SJ
> This is a priceless example of question-begging, `heads atheism wins,
tails
> Christianity loses' atheist thinking!
CC
What has this to do with *atheism*?
SJ
> If the Church burned many scientists for their scientific opinions, it
proves
> that Christianity is opposed to science.
CC
This is well documented. It hardly needs the burnings of scientists to prove
it.
SJ
> But if the Church burned only *two* scientist, and then not for their
> scientific opinions, it shows that Christianity is even *more* opposed to
> science!
CC
No, it does not.
This is yet *another* of your apparently unending stream of
misrepresentations of views any views you oppose. If, as you implicitly
suggest in another post, you "have no desire, nor need, to misrepresent"
your opponents' views, then *why* do you do it so habitually, even after
*many* specific examples of it have been pointed out?
What it shows is that the intended implication of the fact that only two
were burned may not mean what you think or intend it to mean.