arrest. Can you please cite a source that promotes this idea?

Another myth you attribute to atheism is that Columbus wanted to prove that the earth was round. I must admit that this was what I believed because it was what I was taught in elementary school. However, I learned the truth behind Columbus's voyage, namely finding a quicker path to the Indies, after I became an atheist.

This is why I wanted you to contrast your definition of atheist myth with general ignorance. Because it seems that one of your atheist myths is a fabrication and the other is a general misnomer with no ties to atheism.

 

[Demojen]

What a creepy "open letter". Addressing Thunderfoot as Dr. Phil is a deliberate attempt to antagonize and the improper use of the name repeatedly in nearly every paragraph is disturbing.

You ask for evidence for claims, but don't ask the claims themselves. I've watched dozens of the videos in question and have seen in nearly every single one resources to investigate the veracity of their claims. Please be specific.

Is this only about the conflict thesis which presumes either Science or Religion must die for the other to survive?

Ultimately it isn't a question of whether or not they can co-exist. Clearly they can, but there will always be a level of cognitive dissonance between them. I imagine Thunderfoot took the position he probably most preferred to be the fallout of the resolution of this cognitive dissonance, possibly based on a convergence of sources about religious demographics and trending.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Trends seem to suggest atheism is growing, but despite this the percentage of atheists as a "piece" of the pie is actually shrinking on a global scale due to an overwhelming backlash from religious groups giving birth to more children at a much higher rate.

Usually, the burden of proof is on the claimant shoulders!

It always is. Asking you to provide the proof that supports your statements are more then assertions does not shift the burden of proof one bit.

Don't try and shift the burden of proof by saying "Christianity said it before it was possible to outright refute, thus it is correct until proven otherwise", either.

It's easy to write off everything that religion in general has done for science, because what it has done has been both destructive and constructive in all known records where it has played a role. I've heard Thunderfoot criticize religion because of what it has done to impede science, but not because it hasn't helped science, but rather that what it has done to progress science hasn't been because of religion itself, but because of individuals who did not stick to the dogma.

I like Thunderfoot, but have found he's spending too much time appeasing attention seeking psychopaths who would rather post his personal information all over the internet and try to see him harmed any way they can then have an educated debate.

For this, he has become something of an intellectual troll because he's abusing his intelligence to feed crazy people, instead of the people who subscribed to his videos when critical thinking wasn't about the score in a vendetta.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Hygetia - No need for insults.

My apologies.
I'm kinda pissed because YYNJ is backing out of a perfectly reasonable challenge in which I cleared my schedule this entire week for.

But that was just as mature as VyckRo gets in most of his posts.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

VyckRo, I actually support your initiative to debate Thunderf00t (on this particular issue at least), but all the energy wasted in trying to contact him could have actually been used to prove your point.

I don't think the conflict thesis is accurate but I don't think YOUR thesis is accurate either.

You claimed that Christianity (the religion, not the Christian people) gave birth to modern civilization (and key points of that: the scientific method, democracy & human rights - life, property, physical integrity, free speech, freedom from and of religion, the right to a fair trial etc.) This is not self-evident and you need to do a better job of proving your case (if you have one) given the fact that Christian values don't seem to have much to do with modern values. Where in Christianity does it explicitly say people have inalienable rights, the Bible God repeatedly commands the slaughter of thousands, including children and saying that those commandments and laws no longer apply is a cop-out. And during medieval times absolute monarchy was perfectly acceptable, the church never condemned the crimes and abuses of kings or the nobility, quite the opposite, kings and emperors ruled by divine right. In Catholic Europe it was perfectly acceptable to torture and kill heretics and witches (so that's a triple violation of human rights - life/physical integrity/free speech) and don't please don't say Catholics aren't "true Christians", they follow the same book and core doctrine that you do. Up until about 100 years ago sexism was still acceptable, it was NOT Christianity that changed the mentality, it was the feminist movement. In fact Christianity is arguably sexist to the core (and supported by both OT and NT) since women can't be priests or get near the altar. The declaration of marriage itself, in the ORTHODOX church, is sexist, I have been to enough weddings to know that women are supposed to submit to the will of their husbands. The idea that Christianity brought gender equality is nonsense too. What brought equal rights to women was the "fallible" human reasoned morality which you fundamentalists seem to think it's SOOO unreliable.

Slavery was perfectly acceptable during Christianity, so again Christianity did not bring an end to that, if it did, there would be no slavery since 400, it was people who, using their "fallible" human reasoned morality, realized that it was not the way forward to enslave others.

You complain that atheism leads to communism (which I've already proven you is false) yet you ignore the clear conflict between Jesus' teachings and capitalism. I cannot think of any more communistic than saying rich people (you know those guys that create jobs and run shit) don't deserve to go to Heaven.

Separation of church and state is again not something you'll find in Christianity. In fact you're supposed to "not be yoked with unbelievers" since they're evil. Your religion preaches intolerance whether you believe it or not.


Your main point seems to be the "desacralization of the Universe", unfortunately the links you gave we're in French and sorry I simply don't know French well enough to understand. You could expand on this point though and also show how it links to Christian teachings in a non-ambiguous clear way.


You also claim that modern civilization would NEVER exist without Christianity. This second claim is even more categorical and less evident. You also need to do a better job of proving it given the fact that the knowledge of mankind was already gradually rising way before Christianity so a good prediction would be that we'd eventually reach the society we have now, with or without Christianity.

In any case, even if your thesis was 100% true it wouldn't prove Christianity to be true.

So yeah, make your case, we're waiting.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

I'll Bump this to here for all who are interested to see

I am glad to see such a post, on an Atheist forum.

Atheist forum, you say?

Hytegia, take it away.




Now seriously wtf?

 

[DepricatedZero]

Welcome Dogma's Demise! Great first post.

I invite everyone to come hang out in chat some time

 

[VyckRo]

VyckRo, I actually support your initiative to debate Thunderf00t (on this particular issue at least), but all the energy wasted in trying to contact him could have actually been used to prove your point.

I don't think the conflict thesis is accurate but I don't think YOUR thesis is accurate either.

You claimed that Christianity (the religion, not the Christian people) gave birth to modern civilization (and key points of that: the scientific method, democracy & human rights - life, property, physical integrity, free speech, freedom from and of religion, the right to a fair trial etc.) This is not self-evident and you need to do a better job of proving your case (if you have one) given the fact that Christian values don't seem to have much to do with modern values. Where in Christianity does it explicitly say people have inalienable rights, the Bible God repeatedly commands the slaughter of thousands, including children and saying that those commandments and laws no longer apply is a cop-out. And during medieval times absolute monarchy was perfectly acceptable, the church never condemned the crimes and abuses of kings or the nobility, quite the opposite, kings and emperors ruled by divine right. In Catholic Europe it was perfectly acceptable to torture and kill heretics and witches (so that's a triple violation of human rights - life/physical integrity/free speech) and don't please don't say Catholics aren't "true Christians", they follow the same book and core doctrine that you do. Up until about 100 years ago sexism was still acceptable, it was NOT Christianity that changed the mentality, it was the feminist movement. In fact Christianity is arguably sexist to the core (and supported by both OT and NT) since women can't be priests or get near the altar. The declaration of marriage itself, in the ORTHODOX church, is sexist, I have been to enough weddings to know that women are supposed to submit to the will of their husbands. The idea that Christianity brought gender equality is nonsense too. What brought equal rights to women was the "fallible" human reasoned morality which you fundamentalists seem to think it's SOOO unreliable.

Slavery was perfectly acceptable during Christianity, so again Christianity did not bring an end to that, if it did, there would be no slavery since 400, it was people who, using their "fallible" human reasoned morality, realized that it was not the way forward to enslave others.

You complain that atheism leads to communism (which I've already proven you is false) yet you ignore the clear conflict between Jesus' teachings and capitalism. I cannot think of any more communistic than saying rich people (you know those guys that create jobs and run shit) don't deserve to go to Heaven.

Separation of church and state is again not something you'll find in Christianity. In fact you're supposed to "not be yoked with unbelievers" since they're evil. Your religion preaches intolerance whether you believe it or not.


Your main point seems to be the "desacralization of the Universe", unfortunately the links you gave we're in French and sorry I simply don't know French well enough to understand. You could expand on this point though and also show how it links to Christian teachings in a non-ambiguous clear way.


You also claim that modern civilization would NEVER exist without Christianity. This second claim is even more categorical and less evident. You also need to do a better job of proving it given the fact that the knowledge of mankind was already gradually rising way before Christianity so a good prediction would be that we'd eventually reach the society we have now, with or without Christianity.

In any case, even if your thesis was 100% true it wouldn't prove Christianity to be true.

So yeah, make your case, we're waiting.

Dear Troll, usually when you enter on a forum, you must present yourself first! But apparently you are too busy, to create accounts everywhere where I post, and them to spam that forum or blog whit all the information about me that you have.

My thesis has 7 essential points, but I have nowhere claimed that I want to make it public yet.
You seem to repeat on all blogs and all video where I post and ever post it, that I have a thesis and that even If it true, will not prove Christianity to be true. Even if I told you dozens of times that I only respond to atheist attacks, you will continue to return whit the same claims that I've never done.

Therefore, soon I will cease to respond to you.

 

[VyckRo]

Obvious, an Atheist myths is a myth generally held by atheists, and that originated from a priori idea designed to discredit religion.

Okay, but you gave a few examples in your earlier post. One of those being that Galileo was savagely tortured by the Inquisition. I have never heard this before. Galileo was held under house arrest. Can you please cite a source that promotes this idea?

Another myth you attribute to atheism is that Columbus wanted to prove that the earth was round. I must admit that this was what I believed because it was what I was taught in elementary school. However, I learned the truth behind Columbus's voyage, namely finding a quicker path to the Indies, after I became an atheist.

This is why I wanted you to contrast your definition of atheist myth with general ignorance. Because it seems that one of your atheist myths is a fabrication and the other is a general misnomer with no ties to atheism.

I just started working on this point, so I have not got, to review all authors!
-----------------------

The great Galileo, at the age of fourscore, groaned away his days in the dungeons of the Inquisition, because he had demonstrated by irrefragable proofs the motion of the earth.
,Voltaire, "Descartes and Newton" (1728)

The celebrated Galileo . . . was put in the inquisition for six years, and put to the torture, for saying, that the earth moved.
,Giuseppe Baretti, The Italian Library (1757)

To say that Galileo was tortured is not a reckless claim, but it is simply to repeat what the sentence says. To specify that he was tortured about his intention is not a risky deduction, but it is, again, to report what that text says. These are observationreports, not magical intuitions; proved facts, not cabalistic introspections.
,Italo Mereu, History of Intolerance in Europe (1979)

Was Galileo Tortured ?
It appears that on June 16, 1633, PopeUrban VIII. ordered Galileo, the prisoner, to be interrogated as to his object in publishing his dialogues on the Ptolemaic and Copernical systems, threatened whit the torture, and, if this failed to elicit a confession, condemned to abjuration and imprisonment during the pleasure of the Congregation.
,The New York Times March (24, 1878)

~He was dismissed in disgrace, and Galileo was forced to appear in the presence of the dread tribunal without defender or adviser. There, as was so long concealed, but as is now fully revealed, he was menaced with torture again and again by express order of Pope Urban, and, as is also thoroughly established from the trial documents themselves, forced to abjure under threats, and subjected to imprisonment by command of the Pope; the Inquisition deferring in this whole matter to the papal authority."
,Warfare of Science with Theology, Chapter III: Astronomy - Victory of the Church over Galileo (1896 )

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Therefore, soon I will cease to respond to you.

Oh how convenient, then I guess all I have to say is:

NEVER, Dr. Vyck, use the words "academic integrity" again.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

VyckRo, I actually support your initiative to debate Thunderf00t (on this particular issue at least), but all the energy wasted in trying to contact him could have actually been used to prove your point.

I don't think the conflict thesis is accurate but I don't think YOUR thesis is accurate either.

You claimed that Christianity (the religion, not the Christian people) gave birth to modern civilization (and key points of that: the scientific method, democracy & human rights - life, property, physical integrity, free speech, freedom from and of religion, the right to a fair trial etc.) This is not self-evident and you need to do a better job of proving your case (if you have one) given the fact that Christian values don't seem to have much to do with modern values. Where in Christianity does it explicitly say people have inalienable rights, the Bible God repeatedly commands the slaughter of thousands, including children and saying that those commandments and laws no longer apply is a cop-out. And during medieval times absolute monarchy was perfectly acceptable, the church never condemned the crimes and abuses of kings or the nobility, quite the opposite, kings and emperors ruled by divine right. In Catholic Europe it was perfectly acceptable to torture and kill heretics and witches (so that's a triple violation of human rights - life/physical integrity/free speech) and don't please don't say Catholics aren't "true Christians", they follow the same book and core doctrine that you do. Up until about 100 years ago sexism was still acceptable, it was NOT Christianity that changed the mentality, it was the feminist movement. In fact Christianity is arguably sexist to the core (and supported by both OT and NT) since women can't be priests or get near the altar. The declaration of marriage itself, in the ORTHODOX church, is sexist, I have been to enough weddings to know that women are supposed to submit to the will of their husbands. The idea that Christianity brought gender equality is nonsense too. What brought equal rights to women was the "fallible" human reasoned morality which you fundamentalists seem to think it's SOOO unreliable.

Slavery was perfectly acceptable during Christianity, so again Christianity did not bring an end to that, if it did, there would be no slavery since 400, it was people who, using their "fallible" human reasoned morality, realized that it was not the way forward to enslave others.

You complain that atheism leads to communism (which I've already proven you is false) yet you ignore the clear conflict between Jesus' teachings and capitalism. I cannot think of any more communistic than saying rich people (you know those guys that create jobs and run shit) don't deserve to go to Heaven.

Separation of church and state is again not something you'll find in Christianity. In fact you're supposed to "not be yoked with unbelievers" since they're evil. Your religion preaches intolerance whether you believe it or not.


Your main point seems to be the "desacralization of the Universe", unfortunately the links you gave we're in French and sorry I simply don't know French well enough to understand. You could expand on this point though and also show how it links to Christian teachings in a non-ambiguous clear way.


You also claim that modern civilization would NEVER exist without Christianity. This second claim is even more categorical and less evident. You also need to do a better job of proving it given the fact that the knowledge of mankind was already gradually rising way before Christianity so a good prediction would be that we'd eventually reach the society we have now, with or without Christianity.

In any case, even if your thesis was 100% true it wouldn't prove Christianity to be true.

So yeah, make your case, we're waiting.

Dear Troll, usually when you enter on a forum, you must present yourself first! But apparently you are too busy, to create accounts everywhere where I post, and them to spam that forum or blog whit all the information about me that you have.

My thesis has 7 essential points, but I have nowhere claimed that I want to make it public yet.
You seem to repeat on all blogs and all video where I post and ever post it, that I have a thesis and that even If it true, will not prove Christianity to be true. Even if I told you dozens of times that I only respond to atheist attacks, you will continue to return whit the same claims that I've never done.

Therefore, soon I will cease to respond to you.

His post clearly does not qualify as trolling. I would encourage you to hesitate before leveling baseless insults at new users.

And welcome to the forum DD.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Thanks, Anachronous Rex. A clarification on his statements I guess would be in order.

Why I didn't introduce myself, well there's really not much I want to reveal about myself except that I'm an atheist from Bucharest, Romania. The social climate here isn't exactly friendly towards non-religious people so the less people know who I am, the better. To attack this rather than my argument is an ad hominem.

Now, about me following VyckRo around everywhere he posts and targeting him for criticism. I have only done that on 3 websites: YouTube, Thunderf00t's blog (which doesn't even require an account) and now League of Reason. I don't see anything wrong with that, when you make outrageous statements online, you should expect to be called on it by anyone who chooses to. It's free speech and I don't believe I have crossed any boundary. Besides, my YouTube activity is primarily about promoting atheism and secularism. I don't see why he is complaining, he has been targeting ZOMGitsCriss for 3 years now in a much more "aggressive" and unfounded manner than I target him. I can't even count the number of times he's repeated the same lie over and over and she's a "communist who hates her country, culture and all Christians".

On this issue, all I have done is ask him to prove his Christianity <=> modern civilization statement. He's made a few points, but has never elaborated on them, he has also NEVER addressed my points (which you can see above) but now somehow I'm the "troll". If he doesn't want to make his views public, then that's his problem, not mine.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I just started working on this point, so I have not got, to review all authors!
-----------------------

The great Galileo, at the age of fourscore, groaned away his days in the dungeons of the Inquisition, because he had demonstrated by irrefragable proofs the motion of the earth.
,Voltaire, "Descartes and Newton" (1728)

The celebrated Galileo . . . was put in the inquisition for six years, and put to the torture, for saying, that the earth moved.
,Giuseppe Baretti, The Italian Library (1757)

To say that Galileo was tortured is not a reckless claim, but it is simply to repeat what the sentence says. To specify that he was tortured about his intention is not a risky deduction, but it is, again, to report what that text says. These are observationreports, not magical intuitions; proved facts, not cabalistic introspections.
,Italo Mereu, History of Intolerance in Europe (1979)

Was Galileo Tortured ?
It appears that on June 16, 1633, PopeUrban VIII. ordered Galileo, the prisoner, to be interrogated as to his object in publishing his dialogues on the Ptolemaic and Copernical systems, threatened whit the torture, and, if this failed to elicit a confession, condemned to abjuration and imprisonment during the pleasure of the Congregation.
,The New York Times March (24, 1878)

~He was dismissed in disgrace, and Galileo was forced to appear in the presence of the dread tribunal without defender or adviser. There, as was so long concealed, but as is now fully revealed, he was menaced with torture again and again by express order of Pope Urban, and, as is also thoroughly established from the trial documents themselves, forced to abjure under threats, and subjected to imprisonment by command of the Pope; the Inquisition deferring in this whole matter to the papal authority."
,Warfare of Science with Theology, Chapter III: Astronomy - Victory of the Church over Galileo (1896 )

Emphasis mine.

Do you have any examples that were made while I was alive? In addition, how are you able to link this to atheist myth, as you have defined, and not general ignorance?

 

[Visaki]

Emphasis mine.

Do you have any examples that were made while I was alive? In addition, how are you able to link this to atheist myth, as you have defined, and not general ignorance?

As my little part in this discussion I thought the point was about an atheist myth that Galileo was being tortured. The 5 quotes VyckRo used were, when boiled down,

-Galileo in a dungeon
-Galileo tortured
-Galileo tortured (as per the actual court sentence document?)
-Galileo threatened with the torture
-Galileo menaced with torture

So we actually only have two sources that say Galileo was tortured, one apparently relying on the actualy documents of the trial (granted, I haven't checked this but it's his source to begin with), and two that say he was basicly threatened with torture. I fail to see how this adds up to a myth (wouldn't mind seeing VyckRo define what counts as a myth though). I'd also like to add that this is the first time for me too that I'd heard anyone claim that Galileo was actually tortured.

 

[australopithecus]

Dear Troll, usually when you enter on a forum, you must present yourself first!

Not really. I didn't.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Dear Troll,

I stopped taking you seriously the second you referred to another person as a troll
You, who come on intellectual websites, state intentional misconceptions and lie out of your own ass, then when confronted with it fluff out your chest like a bird in distress before scampering off for months at a time to come back later on and try to pick a new fight - calling another person a troll? If I have to, I will quotebomb this user's post into oblivion so that you have no excuse to dodge any of the objections he has raised.
I checked this other guy out on YouTube, and tf00t's page. You didn't respond to his discussion points to any satisfactory level on either of them.

Come on - you've come to this site and have been spamming the same bullshit on 3 different pages in a poor and pathetic attempt to troll thunderf00t into actually responding to your nonsense. But, when someone comes to you with basic objections that anyone, including the person you're attempting to pick a fight with, would raise you have the malformed indecency to call THEM a troll.

I'd say stop while you're ahead, but you'll end up running off course and leaving the race on your own eventually - like always - and we'll end it with laughing material and some fond memories to chat over. It's what you are, what you do, and what you will always do.

 

[RedYellow]

I enjoy many of thunderf00t's videos, his 'why do people laugh at creationists' series is top notch. That being said, I never find myself interested in seeing him debate people directly. I just don't think he's very good at it, and I can see him becoming a sort of strawman for theists to attack, which they do.

 

[SirYeen]

but now somehow I'm the "troll". If he doesn't want to make his views public, then that's his problem, not mine.

You don't need to get all worked up to be honest. It's blatantly obvious to anybody with half a brain who's delusional here.

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Emphasis mine.

Do you have any examples that were made while I was alive? In addition, how are you able to link this to atheist myth, as you have defined, and not general ignorance?

As my little part in this discussion I thought the point was about an atheist myth that Galileo was being tortured. The 5 quotes VyckRo used were, when boiled down,

-Galileo in a dungeon
-Galileo tortured
-Galileo tortured (as per the actual court sentence document?)
-Galileo threatened with the torture
-Galileo menaced with torture

So we actually only have two sources that say Galileo was tortured, one apparently relying on the actualy documents of the trial (granted, I haven't checked this but it's his source to begin with), and two that say he was basicly threatened with torture. I fail to see how this adds up to a myth (wouldn't mind seeing VyckRo define what counts as a myth though). I'd also like to add that this is the first time for me too that I'd heard anyone claim that Galileo was actually tortured.

Well , but a little bit of sourcechecking would be nice. for example...

"The great Galileo, at the age of fourscore, groaned away his days in the dungeons of the Inquisition, because he had demonstrated by irrefragable proofs the motion of the earth.
,Voltaire, "Descartes and Newton" (1728)

The celebrated Galileo . . . was put in the inquisition for six years, and put to the torture, for saying, that the earth moved.
,Giuseppe Baretti, The Italian Library (1757)

To say that Galileo was tortured is not a reckless claim, but it is simply to repeat what the sentence says. To specify that he was tortured about his intention is not a risky deduction, but it is, again, to report what that text says. These are observationreports, not magical intuitions; proved facts, not cabalistic introspections.
,Italo Mereu, History of Intolerance in Europe (1979)

Were all i do believe, Quoted from Maurice A Finocchiaro, "Myth 8: That Galileo was imprisoned and tortured for advocating Copernicanism", in Ronald Numbers (ed), "Galileo goes to Jail And other myths about Science and Religion", p68.

The good thing is that the book is available for preview online, and surely is a must-read for anyone interested in this thread? I think it must be worthwhile for anyone to compare what it actually says to your boiling down of the quotations cited.

"The evidence for staying out of jail tells us nothing about Galileo's sucsess in avoiding torture. The resolution of this question had to wait until the trial proceedings were published and assimilated in the late 19th century. Two documents proved crucial. The first was the minutes of the Inquisition meeting of June 16, 1663, chaired by the pope. After various reports were heard and after considerable discussion,

"His Holiness decided that the same Galileo is to be interrogated even with the threat of torture; and that if he holds up, after a vehement abjuration at a plenary meeting of the Holy Office, he is to be condemmed to prision at the pleasure of the Sacred Congregation, and that he is to be enjoined in the future he must no longer treat in any way (in writing or orally) of the earth's motion or sun's stability, nor of the opposite, on pain of relapse; and the book written by him and entitled Dialogo di Galileo Galilei Linceo is to be prohibited"

This preview of the actual sentence mentions a novel procedure: Interrogation under the threat of torture. The minutes of the interrogation, dated June 21 and signed by Galileo, reveal that the comissary asked him several times whether he held the Copernican theory of the earths motion; each time Galileo denied having done so after the condemnation of that doctrine in 1616. The exchange between Galileo and his inquisitors is worth quoting in full:

Q. Having been told that from the book itself and the reasons advanced for the affirmative side, namely that the earth moves and the sun is motionless, he is presumed, as it was stated, that he holds Copernicus's opinion, or at least that he held it at the time, therefore he was told that unless he decided to proffer the truth, one would have recourse to the remedies of the law and to appropriate steps against him.

A: I do not hold this opinion of Copernicus, and I have not held it after being ordered by injunction to abandon it. For the rest, here I am in your hands; do as you please.

Q: And he was told to tell the truth; otherwise one would have recourse to torture.

A: I am here to obey, but I have not held this opinion after the determination was made, as I said.

And since nothing else could be done for the execution of the decision, after he signed he was sent to his place.

I, Galileo Galilei, have testified as above.

This deposition leaves no doubt that Galileo was threatened with torture during the June 21 interrogation. But there is no evidence that he was actually tortured, or that his accusers planned actually to torture him. Apparantly, the "rigorous examination" mentioned in the sentence meant interrogation with the threat of torture, not interrogation under actual torture." - Maurice A Finocchiaro, "ibid", p74-76.

This distinction highlighted is important. Because Galileo being in a dungeon is not necessarily torture itself (BTW it is still seems apparantly wrong to suggest Galileo was thrown into some dungeon ["With the possible exception of Three days (June 21-24, 1663), Galileo was never held in prison, either during the trial (as was universal custom) or afterward (as the sentence decreed). Even for those three days he likely lodged in the prosecutor's apartment, not in a cell." - Maurice A Finocchiaro, "ibid", p74.]) and Galileo being threatened with the torture, is not necessarily torture itself. And Finally the New York Times article cited is in proper context an overview written by a "Sedley Taylor" on the ideas of a German researcher who goes by the name of "Wohlwill", who hints at the possibility the trial records may have been tampered with. The article is about the questioning of how reliable the sources are. Interestingly according to the article "An attempt to determine to what precise stage of barbarity the inquisition advanced in its dealings" with Galileo is "after all a matter of secondary interest". If anyone has any evidence that this "Sedley Taylor" and/or this "Wohlwill" were Atheists, than im all ears and happy to recieve.

In fact if anyone has any evidence that "Giuseppe Baretti", "Italo Mereu" and "Voltaire" were Atheists too, than again im all ears and happy to recieve

And BTW, Numbers nor Finocchiaro as far as im aware do not call the "Gallileo torture story" that they and i dispute an "Atheist Myth". And It also appears Numbers is an agnostic, so how about that?

 

[DukeTwicep]

Dear Troll, usually when you enter on a forum, you must present yourself first! But apparently you are too busy, to create accounts everywhere where I post, and them to spam that forum or blog whit all the information about me that you have.

Actually, I don't think there's a rule that says you Must present yourself, and it certainly doesn't warrant an exclamation mark (the stuff that trolls and other low-life use a lot). I don't think I did. And I'm not a troll :O.
Also, it would be nice if you could back up your claim that this person is e-stalking you and not just claim he is a troll because he disagrees with you. It also doesn't help your case to call people trolls or forcing non-existent rules on them.
And, not to try to insult or anything - your first language isn't English right? I can't help but to shiver/twitch when people forget letters numerous times per post. It'd help your credibility a long way if you went over your posts several times to eliminate any errors, just a tip.

I can't help but notice the smugness of your posts, it's eerily evident the contempt you have for people. A tip is to tone down on the contempt, keep it to yourself, and you just might earn yourself a debate. Also, people might not criticise you for immaturity/self-assuredness/overconfidence, and you just might seem more... knowledgeable and intelligent. After all, it's common that those who know little are overly confident and smug, and those who know much underestimate themselves and hesitate. Not saying that you are the former, after all, it could be a carefully planned facade of yours to fool tf00t into thinking you're a fool. If so, I applaud your very politician-like skills.

Obvious, an Atheist myths is a myth generally held by atheists, and that originated from a priori idea designed to discredit religion.

This would make science: atheist science. Because scientists are mostly atheistic. A myth "generally held by atheists" doesn't mean it isn't also generally held by other people, it's also not very specific as atheism is a very broad term. Perhaps "anti-theist myth" would be better? I don't really know which people hold on to these "myths", but I guess the kind of people that would like to hold on to "myths" that discredited religion would be people with an agenda against religion. And I doubt atheism would be the best term to use describe this group of people, just as "human" would be a bad descriptive term.