The single most horrible LIE from Agora - Agora (2009) Discussion

[–] Helenus 14 years ago

There are actually a few different theories about the destruction of the library, my racist Teapublican friend. Only one of them involves Muslims.
You really should stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and his cronies; it's making you stupid.

"Thtupid thebra."

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Bilwick1 14 years ago

"my racist Teapublican friend . . . "

Yes, prejudice is an ugly thing.

reply

[–] tcob44 13 years ago

Yes different theories (actually just 4) but the least of them happened to be what was depicted in this movie... The library was ultimately destroyed by Muslims although in the past this includes two incidents of Roman occupation that is said to have destroyed it as well, and during Theodosius decree and Christian iconoclasm against paganism but it was finally destroyed during the Islamic conquest of Egypt by the Rashidun Caliphate.

nyghtflyer-

Are you aware that there were at least two different libraries in Alexandria? The primary ones being the Great Library, destroyed by Julius Caesar, and the daughter library housed in the Sarapeum, destroyed by Christian fanatics (as depicted in the film.)

And BTW- Most scholars believe the destruction of the daughter library in the Sarapeum occurred pretty much as it was depicted in the film.

reply

[–] Flame_of_Udun_49 12 years ago

Helenus is right. Manco82 is a "racist Tearepublican."

Question to libtards.
by manco82 » Tue Apr 3 2012 14:25
IMDb member since May 2005

Why is it ok to make fun of fatty Rush Limbaugh but not super-obese Michael Moore?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386032/board/nest/197147959?d=197147959

And it is typical of a Tearepublican talking point to blame Islam for something Christians did earlier.

Memory says, I did that. Pride replies, I could not have done that. Eventually, memory yields.

reply

[–] ms_feralcat 13 years ago

I just love it when Democrats show their true ignorance. Yes, tea party but keep in mind... nobody went to jail at the tea party. Nobody was assaulted or raped at the tea party. Think about that when you try to "insult" republicans with your "teapublican" statement. Tea party versus the occupy protests... I'll get insulted with "teapublican" anyday. That just proves what vile and barbaric creatures the majority of democraps are.

If you interrupt me again, I'll strangle you.

reply

[–] sepsis13 13 years ago

I think it's pretty funny that you're taking your name from one of the most subversive acts in American history, in protest of a tax cut (for the East India Tea company) no less. And to hold anti-tax rallies in public parks (paid for with...you guessed it...tax dollars) is just icing on the cake.

reply

[–] tcob44 13 years ago

There are actually a few different theories about the destruction of the library, my racist Teapublican friend... You really should stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and his cronies; it's making you stupid.

Ya know, Glenn Beck isn't a very good source of historical information.

I just love it when Democrats show their true ignorance. Yes, tea party but keep in mind... nobody went to jail at the tea party. Nobody was assaulted or raped at the tea party. Think about that when you try to "insult" republicans with your "teapublican" statement. Tea party versus the occupy protests... I'll get insulted with "teapublican" anyday. That just proves what vile and barbaric creatures the majority of democraps are.

Democrats/Republicans,

You have been fooled. Hoodwinked. Bamboozled...

There is no real difference between the parties anymore, their ideologies have been eclipsed by corporate interests. Both of your parties are OWNED by corporations. Likewise, the media is quite literally OWNED BY THE SAME CORPORATIONS. Wake up. Please. Then turn off your TV. And then vote third party. Cheers.

PS- And watch the documentary 'The Corporation'. At the very least.

reply

[–] Standuble 13 years ago

If I may ask tcob, is there any evidence that the Islamic Golden Age (an idea some people even dispute the existence of) started in Alexandria? Most of the Middle East at the beginning of the Islamic expansion was Hellenic with a highly advanced Persian neighbour. Could the knowledge not of came from elsewhere?

reply

[–] tcob44 13 years ago

If I may ask tcob, is there any evidence that the Islamic Golden Age (an idea some people even dispute the existence of) started in Alexandria?

In my research on the subject, the small percentage of Hellenic texts which managed to survive the destruction of the libraries of Alexandria either made their way to Constantinople or the deserts of Arabia. When the texts from Constantinople got to Europe, the Renaissance was born. Likewise, when the Arabian texts gradually wound their way to Spain, the Andalusian Renaissance began. Of course, I'm sure you are also right to say that there was some knowledge derived from Persia and India as well.

And for the record, very few scholars dispute the existence of the Islamic Golden Age. (Probably about as many who dispute the Renaissance, I imagine...)

reply

[–] Standuble 13 years ago

I see thanks. From what I understand its a dispute more in the context of whether it was an Islamic Golden Age or merely a Golden Age which happened to be in an Islamic world. I can imagine (if the dispute is correct) it woud like a corporate takeover of another company, though the corporation decide to leave the former employees to continue doing their jobs more or less like they did before to a certain acceptable degree. I can also envision the states (rather than encouraging scientific discovery) just essentially gave a great big "meh" to what people were doing in certain areas, and let people work on some foreign ideas with some autonomy.

However I wouldn't think the states were neither particularly liberal nor progressive, the situation probably wasn't a whole lot different from the majority of Islamic states of today. Didn't Omar Khayyam at one point write about his gripes of how authoritarian and fanatical his nation was? His period would have fallen in the Golden Age.

reply

[–] tcob44 13 years ago

From what I understand its a dispute more in the context of whether it was an Islamic Golden Age or merely a Golden Age which happened to be in an Islamic world.

Ahh. Thanks for clarifying, I thought you meant something different.

Didn't Omar Khayyam at one point write about his gripes of how authoritarian and fanatical his nation was?

Yes, you are right. Likewise, the Inquisition coincided with the height of the Renaissance. It seems the pendulum always swings both ways at the same time.

reply

[–] skat1140 13 years ago

Uh, not to hijack this thread, but I cannot stand by when Teaparty/Greenparty/Anarchist/Occupy/Nader forces say things like:

Democrats/Republicans,
You have been fooled. Hoodwinked. Bamboozled...
There is no real difference between the parties anymore, their ideologies have been eclipsed by corporate interests. Both of your parties are OWNED by corporations. Likewise, the media is quite literally OWNED BY THE SAME CORPORATIONS. Wake up. Please. Then turn off your TV. And then vote third party.

We only have to look back 10 years ago and see the differences. If Al Gore had won the Presidential election in 2000:

Would he have been so malleable that he allows the person in charge of vetting his VP choices to select himself as VP?

Would he have rushed, at great cost, to invade Iraq, a country that had no link to Al-Qaeda? Would he have essentially forged evidence to provide a justification? Would he have sent his Secretary of State to lie to the UN general assembly? Would he have outed a CIA operative who aided a narrative against invasion? Would he have waged that war without showing its true cost in the budget? Would he have waged that war without sending enough troops or armaments to win the peace in addition to winning the war? Would he have essentially ignored Afghanistan (after the initial toppling of the Taliban) and Pakistan-- the two actual possible locations for Bin Laden?

Would he have massively overreacted and pushed through the Patriot Act and, finding that insufficient, then allowed illegal mass wiretaps circumventing the FISA Act?

Would he have created the bloated Dept of Homeland Security that we all know and love today?

Domestically, would he have instituted not one but two rounds of massive tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts which were unfunded and added mightily to our debt?

Would he have appointed two crazily supine conservative Supreme Court judges, who will, given the slightest opportunity, reverse precedent and Roe v. Wade?

Would he have massively weakened EPA policy?

To the country's and incidentally the planet's detriment, would he have completely ignored dealing with climate change? Would he have let lawyers in the White House censor a NASA climate scientist's report?

Would he have attempted to privatize Social Security? (Remember this is before the market tanked; had this passed into law, the damage to our country is surreal to contemplate.)

Would he have instituted an Office of Faith-Based initiatives? (Would he have named "Jesus" as his favorite political philosopher in a debate?)

And, finally, because it's tiring to keep hearing Fox News say Bush kept us safe for 8 years: would Gore have allowed 9-11 to happen? Might he have looked into the Presidential Daily Briefing that hit his desk, over a month before 9-11, headlined "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within U.S."?

Now, you may not like some of the choices Gore would have made. But you cannot argue that, to all of these questions, the answer in Gore's case would be, "Yes, Gore and Bush would both have made the same decisions."

There is a difference, my friend. You just have to look.

reply

[–] tcob44 13 years ago

There is a difference, my friend. You just have to look.

Yes, you are right. Based on the content of your post, accuracy notwithstanding, I have to admit there is a difference. Which can be summed up with the following Taoist monkey feeding schedule:

Republicans: Three peanuts in the morning. Four peanuts in the evening.

Democrats: Four peanuts in the morning. Three peanuts in the evening.

Seriously, it's a farce. A sham. And I'm starting to think our two-party democracy has always been that way...

reply

[–] kurgan-10 9 years ago

So basically you're saying a theoretical president Gore would be the opposite of actual president Obama...?

Except that they're both Christians, of course.

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/ (not mine, but I like it)

reply

[–] Flame_of_Udun_49 8 years ago

Democrats/Republicans,

You have been fooled. Hoodwinked. Bamboozled...

There is no real difference between the parties anymore, their ideologies have been eclipsed by corporate interests. Both of your parties are OWNED by corporations. Likewise, the media is quite literally OWNED BY THE SAME CORPORATIONS. Wake up. Please. Then turn off your TV. And then vote third party. Cheers.

A common technique for fighting mosquitoes is to raise swarms of sterilized males and turn them loose in mosquito-infested areas. Persuading people to vote third party is the equivalent of sterilize and release.

Third party candidates is one of the primary reasons we wound up with Trump.

http://tinyurl.com/hxoedgj

reply

[–] kurgan-10 13 years ago

Since when are "Muslims" a "race"?

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/ (not mine, but I like it)

reply

[–] rnmboon 14 years ago

My understanding is that Muslims sort of destroyed the left-overs of what was once the library. Pre-Christian Romans destroyed most of it.

reply

[–] TomGabel 14 years ago

Did we watch the same movie? I mean c'mon, the film ends by zooming out *from the library* !

In the film, the library wasn't destroyed by the Christians, although many of the texts and pagan icons were.

reply

[–] alansmithee04 14 years ago

Bwahahaha! Nice try, teatard. Ya know, Glenn Beck isn't a very good source of historical information.

reply

[–] TomGabel 14 years ago

And I suppose we should tack on that you have your dates wrong.

*If* it was burned down by Muslim invaders, that was probably in the 7th c. AD by the army of Amr ibn al `Aas, who captured Alexandria in 642. The sources telling of the library's destruction are dated much later, though.

reply

[–] tcob44 13 years ago

It was the Muslim invaders in the 1400s who burned the library to the ground, not the Christians.

manco82-

For starters, Islam did not invade Alexandria in the 1400's. This occurred in the seventh century. (As has already been pointed out.)

Secondly, the account you are referring to is, by far, the least plausible theory about the destruction of the Great Library. Most scholars agree that the Great Library was burned by Caesar. And its daughter library in the Sarapeum was destroyed by Christian fanatics (as depicted in 'Agora').

And third, if Muslims burned any books whatsoever after invading Alexandria (in the seventh century), they did so after copying them into Arabic, as the Golden Age of Islam begins immediately after the took control of the city.

reply

[–] kurgan-10 13 years ago

And third, if Muslims burned any books whatsoever after invading Alexandria (in the seventh century), they did so after copying them into Arabic, as the Golden Age of Islam begins immediately after the took control of the city.

Now I'll admit I'm no expert in this particular topic, but according to the wiki pages, this happened just over a century after they took over the city.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Islam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Egypt#March_to_Alexand ria

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] tcob44 13 years ago

Now I'll admit I'm no expert in this particular topic, but according to the wiki pages, this happened just over a century after they took over the city...

Could you provide us with some sources for your Golden Age of Islam dates? You know, actual books. By scholars, preferrably. Thanks in advance!

reply

[–] kurgan-10 13 years ago

That wasn't the point of my post at all. Those aren't "my" dates (750 - c. 1238 CE), those are on Wikipedia.

But if you insist:

The Islamic Empires By Richard & Louise Spilsbury

http://books.google.com/books?id=U5XeVlLNdKkC&pg=PA8&dq=golden +age+of+islam+began&hl=en&ei=DN3VTpWFHsbcggeHx7CsAQ&sa=X&a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwADgK#v=o nepage&q=golden%20age%20of%20islam%20began&f=false

Issues in Terrorism and Homeland Security: Selections from CQ Researcher

(this source states 750-1300)
http://books.google.com/books?id=N99GuU-1d_oC&pg=PA164&dq=gold en+age+of+islam+began&hl=en&ei=CNzVTv3oENLpggff_qHJAQ&sa=X &oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBQ#v=o nepage&q=golden%20age%20of%20islam%20began&f=false

Pirates, terrorists, and warlords: the history, influence, and future of armed groups around the world By Jeffrey H. Norwitz

http://books.google.com/books?id=LZcp7qgzgzAC&pg=PA246&dq=gold en+age+of+islam+750&hl=en&ei=09_VTtymCuLX0QHyysigAg&sa=X&a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBDgK#v=o nepage&q=golden%20age%20of%20islam%20750&f=false

Science under Islam: rise, decline and revival By Sayyed M. Deen

http://books.google.com/books?id=G-M3IRh22moC&pg=PA3&dq=golden +age+of+islam+began&hl=en&ei=DN3VTpWFHsbcggeHx7CsAQ&sa=X&a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAzgK#v=o nepage&q=golden%20age%20of%20islam%20began&f=false

Challenges of the Muslim world: present, future and past By William Wager Cooper & Piyu Yue

http://books.google.com/books?id=3qwuhK3BBH8C&pg=PA214&dq=gold en+age+of+islam+began&hl=en&ei=DN3VTpWFHsbcggeHx7CsAQ&sa=X &oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBTgK#v =onepage&q=golden%20age%20of%20islam%20began&f=false

Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia By Josef W. Meri

http://books.google.com/books?id=H-k9oc9xsuAC&pg=PA131&dq=gold en+age+of+islam+750&hl=en&ei=09_VTtymCuLX0QHyysigAg&sa=X&a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CF0Q6AEwCTgK#v= onepage&q=golden%20age%20of%20islam%20750&f=false

Islam, Muslims, and America: understanding the basis of their conflict
By Arshad Khan

http://books.google.com/books?id=FbnnJxar3aMC&pg=PA29&dq=golde n+age+of+islam+began&hl=en&ei=DN3VTpWFHsbcggeHx7CsAQ&sa=X& amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp;oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CF4Q6AEwCTgK#v =onepage&q=golden%20age%20of%20islam%20began&f=false

Inside Islam By Walter Hazen

http://books.google.com/books?id=K_4EmQ5iho8C&pg=PA9&dq=golden +age+of+islam+began&hl=en&ei=2d7VToiDJ6T30gH25PWEAg&sa=X&a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBDg8#v=o nepage&q=golden%20age%20of%20islam%20began&f=false

Understanding Muslim-West alienation: building a better future By Arshad Khan

http://books.google.com/books?id=eKGi9d8khZgC&pg=PA6&dq=golden +age+of+islam+750&hl=en&ei=Tt_VTtiLH8X40gH9sqWCAg&sa=X&amp ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepa ge&q=golden%20age%20of%20islam%20750&f=false

A Brief History of Saudi Arabia By James Wynbrandt, Fawaz A. Gerges

http://books.google.com/books?id=eZkIXdsZpPsC&pg=PA73&dq=golde n+age+of+islam+750&hl=en&ei=Tt_VTtiLH8X40gH9sqWCAg&sa=X&am p;am p;am p;am p;am p;am p;am p;am p;am p;oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onep age&q=golden%20age%20of%20islam%20750&f=false

Islamic Radicalism and Multicultural Politics: The British Experience By Tahir Abbas

http://books.google.com/books?id=JdC90uc8PfQC&pg=PA9&dq=golden +age+of+islam+750+oxford&hl=en&ei=luXVTp_7J4icgQfHs9W2AQ&s a=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDIQ6AEwADg K#v=onepage&q=golden%20age%20of%20islam%20750%20oxford&f=false

The Illustrated Guide to World Religions By Michael D. Coogan

http://books.google.com/books?id=BshpqnbLOvQC&pg=PA92&dq=golde n+age+of+islam+750+oxford&hl=en&ei=luXVTp_7J4icgQfHs9W2AQ& sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CGEQ6AEwC TgK#v=onepage&q&f=false

Then there's this: http://historianforum.blogspot.com/2009/04/golden-age-of-islam-750-125 8-and.html and an opposing view here:

http://www.sullivan-county.com/x/islam_myth.htm.

And regarding the conquest of Alexandria:

Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia
By Alexander Mikaberidze (ed.)

http://books.google.com/books?id=jBBYD2J2oE4C&pg=PA285&dq=isla mic+conquest+of+alexandria&hl=en&ei=2-DVTtKDJ6Xx0gGHjvGYAg&amp ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CD0Q6AEwA w#v=onepage&q=islamic%20conquest%20of%20alexandria&f=false

Dictionary of Battles and Sieges: A-E By Tony Jaques

http://books.google.com/books?id=3amnMPTPP5MC&pg=PR27&dq=musli m+conquest+alexandria+641&hl=en&ei=xuHVTs2bEuLD0QHVueSQAg& sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg #v=onepage&q=muslim%20conquest%20alexandria%20641&f=false

Let me know if you need more.

So apparently they conquered Alexandria in 641 CE and the "Golden Age of Islam" began in 750 CE, which of course is 109 years later. One might have contributed to the other, but saying it occurred "immediately" would be comparable to saying that the career of Malcolm X occurred "immediately" after the rebellion of John Brown.

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] tcob44 13 years ago

So apparently they conquered Alexandria in 641 CE and the "Golden Age of Islam" began in 750 CE, which of course is 109 years later. One might have contributed to the other, but saying it occurred "immediately"... [blah-blah-blah]

See, that wasn't so hard, was it? But too bad you didn't do just a little more Googling on the above. Because there are also some scholars who place the Golden Age of Islam beginning at 700 AD. (Google: "Golden Age of Islam" and "700 AD". Sorry;) Which is roughly only half a century after the Muslim conquest of Alexandria, 50+ years being considerably more "immediate" on the historical timeline. Also, Islamic astronomy begins at this same time. For the exact same reason. And further, it was these Hellenic texts from Alexandria, plus what the Arabs added to and developed further, which were the catalyst for the Andalusian Renaissance.

To be fair, of course, you did admit that you didn't know anything about this subject. And, lo and behold, you were right this time! You even "proved" it, too! (Well, kind of...)

reply

[–] kurgan-10 13 years ago

Because there are also some scholars who place the Golden Age of Islam beginning at 700 AD.

So are you saying you hold to a fringe position on this topic?

I'm glad you give me (a tiny bit of) credit for looking something up, if I don't know the answer. I hope anyone would do the same.

Fifty nine years isn't very long in the grand scheme of things, no, unless you're talking to Jesus Mythers. ;)

But even if we took that as the correct position, I'd still say your use of the word was misleading. After all, the Madrid train bombings didn't happen "immediately" after the bombing of Hiroshima.

It's fine to try to create a link between the capturing of the city and the flowering of Islamic civilization, though that implies that they either didn't need the works from the "Great Library" to do that, or else those works survived (and weren't destroyed completely either by the Christian mobs or the Muslim armies).

While you're waiting for me, perhaps you can update the wikipedia article with your research.

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] tcob44 13 years ago

So are you saying you hold to a fringe position on this topic?

Try not to be absurd here. And considering the fact that you admitted that you don't know anything about this subject, how exactly would you be able to distinguish what is orthodox and what is fringe?

Fifty nine years isn't very long in the grand scheme of things, no, unless you're talking to Jesus Mythers.

Other than a desperate attempt to change the subject (albeit to another debate in which you would lose), I fail to see the connection here.

It's fine to try to create a link between the capturing of the city and the flowering of Islamic civilization, though that implies that they either didn't need the works from the "Great Library" to do that, or else those works survived (and weren't destroyed completely either by the Christian mobs or the Muslim armies).

Yes, everyone knows that a small percentage of texts survived the destruction of the libraries of Alexandria.

While you're waiting for me, perhaps you can update the wikipedia article with your research.

Why bother? Wikipedia is a tragic joke.

reply

[–] kurgan-10 13 years ago

It's no problem. Like any person who wants to learn about a subject, I can use something called a library to find out. And there are some experts I can consult. A search of google books is all I have time for in lieu of a full on research probject right now.

(albeit to another debate in which you would lose)

I'd lose in a debate about the historicity of Jesus? ;)

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] tcob44 13 years ago

I'd lose in a debate about the historicity of Jesus?

Yes. Just like most of your other debates (and certainly all of the ones you've had with me.) But again, just try sticking to the topics being discussed, okay?

reply

[–] kurgan-10 13 years ago

Why would I "lose"? ;)

I think the facts are on my side. Or are you just implying you'd have more free time to endlessly contradict what I'd post, so I'd eventually get tired and leave?

I guess I should admire your confidence. But bravado is no substitute for facts. How many people have previously defeated in debate on this topic?

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] tcob44 13 years ago

I think the facts are on my side.

Doesn't everybody think that? And BTW- Forever moving on to new topics will do nothing to help you out of your current situation. Try as you might... Sorry.

reply

[–] kurgan-10 13 years ago

Well you can pile on the bluster all you like, but I think we both know where this would go.

You've got to understand that the critical consensus of experts IS firmly in favor of Jesus having existed as a historical person, and that's even the consensus amongst experts with no ties to "the Church" (as if they could be accused of "religious bias").

So I presume all you're banking on is that I *personally* won't measure up in a debate with you on the topic, and so my personal inadequacy asa debater will let you carry the day by default.

Believe what you like. But from my standpoint, it's like someone with a Masters in Biology being told by an amateur Creationist that he is gonna get licked for sure.

It's certainly possible, but I wouldn't bet on it! ;)

I'm also amused that you think you've "won" all your "other debates" with me. I thought at last count we'd barely had one, which I voluntarily put on hold simply because of my job (at least for another couple of weeks). Don't let THAT make you cocky.

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] tcob44 13 years ago

Well you can pile on the bluster all you like, but I think we both know where this would go.

Yes, we do. You would be endlessly arguing in vain trying to prove the existence of Jesus without a single scrap of historical evidence in your favor. And BTW- I love how you reply to this thread and conveniently ignore the real debate. (You know, the one where you're getting your @ss handed to you...)

You've got to understand that the critical consensus of experts IS firmly in favor of Jesus having existed as a historical person, and that's even the consensus amongst experts with no ties to "the Church" (as if they could be accused of "religious bias").

Thanks for pointing out the obvious and telling everyone what they already know. But once again: TRY TO STAY ON TOPIC HERE!!!

But from my standpoint, it's like someone with a Masters in Biology being told by an amateur Creationist that he is gonna get licked for sure.

More accurately, it's like someone who has read bookshelves of scholarly works on the subject telling someone who hasn't read any books, watches professional wrestling, plays Jedi video-games, loves the Highlander film series, and gets all their "scholarly" information from wikipedia that they are going to trounce them in a debate. (Again!)

I'm also amused that you think you've "won" all your "other debates" with me. I thought at last count we'd barely had one, which I voluntarily put on hold simply because of my job (at least for another couple of weeks).

So you think this is our first encounter? My God, your memory is HORRIBLE! (Actually, I shouldn't be too surprised, since you also thought that the third time we got into a debate.) But seriously, it's almost like you live inside a brain fog or something...

reply

[–] kurgan-10 13 years ago

Yes, we do. You would be endlessly arguing in vain trying to prove the existence of Jesus without a single scrap of historical evidence in your favor.

Wrong. All I have to do (which I've done before as you even admit), is point out the fact that the overwhelming majority of qualified experts today agree that Jesus existed as a historical figure. And this isn't just some irrelevant opinion like their favorite golfer or which brand of cola they prefer, it's the result of their research.

Your response would then be the classic conspiracy theory response, which is that we can't trust the experts. In truth, their opinion carries a LOT of weight, and so it can't be written off by saying something like "they're Christian and as we know all Christians are liars."

That's what it comes down to. And no, the "you have your experts, I have mine" won't work, because that will be a very VERY short list, nothing comparable to the other list.

So your comment either indicates you have the short memory, are very ignorant of the subject, or else you think that simply disagreeing with each of my posts (not necessarily refuting them with counter evidence) until I get tired and move on, means you "won" the debate simply by outlasting me.

Attempts have been made to revise the standard of evidence to allow conspiracy theories and pseudohistory equal time. But it usually backfires, by allowing precisely any view to be given equal weight, regardless of how ludicrous and unsupported. Mysteriously, this method keeps being tried. The misuse of the appeal to authority is one thing, the implication of leveling the playing field in this way (which is misguided to say the least) would be to make Creationism into scientific dogma, if enough people outside the scientific community believed it just from reading a few books or listening to some debates. I mean, if anyone can be an expert, and rhetoric or numbers is all that matters, what then?

Surely you'll say that this is NOT your position. Then I'd ask precisely what it is...

The facts that convinced those experts are among the facts that convince me. Is that clear enough?

And BTW- I love how you reply to this thread and conveniently ignore the real debate. (You know, the one where you're getting your @ss handed to you...)

You say I'm the forgetful one. So please refresh my memory...

Thanks for pointing out the obvious and telling everyone what they already know. But once again: TRY TO STAY ON TOPIC HERE!!!

Well then what's to debate? You admit the qualified experts are on my side.

You're just implying that through a technicality, my personal debating skills won't work against you?

Sort of like saying you're playing devil's advocate, and arguing for the flat earth theory, and that I'm just a lousy debater, so I'll lose on your rhetorical superiority alone?

More accurately, it's like someone who has read bookshelves of scholarly works on the subject telling someone who hasn't read any books, watches professional wrestling, plays Jedi video-games, loves the Highlander film series, and gets all their "scholarly" information from wikipedia that they are going to trounce them in a debate. (Again!)

Says the adult who proudly lists "Clone Wars" as one of his favorite films. In fact, there's quite a few geek-friendly titles listed in your profile, so you're a gigantic hypocrite there, smarty pants. ;)

Do I really need to get into why ad hominem is a logical fallacy? I wonder if my dad can beat up your dad? lol

So no, you can't hurt my feelings by making fun of my hobbies, especially not when it reflects back on you so brilliantly.

Now then, you get on me for quoting wikipedia once, but meanwhile act like it's legitimate to reject mainstream scholarship, just because I happen to agree with? (oh wait, but James Hannam is a creationist!)I actually have a relevant degree which didn't come from wikipedia, and I make a living in the field (and no, not as a professional blogger). But even putting that aside, I'm not sure how you think you're smarter than the world's experts. Reading a few books in your spare time doesn't give you greater credibility. But maybe you can parse that down into smaller words and speak extra slowly so that us lesser mortals can understand it...

So you think this is our first encounter? My God, your memory is HORRIBLE! (Actually, I shouldn't be too surprised, since you also thought that the third time we got into a debate.) But seriously, it's almost like you live inside a brain fog or something...

Okay then, for all the kids keeping score at home, remind me of the two other debates we had in which you "won."

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] tcob44 13 years ago

You say I'm the forgetful one. So please refresh my memory.

My pleasure. Obviously, you already forgot the real debate going on here...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1186830/board/thread/180429699?p=6&d=1 92213829#192213829

reply

[–] kurgan-10 13 years ago

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1186830/board/thread/180429699?p=6&d=1 92213829#192213829

Okay...

So did you show where the historical records match what is depicted in Agora regarding the Serapeum destruction justifying the label "historically accurate" vs. "creative liberties" or "artistic license" as I suggested?

If not, what's being debated there, exactly?

You seemed to take a pretty soft position in insisting that as long as something doesn't directly "contradict" history, it's okay. But how does that contradict what I said, which is that if you add things to fill in gaps in the historical record, that is precisely the opposite of "accurate" (accurate implying you follow the history, not make things up).

In admitting that Agora changed history in other places (like not depicting Hypatia's death and the aftermath of that death in the same details as detailed by Socrates). I mentioned that it altered details like changing the character of Synesius, inserting fictional characters like Davus, and pure speculation like Hypatia's scientific theories and the provoking assault on the Jews by the Christians. I also mentioned (iirc) the omission of showing Ammonius' torture prior to his death.

I presumed then you stuck to this "one detail" of the Serpaeum destruction being generally accurate (in that "it happened"). I brought up the specific depiction of the Christian mob leader declaring the scrolls therein as "pagan filth" and throwing them around like kids throwing toilet paper rolls while generally vandalizing the place being different than ancient histories, which listed specific events such as exposing the blood rituals and parading the idols through the forum for public ridicule and lacks mention of specific targeting of texts for destruction.

Repeating your opinion that I'm wrong isn't much of a debate, really much less grounds for declaring victory.

I thought said I was losing three debates against you. Which was the third one?

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] tcob44 13 years ago

WTF?!? You have p!ss-poor memory, you are unable to reread old posts, and now you are unable reply in the correct thread??? How childish...

But don't worry, I'll repost my old rebuttal over here for you, okay cupcake? Then you can tell us what was "gory" about the destruction of the Sarapeum and also provide everyone with some quotes from the historical sources in order to illustrate where the director allegedly took these "creative liberties" (since, as you well know, the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion;)

reply

[–] tcob44 13 years ago

I object to a claim of "historical accuracy" in a place where the filmmaker clearly took creative liberties.

So you keep saying. And yet you produce nothing to support this claim, other than TWO lame examples(!): the Christians tossing the scrolls "like teenagers throwing toilet paper on Halloween" and complaining about him portraying the Christian mob in a more positive light by not showing them desecrating the sacred objects of other religions (apparently forgetting that the scene ends in the middle of the destruction of the Sarapeum.)

I don't recall writing that.

How convenient. Even worse, you are apparently incapable of rereading old threads as well. So let me help you out with a transcript:

Me: A film-maker made a movie accurately depicting the destruction of the Sarapeum by Christian fanatics. But instead of accepting the truth about history, you'd rather rewrite it with fringe theories which completely take the blame away from the Christian church. But anyway, nice try!

You: Not quite accurately, actually, even if we go by the primary sources. Read them, and compare the scene in the actual film. No need for "fringe theories" there.

Me: Oh really? So are you referring to a completely new fringe theory? Or the dead one lying in a bloody puddle a few threads back?

You: I'm saying the film doesn't match the ancient primary sources, and no, not even if you put in some more gore.

Me: What was gory about the destruction of the Sarapeum? The Christians razed an empty temple!?! (Or did you forget what we were talking about again?)

Therefore, we are left with two conclusions:

a.) You are unable to remember exactly what it is you are talking about. (The destruction of the Sarapeum as depicted in 'Agora'.)
b.) You are a liar.

And in case you aren't aware, either answer embarrasses not only you, but the organization you are "trying" to represent. And rather poorly, I might add.

So if portrayed historically accurate, I think the filmmaker might have lost some of the momentum in the overall plot, which is to show that Christianity was a bad thing for the world and woe to us for leaving behind the lost cause of pagan science (hence: a cautionary tale for not stamping out militant Islamists when we have the chance).

I mean, you get that right? He's saying that we need to stop the Muslims, because if they really follow their religion, they're going to destroy "us" (the good, civilized, rational people, despite our problems) and set back human knowledge.

Hilarious! Talk about the height of absurdity!

Unfortunately, what the director is *truly* saying (as documented in interviews) is that all forms of religious fundamentalism/extremism are bad things for the world, as they will (further) destroy civilization and (further) set back scientific knowledge. Just as it did with the destruction of the Sarapeum library by religious (Christian) extremists! Of course, when you factor in your rather typical "Christian persecution complex", coupled with your general dim-wittedness (as evidenced by your inane film reviews and your silly "Jedi for Jesus" persona) it's easy to see how you came up with your ridiculous little misinterpretation...

So are we done here? With you so effortlessly proving the truth of this thread's subject title again and again? Seriously, I'm almost embarrassed for you. Just stop being THAT type of Christian already, okay? (Which happens to be the only point you've successfully demonstrated here.)

reply

[–] kurgan-10 13 years ago

No, and no. It seems you're unable to understand what I'm saying, or else you are deliberately refusing to, to keep some feud going.

I pointed out historical inaccuracies in the film. You appeal to motive and say that I'm lying for Jesus.

Why did the Christian destroy the Serapeum? In the story, the Christians and pagans were feuding, and so in the process of that feud, the Christians desecrated the pagans' house of worship.

Our only "dispute" then is whether more historical scholars believe that this pagan temple (at the time of its desecration) contained the remaining works from the "Great Library of Alexandria."

These ancient Alexandrian Christians are being charged (by you) of attacking science in deliberately destroying great treasure troves of scientific knowledge. You argue that the film is depicting this action accurately.

I do find it funny that you think the only reason I'm pointing these things out is that I feel my faith threatened by history. ;) If I were the huge liar you smear me as, I'm not sure how that would reflect badly on Christianity though. Do your antics reflect badly on the ideology you cling to?

As for why anyone did anything in Alexandria, it has to do with tribalism. The city was known for its street violence before Christianity and after. Was it "religious fundamentalism" that started it? Apparently not. Was "religious fundamentalism" responsible for holding back science all this time? Apparently not, unless you hold to the outdated "conflict thesis." Is religious fundamentalism holding back science today? You decide. My point is that if we take the movie literally, Christianity is bad. There isn't a single redeeming Christian character in "Agora." None. If we take it symbolically, then Muslims are bad. Though I'm not a Muslim or a Christian fundamentalist, much less a violent one, apparently *I'm* the bad guy here.

Incidentally, you're a hypocrite for making fun of my preference in entertainment, when you yourself have hobbies that are equally silly and childish. So if I were you, I'd stop throwing stones from your glass house. I've pointed this out before, but to no avail.

Making fun of me for liking Star Wars? That's out, because you clearly love Star Wars yourself. You even love "Clone Wars" which was a cartoon aimed at kids, and got terrible reviews. So you're more than just a casual fan, but a fanboy of Star Wars. So the "Jedi" jokes are a big case of projection there, dude. And going down the list of your "favorite movies" I see plenty of titles based on comic books, animation and other geeky topics. Clearly you're not ashamed being a geek yourself...

Maybe the reason you put "don't talk to me if you're a teenaged boy" in your profile, is that you didn't want people to find out you act like one?

As long as we're dealing with your projection, I presume then that your upset with "Christianity" is because you were once a "Christian" yourself.

I'll give you one chance to convince me that you're mature enough to handle a serious discussion of the evidence. Failing that, you're going on my ignore list, and we can be done with it. Then you can beat your chest all you like with no opposition. ;)

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] tcob44 13 years ago

I'll give you one chance to convince me that you're mature enough to handle a serious discussion of the evidence. Failing that, you're going on my ignore list, and we can be done with it.

Ha! Yeah kurgan, like I haven't heard that empty threat before! Actually, please do this time, and let everyone know that you know you've had your head cut off in this debate, "kurgan", just like your message-board WWE tag-team buddy did earlier! In case you forgot (again?!?), you failed to make good on any of your holiday research promises and/or produce any serious rebuttals and/or provide any historical quotes to back up your false assertions. And more importantly, I simply don't have enough hours in the day to keep up with all of your never-ending red herrings and factual errors and historical half-truths and absurd straw-men. But thanks anyway! Cheers;)

reply

[–] kurgan-10 13 years ago

Couldn't resist, could you?

Ha! Yeah kurgan, like I haven't heard that empty threat before! Actually, please do this time, and let everyone know that you know you've had your head cut off in this debate, "kurgan", just like your message-board WWE tag-team buddy did earlier! In case you forgot (again?!?), you failed to make good on any of your holiday research promises and/or produce any serious rebuttals and/or provide any historical quotes to back up your false assertions. And more importantly, I simply don't have enough hours in the day to keep up with all of your never-ending red herrings and factual errors and historical half-truths and absurd straw-men. But thanks anyway! Cheers;)

Oh don't worry I still plan to do that research and post my findings for all to see. I simply won't be responding to your various quips and snarky remarks on here in the meantime. I don't see you as having brought a better historical argument, simply a hypocritical assertion of bias in one direction.

You've certainly no room to claim superior debating practices since you used fallacious argumentation in pretty much all of your posts to me. So go ahead, keep making posts about my hobbies, my internet handle and guesses as to my character. When I see such things it makes me happy, knowing my opponents are so desperate.

So go ahead and help yourself to that beer, you'll need it. ;)

Welcome to Ignoreville, Population: You.

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] tcob44 13 years ago

Welcome to Ignoreville, Population: You.

I'm glad you can finally admit that you were wrong. Kind of, anyway... But yes, I do accept your (cowardly) concession of defeat.

reply

[–] kurgan-10 13 years ago

Turns out I didn't have time after all. Oh well. Somebody else can pick it up if they like. ;)

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/ (not mine, but I like it)

reply

[–] tcob44 13 years ago

Turns out I didn't have time after all. Oh well.

"In other words, you're only interested in promoting wrong-headed fringe theories which confirm your religious biases, regardless of the truth, historical facts, and the scholarly consensus. How convenient..."

A rather fitting quote, don't you think? Especially considering how well it bookends your empty promises.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1186830/board/thread/180429699?d=191682818 &p=5#191682818

(And take note of the thread title. Because it's even more appropriate now;)

reply

[–] revenancer 13 years ago

The library destroyed in the film is NOT the fabled monolithic "Library of Alexandria" you're thinking of. It's actually the second of three great libraries in Alexandria, all of which were destroyed and then twice partially reconstituted in much less impressive fashion. After the third destruction (yes, by the Muslims but in 642, not the 1400s) the city is eventually eclipsed by Baghdad as the great center of learning in the world. That is, until Baghdad was destroyed by the Mongols in 1258. Sucks to be a book in the ancient world.

reply

[–] Sextus 13 years ago

The library destroyed in the film is NOT the fabled monolithic "Library of Alexandria" you're thinking of.

Given the way IMDB formats and nests posts, it helps to give a quote from the post you're responding to or some indication of who you're addressing.

It's actually the second of three great libraries in Alexandria, all of which were destroyed and then twice partially reconstituted in much less impressive fashion.

A character in the background in Agora mentions "the mother library" and its destruction, indicating that it is depicting the library in the Serapeum as what it seems to have been: a daughter library of the by then vanished Great Library. The problem is there is evidence the Serapeum no longer contained any library at the time of its destruction.

After the third destruction (yes, by the Muslims but in 642, not the 1400s)

The Arabic sources which claim there was a large library in Alexandria that was destroyed by Caliph Omar in 642 are written at least 500 years later and are of dubious reliability. Their accounts are generally considered legendary.

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2010/05/hypatia-and-agora-redux.htm l

reply

[–] Shaolin_Apu 13 years ago

Julius Caesar burned it down too...

Sadly lost were many vivid descriptions of the Ancient religions and other some people would regard as 'science'.

"Hello I'm Frank, give her a donut"

reply

[–] tcob44 13 years ago

Julius Caesar burned it down too...

What are you talking about?

Sadly lost were many vivid descriptions of the Ancient religions and other some people would regard as 'science'.

Why would you put quotes around 'science'? Or are you trying to subtly let everyone know that you don't know anything about the history of Alexandria?!?

reply