Pope Francis describes ‘ideological Christians’ as a ‘serious illness’

[FretRider]

They were religious people in what way?
People who go against the tenets of their own beliefs do not prove their beliefs.

Who went against which tenet?

Dawkinians seem to think religious people are a special race berefit of thought and reason. Specially ironic considering that the Christian establishment that you despise was responsible for nearly all knowledge and scientific progress in the western world.

Even the "enlightened revolutionaries" from 18th century France got all their "enlightenment" in Jesuit and Benedictine schools and universities. Dawkins himself is a product of a medieval Catholic university(Oxford), though I wouldn't say that in defense of that place now.

 

[Roq]

Most of the great scientists after Darwin, who defined biology and physics (not all of course, even scientists aren't infallibly rational), were not religious, probably because the theory of evolution and natural selection, in particular, destroyed the only real argument for a creator that has ever made any sense: The argument from design. And evolution is totally incompatible with Christian doctrines such as the "fall" as already pointed out, as creationists (including those in this thread!) are well aware, which is why it is such a thorn in their side. Not that the whole doctrine of atonement, which is at the core of Christianity, makes any sense anyway when you abstract god from his biblical context in genesis.

But, if any religion has been over represented in science it is the Jewish one (Einstein, Bohr, Von Neumann, Feynman... it is a huge list) although almost all those scientists were only Jewish by background, and had no religious beliefs. That is particularly significant given the small percentage of Jews in the European and American populations and it hardly supports the theory that Christianity uniquely fosters science, which is just another example of people trying to distort the facts to support their cherished faith based belief.

And even if you do reinterpret history, from the glow of your faith, and see Christianity in the past as a cosy haven for scientists, rather than the draconian, repressive institution that the evidence points to, that hardly supports Christianity's truth claims. It is ironic in that respect that Gregor Mendel was a Catholic priest, and that his experiments on peas should throw light on the mechanism that allow natural selection to work. But, once they are made and become part of science, no one owns scientific theories, and their inventors are not necessarily the ones who tease out their implications.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

Who went against which tenet?

That question cant be answered before that one:

They were religious people in what way?

It addressed people as in this quote:

A jesuit priest created the big bang theory and an augustinian monk was one of the biggest contributors to genetics and evolutionary theory.

 

[FretRider]

That question cant be answered before that one:

It addressed people as in this quote:

They were Clergymen. They believed, practiced and preached the Catholic religion. It doesn't get any more religious than that.

Unless off course you were to claim all the "cleric scientists" were somehow crypto-atheists. Absurd, but not beneath a Dawkinian fanatic I suppose.

 

[FretRider]

Most of the great scientists after Darwin, who defined biology and physics (not all of course, even scientists aren't infallibly rational), were not religious, probably because the theory of evolution and natural selection, in particular, destroyed the only real argument for a creator that has ever made any sense: The argument from design.

Except Darwin was a theist and believed in intelligent design(he is considered the father of that idea, actually).

http://www.examiner.com/article/darwin-s-theory-of-intelligent-design

You guys have been so brainwashed by the fanaticism of militant atheism and are so blinded by ignorant prejudice that you are incapable of considering facts and reason. You are more zealous than any Dominican inquisitor from centuries past I suppose, which is quite ironic.

Again, where is the conflict? There is such a thing as a "fashions and fads", and atheism is one There is also the fact that the Church has been in institutional and moral decline since the end of the middle-ages. Not to mention the whole western world is in moral and institutional decline. The rise in atheism has asolutely nothing to do with our increase in scientific knowledge, except maybe in the way that progress affects us(we are after al living in an age of wanton materialism and great confort).

 

[ChienAboyeur]

They were Clergymen. They believed, practiced and preached the Catholic religion. It doesn't get any more religious than that.

There is no telling about crypto something etc

Preaching about something tells nothing. People might preach against their beliefs.
It is all those who preach for freedom of speech and censor. There are many of them.
And examples are easy to find.

Now the other two characterizers: believing and practising.

Believing in two beliefs that are not compatible reveals inconsistency. It is a bit like people who state they believe in freedom of speech and makes money of insulting people, or people who state they believe in freedom of speech and censor.
They show they are arbitrary people.

Practising is the same: going against your belief through practice show no faith in the belief.
For example, in a society that supports freedom of speech, when people state they have no reason to mourn people in public, and yet urged and forced to join a minute of silence, the practice shows no belief in freedom of speech.

Various parts of science debunk parts in the Bible in a way it is not possible to believe in both without either show arbitrariness or lack of faith.

Anyone who contributes to debunk a bible myth through science show they have no faith in their christian beliefs.

 

[Roq]

Except Darwin was a theist and believed in intelligent design(he is considered the father of that idea, actually).

http://www.examiner.com/article/darwin-s-theory-of-intelligent-design

You guys have been so brainwashed by the fanaticism of militant atheism and are so blinded by ignorant prejudice that you are incapable of considering facts and reason. You are more zealous than any Dominican inquisitor from centuries past I suppose, which is quite ironic.

Again, where is the conflict? There is such a thing as a "fashions and fads", and atheism is one There is also the fact that the Church has been in institutional and moral decline since the end of the middle-ages. Not to mention the whole western world is in moral and institutional decline. The rise in atheism has asolutely nothing to do with our increase in scientific knowledge, except maybe in the way that progress affects us(we are after al living in an age of wanton materialism and great confort).

The faithful do love to make stuff up about Darwin and Einstein in particular. In the absence of any better arguments (there are none) for the existence of their deity. Of course Darwin didn't believe in ID, which is totally contrary to his theory of natural selection. That article you managed to dredge from the bowels of the internet probably refers to a typical misreading of Darwin's passage about the eye:

"To suppose that the eye, …, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." But…, this is a rhetorical flourish and Darwin then goes on to explain precisely how he thought natural selection could in fact solve that particular problem: "Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist…". Subsequent work has shown that Darwin's intuition was correct.

The Origin Of Species (1859) is just about his theory of natural selection and note the word "natural" - that means not designed in that context right!? Here is what Darwin actually thought about God and design: "I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars.”

And in that last quote you can easily see the core reason why science and religion can never be reconciled. Scientific theories like Darwin's are based on the actual world and reflect what we see there, whilst religions are fixed immutably by old books and immutable dogma. When we see stuff that conflicts with what it says in the old books then in science the old books lose. That is the case, for instance, with the conflict between evolution and the biblical story of the "fall", which unsurprisingly you have been unable to defend and have had to resort to pretending you don't understand the problem and other diversionary smoke screens.

 

[FretRider]

The faithful do love to make stuff up about Darwin and Einstein in particular. In the absence of any better arguments (there are none) for the existence of their deity. Of course Darwin didn't believe in ID, which is totally contrary to his theory of natural selection.

Huahuahua, you haven't actually read the book, have you? Typical of uneducated dawkinian peddlers who just join the cult to feign intelligence.

Look how many times he uses the word "creator". Darwin was a deist and Einstein was a pantheist, I would never use neither as a representation of my beliefs. Yet you have to admit it is funny how militant atheists such as yourself have adopted them as "historical posterboys" despite the fact that they were never atheists and never preached an atheistic view of the world.

 

[FretRider]

There is no telling about crypto something etc

Off course there is. You would never be able to deny Isaac Newton's deep religiosity, for instance. His theological writings were personal and never published during his life because of their heretical content during a time were Anglicans were violently persecuting dissent, one would never be able to say he did it "just for show".

He actually wrote more about theology and mysticism than physics. Ditto for Galileo, he had ample chance, opportunity and aid to escape the inquisition and denied to do so because he believed what the Church represented and believed he would turn the situation around. That is perfectly illustrated in his private correspondence and is presented in every single biography of his.

Various parts of science debunk parts in the Bible in a way it is not possible to believe in both without either show arbitrariness or lack of faith.

What Bible myths? I can tell you haven't been following the discussion, but the fact is that creationism is something that came to be with the protestant reform and the idea of "sola criptura". The idea that the Bible is an infallible document on all matters and subject to absolute literal interpretation did not exist before Luther, Calvin and the rest of the "I want to be Mohammed" gang wreaked Havok across the western world.

Educated Catholics never accepted Genesis as a historical text. That includes the first Church Fathers, ones such as Augustine or Origen. Truth of the matter is that there is no scientific content in the Bible and the "conflict" which atheist crusaders such as you and roq mention is non-existant except in your imagination. I don't speak for protestantism and other post-16th century heresies off course, I speak for traditional Christianity.

 

[Roq]

Huahuahua, you haven't actually read the book, have you? Typical of uneducated dawkinian peddlers who just join the cult to feign intelligence.

Look how many times he uses the word "creator". Darwin was a deist and Einstein was a pantheist, I would never use neither as a representation of my beliefs. Yet you have to admit it is funny how militant atheists such as yourself have adopted them as "historical posterboys" despite the fact that they were never atheists and never preached an atheistic view of the world.

Deism is not theism and so does not mean what you think it means, it in fact refers to a whole bunch of beliefs that posit that the universe arose from some origin outside of itself, rather than came into existence spontaneously out of nothing. That is not unreasonable (in fact FWIW it is a position I support), given that otherwise we find it hard to account for how the laws of physics originated in the first place, not that any particular deistic belief actually answers that question.

In Einstein's case his pantheism (more strictly panentheism, which means god/nature is a substance that encompasses everything), which is a form of deism, stems from Spinoza and is a totally naturalistic and deterministic approach to the origins of everything, viz Spinoza's famous phrase "Deus sive natura", which means God or nature. What Spinoza is saying there is that the concept of God (or a necessary first cause of everything) can be reduced to a very simple and unintelligent (i.e. intelligence is not meaningful in terms of first causes), but ordered process unwinding over time.

So yes, I agree, Darwin and Einstein were quite sensibly deists, but that doesn't make your religion, which proposes some very concrete attributes, such as that God has a son (!?), that there was a fall etc. any more likely to be true. And in fact the evidence we have and the current state of science suggests that those postulates are not true.

 

[Corwin]

What Bible myths? I can tell you haven't been following the discussion, but the fact is that creationism is something that came to be with the protestant reform and the idea of "sola criptura". The idea that the Bible is an infallible document on all matters and subject to absolute literal interpretation did not exist before Luther, Calvin and the rest of the "I want to be Mohammed" gang wreaked Havok across the western world.

Educated Catholics never accepted Genesis as a historical text. That includes the first Church Fathers, ones such as Augustine or Origen. Truth of the matter is that there is no scientific content in the Bible and the "conflict" which atheist crusaders such as you and roq mention is non-existant except in your imagination. I don't speak for protestantism and other post-16th century heresies off course, I speak for traditional Christianity.

Strange, JESUS accepted Genesis as an historical text, but what would He know. Without Genesis, the rest of scripture doesn't make sense, except to a Catholic I suppose!!

 

[FretRider]

Deism is not theism and so does not mean what you think it means, it in fact refers to a whole bunch of beliefs that posit that the universe arose from some origin outside of itself

Yes it is. Deists believe in a Creator God, they just deny that he interferes with Creation and also deny that we are capable of knowing much about him.

Geez man, can you at least look up a dictionary or encyclopedia before playing expert at subjects you know nothing about? Maybe google it at least?

So yes, I agree, Darwin and Einstein were quite sensibly deists, but that doesn't make your religion, which proposes some very concrete attributes, such as that God has a son (!?), that there was a fall etc. any more likely to be true. And in fact the evidence we have and the current state of science suggests that those postulates are not true.

Maybe you are aware of something that I have ignored all my life. I have always imagined that if someone proved that God does not exist the media woud have bothered to cover it. How does one scientifically prove that He does exist, or doesn't? Not exactly something that you can replicate in a lab

Please do cite such "evidence" with sources. Your arguments so far consist exclusively in elusive references, first to a "science versus religion conflict" and now to "evidence against the existence of God". You have not ellaborated on neither. Actually, you haven't even defined what are you are talking about when you mentioned both. I am about to give up in contempt of the militant atheist fedora tipping gibberish.

 

[FretRider]

Strange, JESUS accepted Genesis as an historical text

He did? And how do you know that?

Don't get me wrong fellow believer, Genesis contains TRUTH and I accept it in utmost faith. It is just sad that in this day and age one would profanate that truth(presented in the form of educational myths and allegories) by trying to plunge it into unrelated subjects such as science and archaeology.

I read once about baptist museums that show dinosaurs sharing the earth with humans. They even have fake fossils to prove that the world was created 5 millenia ago. That kind of thing is just sad, and it gives artillery for those who woud like to ridicule religion as a whole.

Can you imagine someone like Saint Augustine or Saint Thomas Aquinas partaking in such idiocy?

 

[Roq]

Maybe you are aware of something that I have ignored all my life. I have always imagined that if someone proved that God does not exist the media woud have bothered to cover it. How does one scientifically prove that He does exist, or doesn't? Not exactly something that you can replicate in a lab

Please do cite such "evidence" with sources. Your arguments so far consist exclusively in elusive references, first to a "science versus religion conflict" and now to "evidence against the existence of God". You have not ellaborated on neither. Actually, you haven't even defined what are you are talking about when you mentioned both. I am about to give up in contempt of the militant atheist fedora tipping gibberish.

But no one is claiming that they have proved that Yahweh or Thor or Zeus or fairies or... don't exist, just that there is insufficient evidence to make a convincing case for any of them. Similarly no one can prove, absolutely, that evolution *is* true either, although the evidence is very strong that it is. But, what we can say is that if abiogenesis and evolution are true then the Christian god can not exist, because it isn't logically possible that life, including humanity, could have arisen by an undirected natural process *and* that humanity was created by god in his own image. Facts can not have two different explanations when one rules the other out.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

But no one is claiming that they have proved that Yahweh or Thor or Zeus or fairies or… don't exist, just that there is insufficient evidence to make a convincing case for any of them.

All human known religions are disproven scientifically. Relatively to the creation of the world, all tales are disproven scientifically. At best, one tale hold by some guys in the region of South Africa could fit.

The idea of god is not disproven scientifically. There can be a god floating around.
The issue for religious people is that god or those gods, if they exist, never made contact with human beings in a way human beings could know of them.
If there are gods in contact with human beings, they either secretly influence them or they prefer to let human beings alone.

Dangerous situation as it is to try to worship secret entities that have left no guidelines to praise them. The hypothesis that they do not want to be disturbed and would prefer a human being to ignore them is the superior hypothesis.

For some people from the books, it turns worse as they subordinate the existence of their god to that unproven god.

The god from the books is scientifically disproven. Some christians (and others) have the terrible idea to say: there is a god that cant be disproven scientifically as you cant disprove the non existence of a god scientifically. That god is Jesus.
Terrible idea as it puts the potentially non disproven god above Jesus.
The bible is clear about that: christians should not tolerate a god above or next to Jesus.

Off course there is. You would never be able to deny Isaac Newton's deep religiosity, for instance.

There is not. What the point in denying Newton's religiosity, there is none.

At the moment, all around the world, people introduce themselves as supporters of freedom of speech, they join organizations to support freedom of speech. Yet they censor.
Their actions show they do not believe in freedom of speech.

Holding two beliefs that are incompatible is either believing in one or the other, never believing in the twos.

Holding beliefs in Jesus and non beliefs in Jesus is either believing in Jesus or not believing in Jesus.

People in the past were aware of the issue: that is why they had the concept of heretics.

What Bible myths?

The miracle of the seven fish and loathes. The scientific belief is it is impossible.
The christian belief is that not only it is possible, but it happened.

He did? And how do you know that?

Nothing short of a blasphem. That's asking the question whether Jesus believed in his father. Implying he did not is blasphematory.
Christians should avoid blasphemy.

 

[FretRider]

But, what we can say is that if abiogenesis and evolution are true then the Christian god can not exist, because it isn't logically possible that life, including humanity, could have arisen by an undirected natural process *and* that humanity was created by god in his own image. Facts can not have two different explanations when one rules the other out.

All human known religions are disproven scientifically. Relatively to the creation of the world, all tales are disproven scientifically. At best, one tale hold by some guys in the region of South Africa could fit.

You guys are just being ridiculously dense at this point. I have explained several times that creationism is a considerably recent idea and that traditional Christians never used the Bible as a source of scientific knowledge as to the origins of the world.

You can remain ignorant on the subject or you can keep chasing devils of your own making. If it makes you more confident about your atheist faith to do the latter and create such fantasies then it is not my business to make a point anymore. Strawman is strawman.

The god from the books was scientifically disproven.

Is that a fact? I haven't heart about that. Source please.

The miracle of the seven fish and loathes. The scientific belief is it is impossible.
The christian belief is that not only it is possible, but it happened.

Look up on the definition of the word "Miracle". It has nothing to do with science. Blaise Pascal and the miracle of Port Royale is a good example.

 

[Pladio]

Well, as far as I know you can't yet clone wine and fish in a matter of seconds.

So, scientifically, it is not yet possible.

This means the degree of likelihood it happened 2000 years ago is very low and as such it is highly unlikely it did happen.

 

[FretRider]

Well, as far as I know you can't yet clone wine and fish in a matter of seconds.

So, scientifically, it is not yet possible.

What is "scientific" about miracles? Do you even know what a miracle is?

It is like saying that ressurecting a dead man through medical means is exactly the same thing that was done unto Lazarus. Idiotic and out of context.

 

[Pladio]

What is "scientific" about miracles? Do you even know what a miracle is?

It is like saying that ressurecting a dead man through medical means is exactly the same thing that was done unto Lazarus. Idiotic and out of context.

I think you answered your own questions.
Your religion "believes" in miracles, that are not scientific, hence your religion is not scientific.

 

[FretRider]

I think you answered your own questions.
Your religion "believes" in miracles, that are not scientific, hence your religion is not scientific.

Off course not. I suppose that's something I have been saying for the last 2 pages or so. No religion is like that. There is spiritism and the like, but those are arguably not religions and in their attempts at materialism they are at best pseudo-scientific

Only fools mix things up or see some sort of conflict between the natural sciences and matters of the soul.