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

Thrasher said:

That's a list of total bullshit from a bunch of right-wing wacko publications. You need to actually start listening to world climate scientists, rather than looney conspiracy theorists and religious zealots.

Click to expand...

What about this then?
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf


The fact is that the 97% is a myth that comes from politicians the like of Al Gore. Many Climate scientists have said that their work has been misrepresented by the IPCC. I would post a link to the youtube video showing all the climate scientists that say so but it has the prodigy music in the background so i would rather not.

"Friends of Science (FoS) is a Canadian non-profit advocacy organization based in Calgary, Alberta. The organization takes a position that humans are largely not responsible for the currently observed climate change contrary to the established scientific position on the subject. Rather, they propose that "the Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change" not human activity

Seems like another bullshit organization that is just a front for rightwing interests. Show me some real evidence.

Sounds like you have no problems accepting the reverse though even when the paper highlights why Cook's paper is blatantly misleading such that it isnt even comparable. I guess you dont a thorough dissection on why Cooks paper is wrong.


Fine, watch this with the sound turned off:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY-LVhNM5fA
There are also links on the side with single scientists disputing man made climate change.

No. I don't read papers by idiots.

Sounds like you cant look at things objectively. The irony.

You're tone deaf.

In all the years of posting you have provided zero credible sources for your opinions. And you've consistently failed to understand scientific methods despite many many tutorials.

FretRider said:

"science deniers", lol. Why is that? Because we are Catholic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric-scientists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_scientists

Vain assertion. Catholics have made the single greatest contribution to the advancemente of science in the near two millenia they have existed. It is only in recent centuries that self-appointed "enlightened men" like Dawkins(usually unimportant thinkers, much like himself) have begun this faux trend of preaching about a "conflict" between religion and reason.

It is even funnier that they repeatedly parade the few and irrelevant historical cases that had nothing to do with science in the first place. Such as the Galileo affair or the execution of Giordano Bruno. In reality even the protestants have not interfered with the advancement of science to any considerable degree.

Even the muslims didn't for a long time(until Al-Gazhali, that is). Atheists, on the other hand have done so. They were the ones who beheaded Lavoisier and promoted all kinds of irrational absurdity since the french revolution broke out.



Quit watching cosmos. de Grasse and Sagan are irrelevant pop scientists. While you are at it, quite reading Hawkings' mumbo jumbo. He looks cool in that wheelchair and sells a lot of books, but as a scientist he has no concrete and proven contribution.

Also, the lovecraftian worldview is entertaining, but in the end just another shallow nihilistic fashion. I like his fiction a lot, but the man himself has few to be emulated or admired. Sad that so many geeks consider him some kind of sage.

Click to expand...

You do like to rewrite history to suit your purposes. I guess truth isn't something that bothers you all that much: Robespierre was in fact strongly religious, and more likely than not other people involved in Lavoisier's death and the reign of terror surrounding those times were too. Although that wasn't directly tied to religion per se, but to another form of irrational political ideology. That can be just as pernicious and no one is claiming that all atrocities are committed in the name of imaginary beings, just that many of them are and Catholicism has not hung back in that respect, to put it mildly. But, we already had that discussion and I don't see the need to flog a dead horse (although I notice you repeating your absurd fantasy that atheism is itself a religion, which was refuted earlier and is so silly that it hardly needs revisiting).

I notice as a point of some interest that your list of Catholic scientists doesn't include Galileo, strange omission that isn't it? And Roger Bacon among others on that list had their works banned in the Catholic index of forbidden books, as did Copernicus & Galileo (even if those bans were later retracted). A strange way to foster science, one would imagine. Descartes was too scared to publish much of his thought, not least because any criticism of Aristotle was banned on pain of death at the instigation of the church. So no the Catholic church has been no friend to science and the stultifying dogma of established religions in general is undoubtedly a large part of the reason why over a thousand years passed before people made significant advances on what the Greeks had accomplished in a few centuries.

And there are no contemporary scientists on your list either - that is because by far the majority of great scientists from the past century or so have not been religious, so that today religion in scientists such as cosmologists is just a curious anomaly. And that is because science has now moved to a position where it encroaches on religious beliefs to such an extent that people find it very hard to reconcile the two - something that you yourself are massively failing to do.

Thrasher said:

You're tone deaf.

In all the years of posting you have provided zero credible sources for your opinions. And you've consistently failed to understand scientific methods despite many many tutorials.

Click to expand...

I have posted credible sources, detailed analysis of what you believe. But you cant even be bothered to look because of preconceived biases. The only credible sources to you are ones that agree with your preconceived biases.

Roq said:

So no the Catholic church has been no friend to science and the stultifying dogma of established religions in general is undoubtedly a large part of the reason why over a thousand years passed before people made significant advances on what the Greeks had accomplished in a few centuries.

Click to expand...

Nigga please. The middle-ages was a time of booming advancement in all sciences . Only uneducated plebs perpetuate the politically charged myth of the "dark ages". I have no high considerations of you for spouting this ignorant bullshit.

http://www.quora.com/Why-did-science-make-little-real-progress-in-Europe-in-the-Middle-Ages

I suggest you read this as well, for another common myth, the one concerning a "renaissance":

http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/renaissance.html

Spengler pointed the "start" of western civilization somewhere between 10th and 11th centuries for a reason. Universities, the origins of the scientific method and scholasticism(the union of reason and faith) all came to be in that period. Don't you at least find it ironic that you claim the Church is "no friend to science", and yet science only blossomed in lands where the Church had presence? And to claim there were no advancement after the Greeks…

Just needed to take a dump on the poor Romans too, eh?

Roq said:

That can be just as pernicious and no one is claiming that all atrocities are committed in the name of imaginary beings, just that many of them are and Catholicism has not hung back in that respect

Click to expand...

I'm literally laughing right now. Can't help but imagine you as the typical fedora wearing militant atheist after you wrote that. The things you claim are so absurd and politically loaded, and yet you claim I am the one who "rewrites history".

Answer these two questions:

- What is the total death toll of the inquisition in its 4 to 5 centuries of existence.
- What is the death toll of "secular" governments starting with the french revolution.

Fact: the Reign of Terror killed more people in a few months than the inquisition killed in centuries, and your attempt to paint the french revolutionaries as "religious" because of Robespierre's deism is ridiculous.

Haven't even left the 18th century yet. It is ironic to consider what you "enlightened" atheists have done in the name of "progress" in lieu of all the bashing historical peoples and institutions get by you. Can't look your own two eyeballs in the mirror I guess.

Roq said:

I notice as a point of some interest that your list of Catholic scientists doesn't include Galileo, strange omission that isn't it?

Click to expand...

I didn't notice it, but I agree with you. Galileo was a devout Catholic to the last and should be on the list regardless of political controversy.

Roq said:

And Roger Bacon among others on that list had their works banned in the Catholic index of forbidden books.

Click to expand...

I'm not aware of that. Mind quoting sources? I suspect that if he has been listed in the index it is for his theological work. He was once arrested for his sympathies with the Fraticelli.

Roq said:

And there are no contemporary scientists on your list either - that is because by far the majority of great scientists from the past century or so have not been religious, so that today religion in scientists such as cosmologists is just a curious anomaly. And that is because science has now moved to a position where it encroaches on religious beliefs to such an extent that people find it very hard to reconcile the two - something that you yourself are massively failing to do.

Click to expand...

There are several contemporary scientists on the list. You just haven't read it.

http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/public-praises-science-scientists-fault-public-media/

And you are basically wrong, as this research shows. 51% of american scientists do believe in God, most of the rest labels itself as agnostic and not atheist. Your failure lies in the fact that you consider your phony pop science TV heroes De Grasse, Dawkins and Hawkings to be somehow representative of the scientific establishment in general.

Damian said:

I have posted credible sources, detailed analysis of what you believe. But you cant even be bothered to look because of preconceived biases. The only credible sources to you are ones that agree with your preconceived biases.

Click to expand...

We've gone around with you multiple times with you on this. No matter the crazy irrational sources you provide to support your irrational beliefs, you never seem to get it. It's rather pointless to have discussions with you since you appear to be incapable of understanding basic concepts of science.

Thrasher said:

We've gone around with you multiple times with you on this. No matter the crazy irrational sources you provide to support your irrational beliefs, you never seem to get it. It's rather pointless to have discussions with you since you appear to be incapable of understanding basic concepts of science.

Click to expand...

Or its you that doesnt understand it. You have made science into a religion that you cannot question. Real science should be questioned, that is part of the scientific process.

Uh no. This is about you, and your lack of understanding, I daresay willfull ignorance. I'm done wasting my time with you.

Whatever.

Damian said:

Or its you that doesnt understand it. You have made science into a religion that you cannot question. Real science should be questioned, that is part of the scientific process.

Click to expand...

Kinda - that is a non-science answer. Science shouldn't be infinitely questioned just for the sake of constantly seeking refutation ... but rather scientific exploration should as a general rule be thought of as the process of constantly trying to be wrong, and only by thoroughly failing to be wrong, allow for the statistical probability of being correct.

For example, for the last few months of last year, I led a team looking into something related to interactions of materials at a surface interface. A series of designed experiments looked at the possible ways the interaction could possobly occur, designed in such a way as to 'reject the null hypothesis' - but that came out with a pretty clear indication of both how and when the effect occurred. Which was different than what was assumed observationally.

Think of it as comparing gravity and whether or not dogs have souls.

Gravity can be tested and the various gravitational effects characterized in controlled experiments ... and pretty much every high schooler has done so. This isn't 'questioning gravity' as in needing to re-prove it, but rather it is about demonstating experimental and computational principles using gravity.

Others (can't recall now) have said that dogs and other sentient animals have no souls. Please show me the refereed papers where that has been demonstrated.

See the difference?

FretRider said:

Nigga please. The middle-ages was a time of booming advancement in all sciences . Only uneducated plebs perpetuate the politically charged myth of the "dark ages". I have no high considerations of you for spouting this ignorant bullshit.

http://www.quora.com/Why-did-science-make-little-real-progress-in-Europe-in-the-Middle-Ages

I suggest you read this as well, for another common myth, the one concerning a "renaissance":

http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/renaissance.html

Spengler pointed the "start" of western civilization somewhere between 10th and 11th centuries for a reason. Universities, the origins of the scientific method and scholasticism(the union of reason and faith) all came to be in that period. Don't you at least find it ironic that you claim the Church is "no friend to science", and yet science only blossomed in lands where the Church had presence? And to claim there were no advancement after the Greeks…

Just needed to take a dump on the poor Romans too, eh?



I'm literally laughing right now. Can't help but imagine you as the typical fedora wearing militant atheist after you wrote that. The things you claim are so absurd and politically loaded, and yet you claim I am the one who "rewrites history".

Answer these two questions:

- What is the total death toll of the inquisition in its 4 to 5 centuries of existence.
- What is the death toll of "secular" governments starting with the french revolution.

Fact: the Reign of Terror killed more people in a few months than the inquisition killed in centuries, and your attempt to paint the french revolutionaries as "religious" because of Robespierre's deism is ridiculous.

Haven't even left the 18th century yet. It is ironic to consider what you "enlightened" atheists have done in the name of "progress" in lieu of all the bashing historical peoples and institutions get by you. Can't look your own two eyeballs in the mirror I guess.



I didn't notice it, but I agree with you. Galileo was a devout Catholic to the last and should be on the list regardless of political controversy.



I'm not aware of that. Mind quoting sources? I suspect that if he has been listed in the index it is for his theological work. He was once arrested for his sympathies with the Fraticelli.



There are several contemporary scientists on the list. You just haven't read it.

http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/public-praises-science-scientists-fault-public-media/

And you are basically wrong, as this research shows. 51% of american scientists do believe in God, most of the rest labels itself as agnostic and not atheist. Your failure lies in the fact that you consider your phony pop science TV heroes De Grasse, Dawkins and Hawkings to be somehow representative of the scientific establishment in general.

Click to expand...

Well, just a repetition of much of the nonsense you previously came up with and was easily refuted in previous posts. So, no atheism is not a cause in itself (it just means you don't believe in god/s), and yes the catholic church persecuted and killed many innocent people, not to mention more recent suspect behaviour (we don't need to expand on that do we?), that makes it's claims to be a moral arbiter specious - something that you can not paint out of history. And no religion does not promote science, but in fact persecutes anyone who diverges from it's dogma, given the chance.

I notice though, that you've suddenly become very quiet about the "fall". So presumably all this repetitive vitriol is just a part of your smoke and mirrors tactics to avoid having to answer exactly what fell and from where and why a god sending down his "son" should make a difference. And if you imagine that religion and science are compatible, then whilst you ponder on those questions, you might also consider exactly what evidence there is that whatever the cause of the universe is, it is the kind of thing that might have had a "son". That sounds more like an anthropocentric fable that is just as scientifically naive as believing in the absolute truth of genesis.

txa1265 said:

Kinda - that is a non-science answer. Science shouldn't be infinitely questioned just for the sake of constantly seeking refutation … but rather scientific exploration should as a general rule be thought of as the process of constantly trying to be wrong, and only by thoroughly failing to be wrong, allow for the statistical probability of being correct.

For example, for the last few months of last year, I led a team looking into something related to interactions of materials at a surface interface. A series of designed experiments looked at the possible ways the interaction could possobly occur, designed in such a way as to 'reject the null hypothesis' - but that came out with a pretty clear indication of both how and when the effect occurred. Which was different than what was assumed observationally.

Think of it as comparing gravity and whether or not dogs have souls.

Gravity can be tested and the various gravitational effects characterized in controlled experiments … and pretty much every high schooler has done so. This isn't 'questioning gravity' as in needing to re-prove it, but rather it is about demonstating experimental and computational principles using gravity.

Others (can't recall now) have said that dogs and other sentient animals have no souls. Please show me the refereed papers where that has been demonstrated.

See the difference?

Click to expand...

I agree with that and i understand.

Roq said:

Well, just a repetition of much of the nonsense you previously came up with and was easily refuted in previous posts. So, no atheism is not a cause in itself (it just means you don't believe in god/s), and yes the catholic church persecuted and killed many innocent people, not to mention more recent suspect behaviour (we don't need to expand on that do we?), that makes it's claims to be a moral arbiter specious - something that you can not paint out of history. And no religion does not promote science, but in fact persecutes anyone who diverges from it's dogma, given the chance.

Click to expand...

- Atheist regimes ruled by atheist dictators murder millions upon millions, commit the most horrible atrocities in the history of mankind = NOT ATHEISM'S FAULT, ATHEISM IS NOT A CAUSE

- Catholic Church creates inquisition during the 14th century, proceeds to execute about 30.000 people guilty of heresy in 4 centuries= EVIL RELIGION OPRESSES PEOPLE AND COMMITS INHUMAN ACTS OF TERROR

Yeah bro, makes perfect sense. I have been "refuted" alright. Tip your fedora when you are through and don't forget to move the goal posts again before you kick the ball.

And you still failed to explain how come the institution that created the university, has the largest number of scientific nobel prizes and is directly responsible for most scientific progress in the last millenium or so "does not promote science".

Roq said:

I notice though, that you've suddenly become very quiet about the "fall". So presumably all this repetitive vitriol is just a part of your smoke and mirrors tactics to avoid having to answer exactly what fell and from where and why a god sending down his "son" should make a difference. And if you imagine that religion and science are compatible, then whilst you ponder on those questions, you might also consider exactly what evidence there is that whatever the cause of the universe is, it is the kind of thing that might have had a "son". That sounds more like an anthropocentric fable that is just as scientifically naive as believing in the absolute truth of genesis.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what is left to explain about my views on genesis. Was there a question hidden in this blurb of yours?

FretRider said:

- Atheist regimes ruled by atheist dictators murder millions upon millions, commit the most horrible atrocities in the history of mankind = NOT ATHEISM'S FAULT, ATHEISM IS NOT A CAUSE

- Catholic Church creates inquisition during the 14th century, proceeds to execute about 30.000 people guilty of heresy in 4 centuries= EVIL RELIGION OPRESSES PEOPLE AND COMMITS INHUMAN ACTS OF TERROR

Yeah bro, makes perfect sense. I have been "refuted" alright. Tip your fedora when you are through and don't forget to move the goal posts again before you kick the ball.

And you still failed to explain how come the institution that created the university, has the largest number of scientific nobel prizes and is directly responsible for most scientific progress in the last millenium or so "does not promote science".



I'm not sure what is left to explain about my views on genesis. Was there a question hidden in this blurb of yours?

Click to expand...

Big fail. You have said that science and religion, meaning your religion of course, can be reconciled with science and: "I do believe in God, the Holy Trinity, orginal sin, the divinity of Christ, the whole thing", but you clearly can not defend that position: Those are empirical claims about how the world, the origin of the universe and practically everything else works. And all those claims run counter to the current scientific theories, which best account for the actual evidence in their respective fields. Sure you can believe that stuff, based on faith, it is a free world. But it isn't science any more than genesis is science.

What is particularly nauseating about your particular rhetoric is the authority you assume to criticise other people's religions, when your own is just as lacking in any rationality or evidence. Catholicism has no grounds for any feeling of superiority over the myths invented by anyone else, either today, or in the past. And in fact has tarnished itself in many peoples eyes not only by its history, but by its arrogant meddling in the third world and by assumptions that it can dictate morality and what adults can do in their bedrooms.

Roq said:

Big fail. You have said that science and religion, meaning your religion of course, can be reconciled with science and: "I do believe in God, the Holy Trinity, orginal sin, the divinity of Christ, the whole thing", but you clearly can not defend that position: Those are empirical claims about how the world, the origin of the universe and practically everything else works. And all those claims run counter to the current scientific theories, which best account for the actual evidence in their respective fields. Sure you can believe that stuff, based on faith, it is a free world. But it isn't science any more than genesis is science.

Click to expand...

"those claims run counter to the current scientific theories". Sure thing bro… you have said that about a dozen times now, but when called upon to ellaborate you just move one to another mindless atheist gibberish.

"Runs counter" to what and how? A jesuit priest created the big bang theory and an augustinian monk was one of the biggest contributors to genetics and evolutionary theory. Where and what is the conflict you keep mentioning off-handed?

Roq said:

What is particularly nauseating about your particular rhetoric is the authority you assume to criticise other people's religions, when your own is just as lacking in any rationality or evidence. Catholicism has no grounds for any feeling of superiority over the myths invented by anyone else, either today, or in the past. And in fact has tarnished itself in many peoples eyes not only by its history, but by its arrogant meddling in the third world and by assumptions that it can dictate morality and what adults can do in their bedrooms.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is a pity the world has not yet fully embraced the enlightenment of secular atheism. If only we all could be as enlightened as Dawkins and his followers. Only minds such as yours know the solution to all the world's problems.

Maybe after the next grand bloody revolution things will work out alright, I'm sure they have just failed for the last 3 centuries because the world is unfair. These evil Christian doctrines and the horrible fruits they bear will soon give way to a multicultural atheist paradise of immortality and plenty.

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