The opinions of someone nobody has every heard of before are not facts.
The simple truth of the matter is that there was no real "science" until the likes of Sir Francis Bacon, Decartes and Galileo came along much later and set the stage for the scientific method. Even then, it was considered to be "natural philosophy" where all sorts of utter nonsense was believed, including alchemy. Modern science didn't even come into being until even far later in the 19th Century.
Now knowledge is an entirely different matter. During the dark ages, the only advancements in knowledge in Western civilization really all came thanks to the Roman Catholic Church. But they also greatly constrained it through religious dogma which didn't allow anything they considered to be heretical to even be studied because they had complete and total control of institutes of higher learning.
This is where Galileo later ran afoul.
What you now need to do is to start thinking critically so you can discern which websites promulgate utter nonsense and those which do not. Which contain a great deal of facts to support these opinions and those which engage in sheer speculation instead.
Pray that prayer has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Here is my own selection for the most misunderstood historical event:
Hirohito recorded on August 14 his capitulation announcement which was broadcast to the Japanese nation the next day despite a short rebellion by militarists opposed to the surrender.[217]
In his declaration, Hirohito referred to the atomic bombings:
Moreover, the enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.
Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers.[218]
In his "Rescript to the Soldiers and Sailors" delivered on August 17, he stressed the impact of the Soviet invasion on his decision to surrender, omitting any mention of the bombs.[219] Hirohito met with General MacArthur on September 27, saying to him that "[t]he peace party did not prevail until the bombing of Hiroshima created a situation which could be dramatized." Furthermore, the "Rescript to the Soldiers and Sailors" speech he told MacArthur about was just personal, not political, and never stated that the Soviet intervention in Manchuria was the main reason for surrender. In fact, a day after the bombing of Nagasaki and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, Hirohito ordered his advisers, primarily Chief Cabinet Secretary Hisatsune Sakomizu, Kawada Mizuho, and Masahiro Yasuoka, to write up a surrender speech. In Hirohito's speech, days before announcing it on radio on August 15, he gave three major reasons for surrender: Tokyo's defenses would not be complete before the American invasion of Japan, Ise Shrine would be lost to the Americans, and atomic weapons deployed by the Americans would lead to the death of the entire Japanese race. Despite the Soviet intervention, Hirohito did not mention the Soviets as the main factor for surrender.
Tim O'Neill is obviously a blowhard who has no actual credentials. But go right ahead and continue to pretend that he is some acknowledged expert when he clearly is not.Malarkey. Are you going to discount someone because you haven't heard of them, you probable would but it's bad practice.
The question is did you read it? Apparently not as you continue to trot out these personal opinion pieces as being "facts" you found on the internet.O'Neil's review, did you bother reading it? What does he say, do you even know what the anti O'Neil piece sez? Or did you link it because it was anti-O'Neil.
Perhaps you should use it to look up "irony" and "hypocrisy".You definitely need the internet, use it for critical research, not just research to back your views.![]()
You know this with absolute certainty because you went back in time and asked him? Or because whoever wrote that particular wiki entry has bought into the myth themselves and is merely quoting and paraphrasing his official statement made at the time?The Emperor Hirohito would disagree with you.
Tim O'Neill is obviously a blowhard who has no actual credentials. But go right ahead and continue to pretend that he is some acknowledged expert when he clearly is not.
The question is did you read it? Apparently not as you continue to trot out these personal opinion pieces as being "facts" you found on the internet.
Perhaps you should use it to look up "irony" and "hypocrisy".
These aren't facts. They are personal opinions of someone with no actual credentials who is just writing an internet blog and posting it on some web server.The internet is a wonder, why? Because when I was young (40's-50's) there wasn't a way to check whether things you heard were factual or not.
Again, this is what you actually stated:
These aren't facts. They are personal opinions of someone with no actual credentials who is just writing an internet blog and posting it on some web server.
The Islamic revolution of 1979.
I've been curious about this.
Persepolis is one of my favorite movies/graphic novels/stories, and it paints a picture of a revolution by secular people that later got hijacked by muslim extremists. Though I saw a documentary saying a lot of the protesters supported Khomeini during the protests. I have a tendency to think that Marjane Satrapi's view maybe off since her family seemed to be communist sympathizers, which would make her assume her family's views were what the country went with, but I honestly could be way off on that.
I've been meaning to look more into this, maybe I will tomorrow.
It is more complicated than that. The Tudeh and the secular pro-west 'middle class' (I'm completely blanking on their political party name) also claimed to be in favor of democracy but had vastly different ideas on what 'democracy' mean when compared to the supporters of the Ayatollah and the Islamic revolutionaries.They merely wanted a return to a democratic form of government along with stopping Western companies from stealing their natural resources.
It's like I've said before, Carter was probably the more moral person we've had a president.Instead, Carter gave the silly impression he respected human rights more than maintaining a puppet dictatorship.
Failing to mention there was a distinct secular element that even came first is rather inaccurate.Setting up the Iranian Revolution of '79 as "Democracy vs. The Shah" is rather inaccurate.
Tim O'Neill is obviously a blowhard who has no actual credentials. But go right ahead and continue to pretend that he is some acknowledged expert when he clearly is not.
I can't speak for the person who posted links to my articles, but I didn't get the impression he was presenting them as being by "an acknowledged expert". He also gave a summary of my credentials, for those who may have been interested, but seemed to be presenting my articles because he considered them good summaries of scholarship on the relevant questions. Note, for example, that the first article had a bibliography of suggested reading on the subject of Galileo and the myths associated with his case, which is a who's who of leading scholars on that subject and the history of early science generally:
Ronald L. Numbers (ed.) Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion (Harvard University Press: 2010)
Richard J. Blackwell, "Galileo Galilei" in Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction Gary B. Ferngren (ed.) (John Hopkins Press: 2002)
David C. Lindberg, "Galileo, the Church and the Cosmos" in When Science and Christianity Meet, D.C. Lindberg and R.L. Numbers (eds.) (University of Chicago Press: 2003)
William R. Shea & Mariano Artigas, Galileo in Rome: The Rise and Fall of a Troublesome Genius, (Oxford University Press: 2003)
Giorgio de Santillana, The Crime of Galileo (University of Chicago Press: 1955)
Maurice A. Finocchiaro (ed.) The Essential Galileo, (Hackett Publishing: 2008)
Richard J. Olson, Science and Religion, 1450-1900: From Copernicus to Darwin, (John Hopkins Press: 2006)
James Hannam, The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution (Regenery Publishing: 2011)
Given that what I had to say is fully supported by these leading scholars, your rather weak attempts at sneering at me while skipping around the actual arguments I make looks pretty pathetic. Unless, of course, you think Numbers, Lindberg and Finocchiaro are also "blowhards" who "hardly anybody has ever heard of".
Then we get your claim that I create "a bunch of nonsensical strawmen" - a claim you back up with precisely nothing. You move on to some weird statement that I argued that "Galileo was not persecuted for standing up against rabid Catholic dogma at the time", when I did not such thing. Finally we get your revelation that Galileo "invented" the telescope, which would have been news to the Dutch guys who actually did so. Or news to anyone ... with a grasp of the history of astronomy.
Your sneering over my critical review of the incompetent Jesus Myther is even more amusing, given that there I also have pretty much every scholar on the planet on my side. The Jesus Myth thesis is upheld by a smattering of fringe contrarians and nobodies who can be counted on the fingers of two hands. And, just to top off your effort, after having chided the other guy for linking to a "person hardly anybody has ever heard of", you turn around and do ... exactly that. This time citing the aforementioned incompetent Jesus Myther and his flaccid defence of his terrible little self-published book. Though your Googling didn't get you as far as my detailed demolition of his reply (after which he fell completely silent).
So your replies have been big on weak scorn and general incompetence but light on ... anything remotely resembling substance. Feel free to try to remedy that now if you like. Let's see who is the "blowhard" here. This should be fun ...
Oh look. It is the person who concocted some "myths" hardly anybody actually believes, and then shot them down knowing full well they were already full of holes.So your replies have been big on weak scorn and general incompetence but light on ... anything remotely resembling substance. Feel free to try to remedy that now if you like. Let's see who is the "blowhard" here. This should be fun ...