I said, "Bacon or Copericus didn't." As in didn't get burned. You moved on quickly from Copericus to Galileo, who also didn't get burned and isn't from the Dark Ages by any definition. You completely ignored Bacon. You seem to be reading off a script and not arguing at all.
I moved from the dead Copernicus to fate of Galileo because you demanded “proof”. It was a way to demonstrate the reasonable assumption that Copernicus would have been treated the similarly had he lived. Neither was Dark Ages so I don’t know why you mention that.
Did you not read the post I replied to? You are ignoring context in which "burned" is important, and time period is important. My points re Galileo show it is NOT reasonable to think Copericus would have been treated the same since latter did not assert his views were fact or slag off the pope!
Your last point also screams cult member if retaliatory persecution is to be expected from insulting the cult leader. Christianity has been a cult for a long time but undeniably since the end of WW1. If you don’t know why that is, just ask.
You must be very naive if you think retaliatory persecution is NOT to be expected from insulting a cult leader. Even today. Realism is not approval.
“Cult” was my only point here.
So I see. You cannot argue for your points, so you use an baseless ad hom instead.
Not an hominem because the Catholic Church is not a person. Not an ad hominem on you since you have not identified as a Catholic. If you take my criticism personally that is your problem.
You called me a cult member. That is an ad hominem. I am taking nothing personally. You seem to be, though. bsky.app/profile/m5mu...
I said your response “screams cult member”. Sounding like a cult member is an observation, not an accusation. If I had said you don’t know what you’re talking about because you are a cult member, this would be ad hominem. In truth I have no idea why it is you don’t know what you’re talking about.
You have made an observation that I am taking things personally. To which of my posts are you referring?
An ad hom is generally an observation. Your observation was completely pointless unless it was an ad hom.
Of course I read the thread from the beginning but I never posted an opinion on it. You made a wild assumption that I did. Even my explicitly pointing out your mistake didn’t break through. But not surprising from one foolish enough to drag Copernicus into a discussion of science in the Dark Ages.
Nicolaus Copernicus was born in the long Dark Ages, unlike Galileo. Odd you wait so long to berate me for this wild yet true assumption and my use of Galileo.
Of course, because Copernicus is known as a famous Dark Ages polymath rather than a renaissance man.
Very well, Copernicus was not the best example I could have chosen. See how easy that was?
It was in no way easy.