*destroys fundamentalist pseudoscientists 1500 years before they become popular*

*destroys fundamentalist pseudoscientists 1500 years before they become popular*

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >fundamentalist pseudoscientists

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were not allegory according to him. He prob thought the geneaology did have severe gaps though.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He dated the earth consistent with modern bible believers.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Adam and Eve the garden of Eden and Satan (the snake) tempting them were all real. If you deny this you're heretical.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He only disagreed with the 7 days thing, he thought the rest was legit. I love how copers obsess over that, pretty much al the pre 20th century theologians took the Bible literally, the fact that they ALSO found allegorical and escatolgoical meanings in it doesn't invalidate that point. Own it, you are a moronic LARPer, open your Creationist museum with Adam riding a T Rex, build that giant wooden ship capable of holding 10000000000000000 tons that an old guy and his 3 sons totally built 4500 years ago (by the way that's when the Old Kingom pharaohs lived undisrupted by this supposed flood, lol), own that tower of Babel shit, which took place when Egyptian and Sumerian had already been attested as completely separate languages for almost 1000 years, the list goes on.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the way that's when the Old Kingom pharaohs lived undisrupted by this supposed flood
      >Egyptian and Sumerian had already been attested as completely separate languages for almost 1000 years
      Nope.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Nope
        Wrong, tard:

        Creation 4004 BC
        The Flood 2348 BC
        Tower of Babel 2246 BC
        Abraham 1996 BC
        Joseph 1745 BC
        Moses and the Exodus 1491 BC
        David 1085 BC
        Monarchy Divides 975 BC
        Assyrian Destruction of Israel 722 BC
        Babylonian Captivity of Judah 586 BC
        Jesus 4 BC

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Thoughbeit, he said something to the effect of "stop making scientific claims that are clearly false based on the Bible, people who do this are making Christians look bad." I don't know exactly what he was referring to, maybe flat earth. Anyway, that's consistent with his belief in a young Earth, but at the time there was no scientific evidence to the contrary.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >but
        *because

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Tertullian, one of the "greatest" and most reveered early fathers of the church was the only literate person of the time that openly affirmed that the Earth was flat, LOL, so much for being inspired by the creator of the universe. These abominations make modern imams look like Einstein

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Proof?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Worlds of Their Own
        A Brief History of Misguided Ideas: Creationism, Flat-Earthism, Energy Scams, and the Velikovsky Affair

        Robert J. Schadewald

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Authority figure said so
          This is not proof, waiting for proof.

          >Nope
          Wrong, tard:

          Creation 4004 BC
          The Flood 2348 BC
          Tower of Babel 2246 BC
          Abraham 1996 BC
          Joseph 1745 BC
          Moses and the Exodus 1491 BC
          David 1085 BC
          Monarchy Divides 975 BC
          Assyrian Destruction of Israel 722 BC
          Babylonian Captivity of Judah 586 BC
          Jesus 4 BC

          The bible does not give exact dates for these events, however it is certain that what you said is not true.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It does. It gives a series of generation and the rough dates can be extrapolated through them, go back to watching I.P, try parroting another of his shitty arguments, like 'those self cotnradictory and absurd genealogies are actually just allegorical'

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Tertullian #1 'Five Books Against Marcion 14:1-11

            >Authority figure said so
            Exactly how Catholicucks behave, literal mindless drones

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Tertullian #1 'Five Books Against Marcion 14:1-11

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Could you give a quote?

          It does. It gives a series of generation and the rough dates can be extrapolated through them, go back to watching I.P, try parroting another of his shitty arguments, like 'those self cotnradictory and absurd genealogies are actually just allegorical'

          >the rough dates
          Concession accepted, lol
          >go back to watching I.P, try parroting another of his shitty arguments, like 'those self cotnradictory and absurd genealogies are actually just allegorical'
          You seem mad.

          Tertullian #1 'Five Books Against Marcion 14:1-11

          >Authority figure said so
          Exactly how Catholicucks behave, literal mindless drones

          Yes, I have noticed many similarities papists and atheists. Just switch the magisterium and the science. Probably because they were invented by the same devil.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Could you give a quote?
            Do you want me to swipe your ass too?
            >Concession accepted, lol
            I see you've accepted you're moronic, the next step is to say you're sorry, rough means we can't calculate the exact minute but mor or less the date within a couple of years at most.

            By the way Lactantius, another revereed father of the church, voiced the same moronic opinion:

            "How is it with those who imagine that there are antipodes opposite to our footsteps? Do they say anything to the purpose? Or is there any one so senseless as to believe that there are men whose footsteps are higher than their heads? Or that the things which with us are in a recumbent position, with them hang in an inverted direction? That the crops and trees grow downwards? That the rains, and snow, and hail fall upwards to the earth? And does any one wonder that hanging gardens are mentioned among the seven wonders of the world, when philosophers make hanging fields, and seas, and cities, and mountains? The origin of this error must also be set forth by us. For they are always deceived in the same manner. For when they have assumed anything false in the commencement of their investigations, led by the resemblance of the truth, they necessarily fall into those things which are its consequences. Thus they fall into many ridiculous things; because those things which are in agreement with false things, must themselves be false. But since they placed confidence in the first, they do not consider the character of those things which follow, but defend them in every way; whereas they ought to judge from those which follow, whether the first are true or false."

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Do you want me to swipe your ass too?
            Since your citation was unusable (or the only way it could be usable failed to get results) I searched for "flat" in all 5 books and got no results. Combined with the intellectually dishonest refusal to substantiate the claim by doing so much as repeating the supposed absurd statement (which an animal of your disposition would jump at) and knowing you are an atheist, whom are liars like their father, I am strongly inclined to believe that no such statement exists.
            >rough means we can't calculate the exact minute
            Nobody was trying to calculate "the exact minute". Backpedal harder. The reason we can only make rough estimates is because rather little information is given as far as the place of these events in a chronology.
            >By the way Lactantius, another revereed father of the church, voiced the same moronic opinion
            This quote does not claim the earth is flat, has no source given, and is being quoted by a disreputable source.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >This quote does not claim the earth is flat, has no source given, and is being quoted by a disreputable source.
            It absolutely does, the fact that you don't knwo basic ancient terms like the antipodes and can't read it even when translated in your mother language just shows how dumb you are.

            What course of argument, therefore, led them to the idea of the antipodes? They saw the courses of the stars travelling towards the west; they saw that the sun and the moon always set towards the same quarter, and rise from the same. But since they did not perceive what contrivance regulated their courses, nor how they returned from the west to the east, but supposed that the heaven itself sloped downwards in every direction, which appearance it must present on account of its immense breadth, they thought that the world is round like a ball, and they fancied that the heaven revolves in accordance with the motion of the heavenly bodies; and thus that the stars and sun, when they have set, by the very rapidity of the motion of the world are borne back to the east. Therefore they both constructed brazen orbs, as though after the figure of the world, and engraved upon them certain monstrous images, which they said were constellations. It followed, therefore, from this rotundity of the heaven, that the earth was enclosed in the midst of its curved surface. But if this were so, the earth also itself must be like a globe; for that could not possibly be anything but round, which was held enclosed by that which was round. But if the earth also were round, it must necessarily happen that it should present the same appearance to all parts of the heaven; that is, that it should raise aloft mountains, extend plains, and have level seas. And if this were so, that last consequence also followed, that there would be no part of the earth uninhabited by men and the other animals. Thus the rotundity of the earth leads, in addition, to the invention of those suspended antipodes.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And before you ask "proof?" like the moronic toddler you are, the quote is from:

            Lactantius. Institutiones Divinae, 3.24 : De antipodibus, de coelo ac sideribus.

            And it's pretty explicit about the flatness of the Earth. The first part was clear enough since the antipodes were the guys who live on the other emisphere so reading that the implications are obvious, but since you're as dumb as a fricking brick here's the part where he outright says the EARTH IS FLAT

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >And it's pretty explicit about the flatness of the Earth
            Actually, I still couldn't find him criticizing the globe, just the idea of antipodes. I imagine you are conflating this with a spherical earth because in your ignorance you are not aware ancients did not understand gravity even though they knew the earth was round, so they generally believed all land was on the "top" of the earth. I did however find him calling the earth "this globe of ours" a little before that. I imagine you also did not notice that, since you did not actually read any of this, and it was not included in the work of whatever atheist much smarter than yourself you got this from, while also not thinking to look it up yourself to check.
            >since you're as dumb as a fricking brick
            Are ALL atheists arrogant AND stupid? Yes. You are an immature ill-behaved child and an incorrigible villain, you are incapable of controlling your antisocial urges or to stop lying. Aristotle was right that "Atheists are criminals to be punished rather than interlocutors to be debated", look how society has declined since the mistake was made to tolerate your species of beast.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Stop drinking petrol anon.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why, an authority figure told me it's scientific and evidence-based

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Actually, I still couldn't find him criticizing the globe
            He explicitly says that it can not be round, because then the antipodes would exist, so he says it can't be round. There's no other way around it. If you can't read such a basic text then I'm not surprised you bought into Bible bullshit that easily.
            > I imagine you are conflating this with a spherical earth because in your ignorance you are not aware ancients did not understand gravity
            Non sequitur. Either way that's a generalization. Aristoteles didn't understand gravity, Lucretius (who was an Epicurean and follower of Democritus) held that object fall because of a force not very different from that of gravity, still not accurate, but closer to the truth than Aristoteles, not that it matters, Lactantius actually beliebed in Arisotelean physics AND in a not round world.
            >I did however find him calling the earth "this globe of ours"
            Understanding irony is beyond the peanut brain of an autistic JW tier npc like you, not surprising, just another example of a tard who can't read a text longer than one line.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            [...]

            It's interesting that you would choose to double down after being exposed, as if to multiply your embarrassment, presumably because you cannot contain yourself in the face of an opportunity to deceive and screech.
            >He explicitly says that it can not be round
            Do they no longer teach what the word "explicit" means to high school students? You have an argument for him saying earth is flat. It is a terrible desire predicated on your psychotic urge to mock, demean, deride and defame. However, even if your argument held water it would still not be "explicit". Explicit would be if he said the very words "earth is not round, earth is flat".
            >because then the antipodes would exist
            No, he did not believe antipodes exist.
            >If you can't read such a basic text
            It's really embarrassing to make these kinds of accusations when anyone with eyes can see it actually applies to you.
            >Non sequitur.
            If you think it is, then I wouldn't be surprised if you don't understand gravity either. What does "down" mean?
            >Lactantius actually beliebed in Arisotelean physics
            Aristotelian physics does not include a flat earth
            >Understanding irony is beyond the peanut brain of an autistic JW tier NPC like you, not surprising, just another example of a tard who can't read a text longer than one line.
            No argument?
            >So he's calling the rotundity of the Earth and the antipodes (so basically Australians and the likes) "marvelous fictions"
            No, he considers the marvelous fiction to be their conclusions, not the idea of a round earth. He is describing the reasoning of his opponents, not his own. You may have noticed him say "What course of argument, therefore, led them to the idea of the antipodes" if you had even the modicum of good faith or common sense to read from beginning to end, instead of just defecating in your hand and throwing it at any human who happened by.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It is a terrible argument*

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are wrong and a homosexual.

            "But if the earth also were round, it must necessarily happen that it should present the same appearance to all parts of the heaven; that is, that it should raise aloft mountains, extend plains, and have level seas. And if this were so, that last consequence also followed, that there would be no part of the earth uninhabited by men and the other animals. Thus the rotundity of the earth leads, in addition, to the invention of those suspended antipodes.

            But if you inquire from those who defend these marvellous fictions"

            So he's calling the rotundity of the Earth and the antipodes (so basically Australians and the likes) "marvelous fictions", just to spell it out to you, saying that the Earth CAN'T be round (so your based trad churchfatherino was againt what pretty much all ancient authors who spoke about this matter after Eratosthenes agreed upon), because well, people would fall down! People can't walk upside down!.

            Hence he was completely wrong, hence you're a moron, a Christurd NPC defending his epic churchfather daddy, and now you've even lost your fake nauseating cloying quasi-Mormonesque attitude as you've been exposed as a moron, you can only spew your bitter rants against atheists who are all evil and arrogant because they don't take what your beloved pastor or apologist youtuber spews seriously.

            You are right and a homosexual.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It's interesting that you would choose to double down after being exposed, as if to multiply your embarrassment, presumably because you cannot contain yourself in the face of an opportunity to deceive and screech.
            Just a "no you" reply like the manchild you are, content: 0
            >It is a terrible desire predicated on your psychotic urge to mock, demean, deride and defame.
            Literally 2/3 of your post, the rest is repeating ad nauseam 'proof? proof?' - not even 'source?' because actually thinking 2 seconds before choosing what word to use is to bothersome for your lazy ass. I've already seen your posts in other threads, obnoxiously spamming 'proof?' to anything like a 3 year old child that has just learnt the word 'why?'
            >No, he did not believe antipodes exist.
            That's not what I said, for frick's sake you lack any reading comprehension, you indoctrinated moron, you DO understand that I said 'WOULD exist', I have the impression I'm dealing with some evangelical drone from the US, or a JW, so I assume English is your first language, you sure seem to have an extremely low verbal intelligence if that's really the case. English is not mine yet I can understand it much better than you
            >Aristotelian physics does not include a flat earth
            Another lack of reading comprehension, I said 'Aristotelean physics AND not in a round world (Underlied in capslock just in case but you were still dumb enough to mis it)
            > He is describing the reasoning of his opponents, not his own.
            The ones who belive in a round Earth and in antipodes, both of which exist.
            >if you had even the modicum of good faith or common sense
            Too bad anyone who's ever commented Lactantius' rant about the antipodes understood it as him saying the world wasn't round. Everybody but your stupid ass, but of course everyone is lacking common sense except you, the guy who didn't even have the reading comprehension to understand a few short posts, no wonder you can't understand the aforementioned paragraphs

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            *miss

            [...]
            It's interesting that you would choose to double down after being exposed, as if to multiply your embarrassment, presumably because you cannot contain yourself in the face of an opportunity to deceive and screech.
            >He explicitly says that it can not be round
            Do they no longer teach what the word "explicit" means to high school students? You have an argument for him saying earth is flat. It is a terrible desire predicated on your psychotic urge to mock, demean, deride and defame. However, even if your argument held water it would still not be "explicit". Explicit would be if he said the very words "earth is not round, earth is flat".
            >because then the antipodes would exist
            No, he did not believe antipodes exist.
            >If you can't read such a basic text
            It's really embarrassing to make these kinds of accusations when anyone with eyes can see it actually applies to you.
            >Non sequitur.
            If you think it is, then I wouldn't be surprised if you don't understand gravity either. What does "down" mean?
            >Lactantius actually beliebed in Arisotelean physics
            Aristotelian physics does not include a flat earth
            >Understanding irony is beyond the peanut brain of an autistic JW tier NPC like you, not surprising, just another example of a tard who can't read a text longer than one line.
            No argument?
            >So he's calling the rotundity of the Earth and the antipodes (so basically Australians and the likes) "marvelous fictions"
            No, he considers the marvelous fiction to be their conclusions, not the idea of a round earth. He is describing the reasoning of his opponents, not his own. You may have noticed him say "What course of argument, therefore, led them to the idea of the antipodes" if you had even the modicum of good faith or common sense to read from beginning to end, instead of just defecating in your hand and throwing it at any human who happened by.

            I'll try to spell out Lactantius' dumb argument for anyone who cares, not for the Christard evengelist who's shown to be too stupid and/or too dishonest to try and actually understand what Lactantius said

            >How is it with those who imagine that there are antipodes opposite to our footsteps? Do they say anything to the purpose? Or is there any one so senseless as to believe that there are men whose footsteps are higher than their heads? Or that the things which with us are in a recumbent position, with them hang in an inverted direction? That the crops and trees grow downwards? That the rains, and snow, and hail fall upwards to the earth? And does any one wonder that hanging gardens are mentioned among the seven wonders of the world, when philosophers make hanging fields, and seas, and cities, and mountains? The origin of this error ...

            1) The idea that the rains and snow can also take place in the Southern Emisphere is absurd to Lactantius, as well as that of people walking "upside down"

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The origin of this error must also be set forth by us. For they are always deceived in the same manner. For when they have assumed anything false in the commencement of their investigations, led by the resemblance of the truth, they necessarily fall into those things which are its consequences. Thus they fall into many ridiculous things; because those things which are in agreement with false things, must themselves be false. But since they placed confidence in the first, they do not consider the character of those things which follow, but defend them in every way; whereas they ought to judge from those which follow, whether the first are true or false.

            2) This passage is basically saying: the guys who believe these things (rains, snows, and people in the Southern Empishere) are completely wrong. Of course, Lactantius was proven to be the one who was completely wrong on this matter, but wait, it gets even better than this.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What course of argument, therefore, led them to the idea of the antipodes? They saw the courses of the stars travelling towards the west; they saw that the sun and the moon always set towards the same quarter, and rise from the same. But since they did not perceive what contrivance regulated their courses, nor how they returned from the west to the east, but supposed that the heaven itself sloped downwards in every direction, which appearance it must present on account of its immense breadth, THEY THOUGHT THAT THE WORLD IS ROUND LIKE A BALL, and they fancied that the heaven revolves in accordance with the motion of the heavenly bodies; and thus that the stars and sun, when they have set, by the very rapidity of the motion of the world are borne back to the east.

            3) These guys who are 'completley wrong and saying ridiculous things' think the world is round like a ball, and that the sky around isn't just above us but it expands in every direction around the planet.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >. Therefore they both constructed brazen orbs, as though after the figure of the world, and engraved upon them certain monstrous images, which they said were constellations. It followed, therefore, from this rotundity of the heaven, that the earth was enclosed in the midst of its curved surface. But if this were so, the earth also itself must be like a globe; for that could not possibly be anything but round, which was held enclosed by that which was round.
            4) Since they thought that the sky encompasses the planet completely like a globe, then they have concluded that the planet is also a globe!

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >But if the earth also were round, it must necessarily happen that it should present the same appearance to all parts of the heaven; that is, that it should raise aloft mountains, extend plains, and have level seas. And if this were so, that last consequence also followed, that there would be no part of the earth uninhabited by men and the other animals. Thus the rotundity of the earth leads, in addition, to the invention of those
            suspended antipodes.

            5) But if the Earth is round, then, according to Lactantius, the antipodes (lands which mirror our own, with snows, people, lakes, mountains etc.) must NECESSARY exist! But Lactantius sad in passage 1 and 2 that the antipodes are RIDICULOUS and that they are IMPOSSIBLE, therefore they can't exist, hence if the existence of the antipodes is a NECESSARY condition for a round Earth to exist (according to Lactantius), then, again, according to Lactantius, a round Earth CANNOT exist.

            There you have it. Already clearly stated in the first paragraph I posted, despite our "beloved" Redeemed Zoomer saying

            >And it's pretty explicit about the flatness of the Earth
            Actually, I still couldn't find him criticizing the globe, just the idea of antipodes. I imagine you are conflating this with a spherical earth because in your ignorance you are not aware ancients did not understand gravity even though they knew the earth was round, so they generally believed all land was on the "top" of the earth. I did however find him calling the earth "this globe of ours" a little before that. I imagine you also did not notice that, since you did not actually read any of this, and it was not included in the work of whatever atheist much smarter than yourself you got this from, while also not thinking to look it up yourself to check.
            >since you're as dumb as a fricking brick
            Are ALL atheists arrogant AND stupid? Yes. You are an immature ill-behaved child and an incorrigible villain, you are incapable of controlling your antisocial urges or to stop lying. Aristotle was right that "Atheists are criminals to be punished rather than interlocutors to be debated", look how society has declined since the mistake was made to tolerate your species of beast.

            that Lactantius didn't actually said that. But as I've just demonstrated. He CLEARLY said that. Of course, you have to read the paragraph with some care and have basic reading comprehension, things that our indoctrinated friend clearly lacks.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            6) Before the Chrsitard tries a gotcha: The antipodes technically are just the guys walking "upside down", but Lactantius said that BOTH those and the lands and natural events mirroring our own are IMPOSSIBLE and that BOTH of those (the antipodes and the other mirrored stuff) would be NECESSARY if a round Earth existed, which therefore necessarily can't exist according to Lactantius. So my point 5) still follows perfectly, I just wanted to clearify that the antipodes are just the upside down humans, not that it changes anything substantial in his argument or in my comment.

            >pretty much all ancient authors who spoke about this matter after Eratosthenes agreed upon
            Pythagoras (570-495BC) was saying that the Earth was round some 300ish years before Eratosthenes, which as far as I'm aware is the earliest that the idea can meaningfully be dated to.

            True, but Eratosthenes was the first one (that we know of) to have proven it with a really clever proto-experiment.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Redeemed Zoomer is a pseudo-catholic e-trad. You shouldn't take always online theologians seriously on anything.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Of course, Lactantius was proven to be the one who was completely wrong on this matter
            As were they. I hope you aren't stupid enough to think the fact they happened to be right means they weren't wrong, since their lucky guess was based on a completely incorrect understanding of physics, which is why everything else in their model proved to be wrong

            >But if the earth also were round, it must necessarily happen that it should present the same appearance to all parts of the heaven; that is, that it should raise aloft mountains, extend plains, and have level seas. And if this were so, that last consequence also followed, that there would be no part of the earth uninhabited by men and the other animals. Thus the rotundity of the earth leads, in addition, to the invention of those
            suspended antipodes.

            5) But if the Earth is round, then, according to Lactantius, the antipodes (lands which mirror our own, with snows, people, lakes, mountains etc.) must NECESSARY exist! But Lactantius sad in passage 1 and 2 that the antipodes are RIDICULOUS and that they are IMPOSSIBLE, therefore they can't exist, hence if the existence of the antipodes is a NECESSARY condition for a round Earth to exist (according to Lactantius), then, again, according to Lactantius, a round Earth CANNOT exist.

            There you have it. Already clearly stated in the first paragraph I posted, despite our "beloved" Redeemed Zoomer saying [...]
            that Lactantius didn't actually said that. But as I've just demonstrated. He CLEARLY said that. Of course, you have to read the paragraph with some care and have basic reading comprehension, things that our indoctrinated friend clearly lacks.

            >if the Earth is round, then, according to Lactantius, the antipodes (lands which mirror our own, with snows, people, lakes, mountains etc.) must NECESSARY exist!
            No, again, this is explicitly his opponents' reasoning, not his own. You may be a creature unrestrained by morals, but you're an idiot for lying about this right after I pointed it out. It's an example of them being just as wrong, since the idea of antipodes does not actually follow merely from the idea of a globe. As they had no conception of gravity, many people believed all the land and water on the earth was located on the "top" of the sphere, since any on the "sides" would "fall off". That is why he asks why objects on the antipodes (the other side of the world) wouldn't simply fall into the "lower heaven".
            >hence if the existence of the antipodes is a NECESSARY condition for a round Earth to exist (according to Lactantius), then, again, according to Lactantius, a round Earth CANNOT exist.
            Now quote the part where he actually said that. Oh wait
            >you have to read the paragraph with some care
            I'd be surprised if you read it at all. Makes one wonder why it would need to be read with care, since it would be more remarkable for Lactantius to be unaware that literally everyone else in the world believed it was round than for him to think it was flat. Really makes you think

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Just a "no you" reply like the manchild you are, content: 0
            Actually that was just the very beginning of my post, and as everyone can see you have done your utmost to make it very meaningful. What's actually 0 content is your explanation of the fact Lactantius casually explicitly described the earth as a globe.
            >Literally 2/3 of your post
            Projection is a common feature of immoral antisocial behavior. Except this is 3/3 of your posts.
            >the rest is repeating ad nauseam 'proof? proof?' - not even 'source?' because actually thinking 2 seconds before choosing what word to use is to bothersome for your lazy ass
            If this is the best excuse you can come up with to hurl abuse at me I must be doing something right.
            >I've already seen your posts in other threads, obnoxiously spamming 'proof?' to anything like a 3 year old child that has just learnt the word 'why?'
            Imagine being such a self-obsessed newbie you interpret everyone saying "proof" on an imageboard as one omnipresent meanie that's out to get you. Are you on antipsychotics?
            >That's not what I said, for frick's sake you lack any reading comprehension, you indoctrinated moron, you DO understand that I said 'WOULD exist'
            And I take it you lack the theory of mind to realize I wasn't accepting your premise?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Another lack of reading comprehension, I said 'Aristotelean physics AND not in a round world
            Yes, however I didn't have the lack the intelligence to think that's even a meaningful statement. I realize you are completely historically illiterate, but saying "He believed in Aristotelian physics and a flat earth" is like saying "I believe in Einsteinian physics and a flat earth". Maybe if you had more self-control and less psychotic rage you could have done so much as googled Aristotelian physics instead of rushing to spew more idiocy.
            >The ones who belive in a round Earth and in antipodes, both of which exist.
            Well, someone's a regular genius.
            >Too bad anyone who's ever commented Lactantius' rant about the antipodes understood it as him saying the world wasn't round.
            I had no idea there was such an extensive history of writing commentaries on Lactantius, let alone that you were personally familiar with it. Even if that was the case this appeal to popularity would no more be an argument than it is right now when your entire familiarity with this is coming from the much smarter unbeliever you're attempting to plagiarize.

            *miss

            [...]
            I'll try to spell out Lactantius' dumb argument for anyone who cares, not for the Christard evengelist who's shown to be too stupid and/or too dishonest to try and actually understand what Lactantius said

            >How is it with those who imagine that there are antipodes opposite to our footsteps? Do they say anything to the purpose? Or is there any one so senseless as to believe that there are men whose footsteps are higher than their heads? Or that the things which with us are in a recumbent position, with them hang in an inverted direction? That the crops and trees grow downwards? That the rains, and snow, and hail fall upwards to the earth? And does any one wonder that hanging gardens are mentioned among the seven wonders of the world, when philosophers make hanging fields, and seas, and cities, and mountains? The origin of this error ...

            1) The idea that the rains and snow can also take place in the Southern Emisphere is absurd to Lactantius, as well as that of people walking "upside down"

            >The idea that the rains and snow can also take place in the Southern Emisphere is absurd to Lactantius, as well as that of people walking "upside down"
            Yes it is. That's because Lactantius like everyone else in the world at his time doesn't know what gravity is. I don't think you do either, since you won't tell me what "down" means because you're scared of embarrassing yourself. What does "down" mean?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "But if the earth also were round, it must necessarily happen that it should present the same appearance to all parts of the heaven; that is, that it should raise aloft mountains, extend plains, and have level seas. And if this were so, that last consequence also followed, that there would be no part of the earth uninhabited by men and the other animals. Thus the rotundity of the earth leads, in addition, to the invention of those suspended antipodes.

            But if you inquire from those who defend these marvellous fictions"

            So he's calling the rotundity of the Earth and the antipodes (so basically Australians and the likes) "marvelous fictions", just to spell it out to you, saying that the Earth CAN'T be round (so your based trad churchfatherino was againt what pretty much all ancient authors who spoke about this matter after Eratosthenes agreed upon), because well, people would fall down! People can't walk upside down!.

            Hence he was completely wrong, hence you're a moron, a Christurd NPC defending his epic churchfather daddy, and now you've even lost your fake nauseating cloying quasi-Mormonesque attitude as you've been exposed as a moron, you can only spew your bitter rants against atheists who are all evil and arrogant because they don't take what your beloved pastor or apologist youtuber spews seriously.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There wasn't enough childish whining in the original version? You subjected us to enough idiocy

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >pretty much all ancient authors who spoke about this matter after Eratosthenes agreed upon
            Pythagoras (570-495BC) was saying that the Earth was round some 300ish years before Eratosthenes, which as far as I'm aware is the earliest that the idea can meaningfully be dated to.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Continues:

            But if you inquire from those who defend these marvellous fictions, why all things do not fall into that lower part of the heaven, they reply that such is the nature of things, that heavy bodies are borne to the middle, and that they are all joined together towards the middle, as we see spokes in a wheel; but that the bodies which are light, as mist, smoke, and fire, are borne away from the middle, so as to seek the heaven. I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain thing by another; but that I sometimes imagine that they either discuss philosophy for the sake of a jest, or purposely and knowingly undertake to defend falsehoods, as if to exercise or display their talents on false subjects. But I should be able to prove by many arguments that it is impossible for the heaven to be lower than the earth, were it not that this book must now be concluded, and that some things still remain, which are more necessary for the present work. And since it is not the work of a single book to run over the errors of each individually, let it be sufficient to have enumerated a few, from which the nature of the others may be understood.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Atheists are criminals to be punished rather than interlocutors to be debated
    Zamn, this was an interesting thread, thanks effortanon!
    Great to see homosexual OP blow another gasket into the stratosphere

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >this thread

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why were christian theologians incapable of communicating the allegorical/metaphorical nature of the OT to subsequent followers?

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Lol, basically you couldn't even reply and shat out a wall text of half baked ad hominem, saying I "care too much", then proceeding to sht out 10 lines of ad hominem and FOUR incoherent consecutive replies

    >Just a "no you" reply like the manchild you are, content: 0
    Actually that was just the very beginning of my post, and as everyone can see you have done your utmost to make it very meaningful. What's actually 0 content is your explanation of the fact Lactantius casually explicitly described the earth as a globe.
    >Literally 2/3 of your post
    Projection is a common feature of immoral antisocial behavior. Except this is 3/3 of your posts.
    >the rest is repeating ad nauseam 'proof? proof?' - not even 'source?' because actually thinking 2 seconds before choosing what word to use is to bothersome for your lazy ass
    If this is the best excuse you can come up with to hurl abuse at me I must be doing something right.
    >I've already seen your posts in other threads, obnoxiously spamming 'proof?' to anything like a 3 year old child that has just learnt the word 'why?'
    Imagine being such a self-obsessed newbie you interpret everyone saying "proof" on an imageboard as one omnipresent meanie that's out to get you. Are you on antipsychotics?
    >That's not what I said, for frick's sake you lack any reading comprehension, you indoctrinated moron, you DO understand that I said 'WOULD exist'
    And I take it you lack the theory of mind to realize I wasn't accepting your premise?

    >Another lack of reading comprehension, I said 'Aristotelean physics AND not in a round world
    Yes, however I didn't have the lack the intelligence to think that's even a meaningful statement. I realize you are completely historically illiterate, but saying "He believed in Aristotelian physics and a flat earth" is like saying "I believe in Einsteinian physics and a flat earth". Maybe if you had more self-control and less psychotic rage you could have done so much as googled Aristotelian physics instead of rushing to spew more idiocy.
    >The ones who belive in a round Earth and in antipodes, both of which exist.
    Well, someone's a regular genius.
    >Too bad anyone who's ever commented Lactantius' rant about the antipodes understood it as him saying the world wasn't round.
    I had no idea there was such an extensive history of writing commentaries on Lactantius, let alone that you were personally familiar with it. Even if that was the case this appeal to popularity would no more be an argument than it is right now when your entire familiarity with this is coming from the much smarter unbeliever you're attempting to plagiarize.
    [...]
    >The idea that the rains and snow can also take place in the Southern Emisphere is absurd to Lactantius, as well as that of people walking "upside down"
    Yes it is. That's because Lactantius like everyone else in the world at his time doesn't know what gravity is. I don't think you do either, since you won't tell me what "down" means because you're scared of embarrassing yourself. What does "down" mean?

    >Another lack of reading comprehension, I said 'Aristotelean physics AND not in a round world
    Yes, however I didn't have the lack the intelligence to think that's even a meaningful statement. I realize you are completely historically illiterate, but saying "He believed in Aristotelian physics and a flat earth" is like saying "I believe in Einsteinian physics and a flat earth". Maybe if you had more self-control and less psychotic rage you could have done so much as googled Aristotelian physics instead of rushing to spew more idiocy.
    >The ones who belive in a round Earth and in antipodes, both of which exist.
    Well, someone's a regular genius.
    >Too bad anyone who's ever commented Lactantius' rant about the antipodes understood it as him saying the world wasn't round.
    I had no idea there was such an extensive history of writing commentaries on Lactantius, let alone that you were personally familiar with it. Even if that was the case this appeal to popularity would no more be an argument than it is right now when your entire familiarity with this is coming from the much smarter unbeliever you're attempting to plagiarize.
    [...]
    >The idea that the rains and snow can also take place in the Southern Emisphere is absurd to Lactantius, as well as that of people walking "upside down"
    Yes it is. That's because Lactantius like everyone else in the world at his time doesn't know what gravity is. I don't think you do either, since you won't tell me what "down" means because you're scared of embarrassing yourself. What does "down" mean?

    >Yes it is. That's because Lactantius like everyone else in the world
    Not everyone subscribed to Aristotelean physics. They didn't know what gravity means, that didn't all lead them to wrongly belived the bullshit argument that Lactantius belived in
    > Even if that was the case this appeal to popularity
    So 'common sense' makes sense only when it suits you. Typical dishonest tard reply I expected from you
    >"I believe in Einsteinian physics and a flat earth"
    Yes, one can say that. Learn what 'and' means, read to learn a simple text. Saying 'AND' doesn't mean that the two things must always go together, that's why I specified AND, tard.
    >No, again, this is explicitly his opponents' reasoning, not his own
    It isn't. It's his own. His opponents' reading is that antipodes exist. Lactantius' thinking is that they don't as he explicitly says in passage 1), 2). As I predicted spelling it out wouldn't have worked with a dishonest moron like you who can only smell his own rotten farts instead of trying to actually honestly read a text. You couldn't follow a simple paragraph and you never will. I already won long ago, everyone who can read, even the lazy ones now, can see it by reading my comments on Lactantius. You spewing your putrid bile and projecting your insecurities on me is irrelevant.

    https://i.imgur.com/4SRg4N3.jpeg

    >this thread

    In your headcanon, moron. You lost and sperged out bad. Embarassing. I just have a life and couldn't reply to you during the middle of the night (4 AM where I live) or during work.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I have a life
      >therefore I post on 4chinks at 4am
      most coherent atheist demon

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I have a life
        >therefore I post on 4chinks at 4am
        >most coherent atheist demon
        Again, you can't read. I said that you posted while it was 4 AM where I live.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Decide to read him thinking he could give me some interesting things to consider when it comes to Christian thought
    >It was good that Roman women were raped by Germans when Rome was sacked since now they won't be proud of their chastity
    >If you had to be tortured to hand over your wealth to Germans than you aren't a true Christian since you wouldn't care that much about worldly possessions
    >Lucretia was an immoral woman because she killed herself and every hero of ancient Rome was le bad

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the eternal christcuck lmao
      they didn't stop cucking to krauts ever since

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yep. A huge chunk of that gigantic turd of a book is him saying bad thing happened because the Romans sinned, good thing happened because they behaved well, rinse and repeat this absurd cherrypicking * 1 million times. Ignoring that a lot of times things went for well them while they were doing plenty of heinous acts and viceversa. It's mind blowing that anyone considers this guy insightful. But after all these clowns becamed reveered because of Christard circlejerking.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *