William the Conqueror and Catholicism

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#441  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 13, 2020 1:42 am

Nevets wrote:If anyone fails to counter this.
Then i am claiming this debate to have been "won" by "me".

Not against one debater.
Not against two.
Not against three.
Not against four.
Not against Five.
Not against six.
Not against seven.
Not against eight.
Not against nine.
I have counted at least ten debaters in total that took part in debating me.

Ten debaters "failed" to remove the pope from the Catholic roman church that William the conqueror was at least partially involved with, even if just in denomination, and we have came to a point, where ten people are unable to counter claims any farther, nor produce any valid objections.

I now claim victory




Image



Your trolling is pathetic. You repeatedly sound like you're about 11 years old.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27890
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#442  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 13, 2020 1:46 am

Sendraks wrote:It's like someone has printed off wikipedia and is throwing random pieces at me, interspersed with non-sequitur commentary.


:this:
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27890
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#443  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 13, 2020 1:47 am

Nevets wrote:
Svartalf wrote:You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, the Angles and the Saxons were two germanic peoples who colonized Britain at the expense of the locan Romano Breton folk, but there was no hierarchy between them, and they eventually mingled and became known as anglo saxons... if anything, it's the Angles who became subsumed by the more numerous Saxons.

and Wotan never did walk in Britain... because, you know, the Angles and Saxons were continental Germans, not Norse, so they worshipped Wotan, not Odin.


Are you seriously saying, that this map here, which shows you were Anglo, and Saxon, was, is not in Denmark?

Are you "serious"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angles#/m ... ements.svg



Yes it WAS not in Denmark.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27890
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#444  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 13, 2020 1:50 am

Nevets wrote:
Svartalf wrote:You know nothing of linguistics. Continental Germanic languages (such as German or old Saxon) are VERY different animals than Norse Germanic languages (Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic), I know, I studied both.


The disinfo and delusion continues.

Old norse, was "also" Germanic

Old Norse was a North Germanic language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse



As usual, you're misrepresenting what was clearly written.

Your trolling is obvious.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27890
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#445  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 13, 2020 1:53 am

Nevets wrote:
The anglo saxons were Danish. Not German

Germanics in those days, were Danes

Look at this map

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angles#/media/File:Anglo-Saxon_Homelands_and_Settlements.svg


Now i am being kind.



No, you are being a complete tool.

The Anglo-Saxons categorically were not Danish.

The Angles prior to their incursions into England lived in what is today Schleswig-Holstein, which is part of Germany. So your attempt to pretend they were Danish just because they live somewhere near present-day Denmark is not only deranged but also flat wrong - now you're showing you don't even know modern geography. We'll add that to the list.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27890
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#446  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 13, 2020 1:56 am

Nevets wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Since you've failed to provide evidence for just about any of your vacuous claims, I won't hold my breath. :coffee:


Just take a look at the picture.
Dont be frightened

Now, when you open the link, it will show you, that the anglo-saxon raids, were conducted by Denmark.


The link shows nothing of the sort - as usual, you are trying to make claims that are unsupported by your own sources. The entire world queues up to smack your counterfactual bullshit out of the park.


Nevets wrote:If you accept, that they were conducted by Denmark, it means i win the debate.


There's no debate to win, you child. And if there were, you'd have been laughed off the stage by now.


Nevets wrote:On the otherhand, if you fail to acknowledge that fact, and pretend you did not see it, it means i also win the debate, but you carry on in delusion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angles#/media/File:Anglo-Saxon_Homelands_and_Settlements.svg


Which is it to be?


I think it's time the moderators deal with you because your obvious trolling is getting ever more obvious.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27890
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#447  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 13, 2020 1:57 am

Nevets wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Nevets wrote:The anglo saxons were Danish. Not German

Germanics in those days, were Danes

Unadulterated bullshit. Both Angles and Saxons were part of a conglomeration of Germanic tribes Tacitus (~56 - ~120 AD) collectively labelled the Suebi. A couple of centuries earlier they were settled between the Eider and the Elbe rivers.

Image


ooo using sourcery now.
You are becoming Pagan.
Better watch, might get burned at the stake.

But nice try. However your own link has in bright green, "Nordsee Germans", as being the "main group" leading the invasion.
It was the same Nordsee germans that were behind the great conspiracy of 367ad, the lead up, to 410

But at least you are learning the roll that the Norsemen, had in freeing England from the Romans.



Mind-numbingly thick.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27890
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#448  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 13, 2020 2:01 am

Nevets wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Vapid trolling is still vapid. :roll:


Wrong, it is your inability to accept defeat in this debate, that is amounting to trolling

I repeat
"ALL" Proto Germanic languages, derive from Scandinavia

All Germanic languages are derived from Proto-Germanic, spoken in Iron Age Scandinavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_languages



1) You're not 'repeating' anything as you never posted this before.
2) It's completely irrelevant because you're not talking about the fucking Bronze Age.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27890
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#449  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 13, 2020 2:03 am

Nevets wrote:
Svartalf wrote:
Oh yeah, please demonstrate that, and explain us why German and English are so different, phonetically and grammatically from Norse languages.


Because this is 2020.
If you want to debate British history after the formation of Scotland, then that is a matter for a different thread.

But the answer is, because you became Latinised



You are so far out of your depth, it's no wonder you're acting up.

A wise man would have acknowledged his errors and backed off a long time ago realizing he needed a lot better information before discussing these topics.

You, on the other hand, have shown you are incapable of grasping anything at all. You can't even read the single lines from Wikipedia you quote.

You are a text-book example of the Dunning Kruger effect.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27890
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#450  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 13, 2020 2:04 am

Hermit wrote:
Yes, it was you who wrote: "The anglo saxons were Danish. Not German".


Because Nevets doesn't know what he's talking about, he forgot that he made that assertion before and assumed it was yours so he felt the need to disagree with it. Then he realized he'd fucked up and deleted his post.

It's actually happened 3 or 4 times now.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27890
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#451  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 13, 2020 2:05 am

Nevets wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Yes, it was you who wrote: "The anglosaxons were Danish. Not German". Just like it's labelled in the quote. I explained that the Angles an Saxons came to Schleswig-Holstein and Oldenburg from the southeast (between the Eider and the Elbe rivers), and therefore could not have been Danes.



I am well aware the anglos were Danish.
And they were, as has been proven over and over.

All, proto germanic languages, derive from Scandinavia

All Germanic languages are derived from Proto-Germanic, spoken in Iron Age Scandinavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_languages


Have you ever heard of the Danish empire?



The Angles were not Danish.

The Danish Empire didn't exist in the Bronze Age.

You are irremediably confused.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27890
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#452  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 13, 2020 2:07 am

Nevets wrote:
Svartalf wrote:
Not at all, we know old Saxon, High Old German and Low Old German, and they exhibited very specific differences from Old Norse. Norse is definitely NOT the ancestor of Westic and Ostic Germanic languages, even if it's in the same extended family.


What you are saying is actually correct.
There are two directions Germanic comes from.
Proto, which is scandinavian, and Indo


Image



The other form of Germanic, that came through Italy, was Indo-european.

Image


Derived from India.

Image
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27890
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#453  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 13, 2020 2:14 am

There are two directions Germanic comes from.
Proto, which is scandinavian, and Indo


Old Norse was an Indo-European language.


The other form of Germanic, that came through Italy, was Indo-european.


No form of Germanic came through Italy.


Derived from India.


Proto-Indo-European did not come from India.


3 assertions, 3 failures.

If you're looking for agreement, you could just say 'I don't have a fucking clue what I am talking about' - that's something we could all agree on.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27890
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#454  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 13, 2020 2:23 am

If you accept, that they were conducted by Denmark, it means i win the debate.

On the otherhand, if you fail to acknowledge that fact, and pretend you did not see it, it means i also win the debate, but you carry on in delusion


Incidentally, this rings a bell of someone who was here before, but I can't recall who it was.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27890
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#455  Postby Fallible » Mar 13, 2020 12:07 pm

Nevets wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Vapid trolling is still vapid. :roll:


Wrong, it is your inability to accept defeat in this debate, that is amounting to trolling


Generally, people do not accept defeat unless they have actually been defeated by something. Consequently, it should be you accepting defeat, because you have been consistently defeated by the English language. Additionally, this isn’t a debate. It’s a shit show created by you, with literally everyone else running rings around you. You are a troll. A really bad one.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 48
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#456  Postby Nevets » Mar 15, 2020 6:22 pm

This thread was to establish, that religion is a brainwash tool, and that the pope is very much inluential in the topic of religion, and equally influential in British troops being sent to the crusades.
It was also to discuss how those that had originated in Norse countries, had become infected by this brainwash system when they set up base in Normandy and began fighting for control of Europe, which Celts, may, or may not, have exercised in the past.
However this discussion never got going, as the counter arguments appeared to be that the Pope had no inluence whatsoever.
Normans are not Norse. And Germans are the bravest people in the world, and are not Norse people.
The anglos and Saxons that invaded British mainland at the time of the collapse of the Latin Roman Empire, and occupied Britain, were Germans, and not Norse people. So my opponents appear to be of the impression that Germans are a totally seperate race from Norse people.
But this was actually "not" what the thread was supposed to be about.
I was assuming it was already self explanatory, and contemporary understanding, what Normandy is, and who Norse people are. I was wrong.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#457  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 15, 2020 8:04 pm

Nevets wrote:This thread was to establish, that religion is a brainwash tool,

That's not what the OP states. :naughty:

Nevets wrote:
and that the pope is very much inluential in the topic of religion, and equally influential in British troops being sent to the crusades.

Except there was no Britain and thus no British troops during the Medieval period. Nor did the pope sent soldiers other than his own.
This has been explained to you multiple times, by multiple people, in multiple ways. That you keep mindlessly regurgitating this nonsense anyway shows that either you struggle with basic reading comprehension or are just a vapid troll. :naughty:

Nevets wrote:
It was also to discuss how those that had originated in Norse countries, had become infected by this brainwash system when they set up base in Normandy and began fighting for control of Europe, which Celts, may, or may not, have exercised in the past.

Which is still counterfactual bullshit Nevets. :nono:

Nevets wrote:
However this discussion never got going, as the counter arguments appeared to be that the Pope had no inluence whatsoever because I kept ignoring the facts, including those I quoted myself and kept running to ever more desperate rabbit holes to avoid admitting I don't have a clue what I am talking about.

FIFY. Stop lying Nevets. :naughty:

Nevets wrote:
Normans are not Norse.

Correct. :thumbup:


Nevets wrote: And Germans are the bravest people in the world, and are not Norse people.

No-one claimed the first part, the second part is correct though.

Nevets wrote:
The anglos and Saxons that invaded British mainland at the time of the collapse of the Latin Roman Empire

There has only ever been one Roman Empire, which was Latin, as such it's needless to call it the Latin Roman Empire.

Nevets wrote:and occupied Britain, were Germans, and not Norse people.

Germanics actually, but correct otherwise.

Nevets wrote:So my opponents appear to be of the impression that Germans are a totally seperate race from Norse people.

Dishonest fantasy #8463463
No-one's mentioned race, but you just now.

Nevets wrote:
But this was actually "not" what the thread was supposed to be about.

Then you should not have made the asinine claims that Normans, Angles and Saxons were Norse. :naughty:

Nevets wrote:
I was assuming it was already self explanatory, and contemporary that my fantastical understanding, what Normandy is, and who Norse people are was correct. I was wrong.

FIFY. :thumbup:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31080
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: William the Conqueror and Catholicism

#458  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 16, 2020 1:28 am

Nevets wrote:This thread was to establish, that religion is a brainwash tool,...


Yet not a single word was dedicated in the original post or any consequent posts to this supposed foundational proposal to this thread.


Nevets wrote: and that the pope is very much inluential in the topic of religion,...


The Pope is influential in the topic of religion? What does that even mean?


Nevets wrote: and equally influential in British troops being sent to the crusades.


British troops weren't sent to the Crusades - English troops were, Scottish troops were, but they were sent by their lords, not by the Pope.


Nevets wrote:It was also to discuss how those that had originated in Norse countries, had become infected by this brainwash system when they set up base in Normandy and began fighting for control of Europe, which Celts, may, or may not, have exercised in the past.


None of this is anything to do with historical fact. Scandinavian countries also became Christian during the 8th - 12th centuries. The sentence about the Celts is, as usual, entirely irrelevant and completely opaque - it says nothing valid.


Nevets wrote:However this discussion never got going, as the counter arguments appeared to be that the Pope had no inluence whatsoever.


Your typical strawmanning.


Nevets wrote:Normans are not Norse.


Normans at the time of the Norman invasion are factually not Norse.


Nevets wrote: And Germans are the bravest people in the world, and are not Norse people.


Said no one on this forum ever, so it's yet another example of you trotting out misrepresentations of other people's positions.


Nevets wrote:The anglos and Saxons that invaded British mainland at the time of the collapse of the Latin Roman Empire, and occupied Britain, were Germans, and not Norse people.


Factually true according to every single source that's been shared, including your own ones. You've failed to offer a jot of evidence that they were Norse.

You've tried to argue that the piece of land the Angle tribe lived in is now part of Denmark, therefore the Angles were Norse - that, of course, makes no fucking sense whatsoever. You've tried to argue that because the Germanic languages originated in proto-Germanic, and that proto-Germanic was first spoken partly in Scandinavia, that this makes ALL Germanic PEOPLE Norse, which is of course completely nonsensical.

The issue you've got is that you keep making up stupid arguments, failing to either listen to counters or to read your own sources, and assuming that adversity to your argument validates it.


Nevets wrote:So my opponents appear to be of the impression that Germans are a totally seperate race from Norse people.


An appearance you've made up wholesale and couldn't hope to support by reference to anything anyone's said; yet another strawman from you.


Nevets wrote:But this was actually "not" what the thread was supposed to be about.
I was assuming it was already self explanatory, and contemporary understanding, what Normandy is, and who Norse people are. I was wrong.


You were indeed wrong because you don't understand that your anachronistic statements are unacceptable to anyone who understands history. You can't claim that the Normans at the time of the invasion of the Kingdom of England were Norse, because they weren't - in genetic, linguistic, cultural, religious, governance, societal, architectural, artistic, and any other factor you can care to name, they were typical of northern France and had no extant relationship or link to any Norse culture.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27890
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest