Pope Benedict XVI, the "holy" man formerly known as Joseph Alois Ratzinger (Prince reference anybody?), used Winter Solstice as an opportunity to continue a lie.
Ratzinger proclaimed that by comprehending the laws of nature we can somehow grow in our understanding and appreciation of "the Lord's" works.
In truth, there is a HUGE disconnect between religious "faith" and scientific fact.
One must either fully believe in what their holy book says, or one must concede that the holy book is flawed, and thus not "God inspired," but rather the written musings of man.
It's all or nothing people. God either meant it, or he didn't. And choosing for conveniece is the same as acknowledging the falsity and numerous inconvenient flaws.
Science has shown us that the earth is much older than holy texts suggest. Religion has made up excuses to try to incorporate this. They either conveniently make up something called "God's time" or they disregard science and radiocarbon dating all together.
Science has also shown us that the earth was not created in a matter of days, and that humans, and every organism we see on this planet, did not exist when the earth originally began to develop.
(Many religious leaders would have us believe that the earth is not BILLIONS of years old, but rather, only a few thousand.)
In other words, the creation story, which is how the holy book says everything came to be (THIS IS A BIG DEAL HERE) is a myth that is in direct conflict with science.
Science has shown us that, contrary to what religious leaders may tell us, humans are the result of evolution: we were not simply placed here on earth by some deity who made us "in his image." We evolved, this is a fact.
Religion and science have been battling eachother for as long as wishful thinking (rather than truth and logic) has been used to give peace of mind.
At first religion rejected evolution, and now, with the overwhelming amount of evidence, it is trying to accept it by calling it part of "God's plan." Labeling it "creationism."
I call it a sad attempt to remain relevant via slight of hand. Religious leaders are picking and choosing from the bible and cherry picking data from science. Then they mold them together as much as possible and sweep any disconect under the rug.
This is nothing new for religion.
As noted by Fox News today:
"The Catholic Church condemned Galileo in the 17th century for supporting Nicholas Copernicus' discovery that the Earth revolved around the sun; church teaching at the time placed Earth at the center of the universe. In 1992, Pope John Paul II apologized, saying that the denuncuation was a tragic error." (took long enough?)
Nothing like being condemned for using your brain and scientific fact.
Just as the church found it insulting to think that we weren't the center of "God's" universe: His CHOSEN creations. They still find it troubling to realize that their teachings are being unvelied as false by science.
"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." ~ Richard Dawkins.
(Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, or Nothing? Poll @ http://www.youreadygrandma.blogspot.com)
Evolution is not a fact it is a theory nothing more. The mere thought that you are quoting it as fact makes you more blind then the religious organizations that you condemn. I am not catholic, I was, but not anymore. The Pope is not the center of my belief, nor is he the center of many Christian followers. As far as I can tell macro evolution does not deviate from biblical creation story.
"Something given has no value"~Robert Heinlein
"Having been poor is no shame, but being ashamed of it, is." Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richards Almanack, 1749
Evolution is not a fact it is a theory nothing more.
I responded to your misconception concerning scientific theories and laws here
By your above statement I gather that you are thinking that a fact is a law. In science facts are the lowest level of information you can have. By themselves they mean very little. It is the theory that gives them meaning. A scientific theory is an explanatory paradigm that makes facts significant.
The core of modern evolutionary theory is so well supported that it is beyond reasonable doubt. The doubt that creationists claim is there is simply not there.
The mere thought that you are quoting it as fact makes you more blind then the religious organizations that you condemn.
Or else it shows that TWTW actually knows something about modern evolutionary theory.
I am not catholic, I was, but not anymore. The Pope is not the center of my belief, nor is he the center of many Christian followers.
Good for you and them, I suppose.
As far as I can tell macro evolution does not deviate from biblical creation story.
That shows that either you know nothing about macroevolution or you know nothing about the biblical account of creation or both. Or perhaps you are one of the "reasonable" Christians who decide that the bible doesn't mean what it really says so you compatiblize it with modern science. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately considering what the bible actually says) you make the bible meaningless when you do so.
If you claim that "evening and morning, the first [second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth] day" doesn't mean an actual day, but instead means an unspecified period of time somewhere between thousands and billions of years, then you are effectively saying that the bible can mean anything. If it can mean anything then it specifies nothing. If it specifies nothing it means nothing.
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
..."Evolution is not a fact it is a theory nothing more" just shows that you really don't understand what a scientific theory actually is. A scientific theory is a well supported collection of testable principles which explain a phenomenon and which permits accurate predictions to be made regarding that phenomenon in the real world. When used in its proper context, a scientific theory carries more weight than any individual "fact."
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Great editorial.
You beat me to it. It's very sad how many people cannot remember being taught scientific theory in middle school science.
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -F.N.
First of all, remember to use the reply button so the conversation can flow and be followed better... I am, after all, easily confused. :)
I understood what Tolkien3791 was saying to mean that Fact sounds more like its a LAW... simple, true, universal, and absolute. Where as theories are tweekable and alterable through further experimentation in order to make it more accurate. They are also falsifiable but do offer pretty concise logical explanation of things. Correct me if I am wrong from remembering my middle school science.
Anyway I look forward to see what else is said.
There are very few human beings who receive the truth, complete and staggering, by instant illumination. Most of them acquire it fragment by fragment, on a small scale, by successive developments, cellularly, like a laborious mosaic.~- Anais Nin
In science a fact is a piece of datum.
This is a viceroy butterfly
This is monarch butterfly
It is a FACT that monarch and viceroy butterflies look a lot alike.
A theory is something that explains facts and has been well tested:
Biomimicry of toxic organisms by non-toxic organisms confers and adaptive advantage. That is the THEORY that explains why it is a viceroy butterfly (a non-toxic species) looks so much like a monarch butterfly (a toxic species).
A law is the same thing as a theory except generally (but not always) is considered better supported than a theory. For instance, in modern physics the LAW of gravity and Einstein's general THEORY of relativity are the same thing.
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
The biggest mistake you are making is attempting to define who the pope is and what he believes. How would you like it if he tried to define you? Or perhaps he already has...
You failed to directly quote, or link to the exact event you are referring to, so I am left to assume that you are talking about the remarks Benedict made at ceremonies celebrating the 400th anniversary of Galileo's earliest astronomical observations: 'Benedict said understanding the laws of nature can stimulate understanding and appreciation of the Lord's works.'
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/services/newspaper/printedition/saturday/...
So he is in favor of better understanding through reason...And you are against that? Is that against reason itself, or you just think he shouldn't be allowed to be right about anything?
Perhaps you think an organization should not be allowed to admit mistakes, or embrace those they formerly condemned. I think that it is a very progressive, and positive thing when they do.
Science is a process, not a dogma. Discovering how a theory is wrong is a victory for science.
Very simply, let me ask you: Do you believe that the Theory of Evolution has, thus far, never been proven to be false?
You Said: "So he is in favor of better understanding through reason...And you are against that? Is that against reason itself, or you just think he shouldn't be allowed to be right about anything?"
- Of course I am in favor of better understanding through reason. That is why I am not religious. Because I use reason and understand that it's a load of crap. What is the Pope suddenly right about? It was the Pope formerly known as John Paul that admitted that the earth isn't flat and that the earth isn't the center of the universe.
You said: "Perhaps you think an organization should not be allowed to admit mistakes, or embrace those they formerly condemned. I think that it is a very progressive, and positive thing when they do."
- Perhaps you do not see the hilarity in all of this religious nonsense.
"Science is a process, not a dogma. Discovering how a theory is wrong is a victory for science."
- Correct. Discovering that the God Hypothesis was wrong was a huge victory for science.
- And since the Theory of Evolution has still passed every test over the past 140 years. Perhaps you should realize that it is still valid to this day. AND, importantly, evolution explains, with reason, why much of what we see in our world is the way that it is. It also disproves a lot of the bible.
It's time that we drop the religious dogma.
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -F.N.
"Do you believe that the Theory of Evolution has, thus far, never been proven to be false?"
It has been changed to fit the facts better than it did when Darwin wrote Origin of Species:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought
---
"What is the Pope suddenly right about?"
Science can help you to see and understand reality.
---
"Perhaps you do not see the hilarity in all of this religious nonsense."
Actually I see it as a riddle that MANY 'religious leaders' and those that see it as a 'load of crap' misunderstand. The misunderstandings are often hilarious and tragic.
---
"Discovering that the God Hypothesis was wrong was a huge victory for science."
Link? I am unaware of any such proof. It is almost impossible to prove a negative assertion in most cases including this one.
---
"It's time that we drop the religious dogma."
That is what Jesus said.
Science is always improving, moving foreword, and testing and checking itself. If anything the theory of evolution has been made more precise via testing.
Once again, it has never been proven false, or it would not be a Scientific Theory anymore.
Science can help you to see and understand reality. Religion makes up stories and excuses and provides no solid or reasonable answers.
What's the benefit of religion?
Read about science and facts instead of believing what you have been told to believe since you were young. Religion is made up, unprovable, and, as science has advanced, it is being picked apart.
Creationism has been proven false
Intelligent design is pseudo science
Noah's Ark story is laughable
And the bible is full of sexist, and hate-filled lines. It is hardly a guide to morality, unless you pick and choose. And if you have to pick and choose, then that means it is not perfect, not the word of god, and not a true guide for anything.
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -F.N.
"Science can help you to see and understand reality."
So you agree with the Pope?
---
"What's the benefit of religion?"
The way you are comparing the two It would be easy to assume you think science is a religion. What do you get out of your religion?
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
--Andre Gide
"Discovering that the God Hypothesis was wrong was a huge victory for science."
Link? I am unaware of any such proof. It is almost impossible to prove a negative assertion in most cases including this one.
I think that TWTW's comment was inexpertly phrased, and you are correct as to the general inability of logically proving a negative assertion. That however is why the burden of proof in propositions of this sort lie with the positive assertion, which in this case would be those who claim that the "god hypothesis" respresents some sort of actual truth. When approached from that direction, it quickly becomes apparent that the proponents of theism are now, always have been and in all likelihood will continue to be unable to provide any sort of actual, objective evidence that would elevate their proposition from the level of a baseless hypothesis to an actual theory of any rational significance.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"god hypothesis"
Could you tell me what that Hypothesis is?
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
--Andre Gide
Ahem...
So in scientific terms, it would not technically be accurate to state that the "god hypothesis" has been disproved, but it would be correct to state that (in all likelihood) any proposed "god hypothesis" would not qualify as a valid theory, due to the inability to perform a falsifiable test that would demonstrate or disprove the truth of the hypothesis. It would be more accurate, I think to refer to such ideas as speculations rather than hypotheses.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"any proposed "god hypothesis" would not qualify as a valid theory"
Correct. Not only is it inherently untestable, it is not a single hypothesis. There is such a variety of claims, many of them contradictory, that a 'unified God Theory' is meaningless.
A demand for 'evidence' of God is equally meaningless since ANY possible form that evidence could take could also have as its source a power far inferior to that of a universal God.
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
--Andre Gide
A demand for 'evidence' of God is equally meaningless since ANY possible form that evidence could take could also have as its source a power far inferior to that of a universal God.
The claim that "'evidence' is...meaningless" is a canard perpetuated by those whose opinions are NOT supported by evidence, and who want to present their baseless beliefs without having to abide by the normal rules of rational discourse. No matter how your try to quibble away from it, the basic premise of ALL theistic arguments is the logical fallacy the begs the question of the existence of supernatural forces and beings...and specifically in THIS case, the alleged being referred to as "god." Such beliefs are INHERENTLT irrational, and those who espouse those beliefs are BEHAVING irrationally when they try to defend those beliefs without answering even the most elementary challenges of reasoned argumentation.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Don't you ever just want to scream because of religious people?
There is no proof
There is ESPECIALLY no proof of the "God" that is described by those who follow their own f-ed up religions.
Is putting one's own mind to rest seriously more important than the search for truth?
Most people do not even follow their own religious texts to the "T"
and if they did, they would - most likely- end up being murderers in the name of their "God"
How F*cking stupid are people?
I seriously lose hope and reasons to live whenever religious people talk or vote or legislate.
Religion is a huge F*cking problem
and it is EVERYWHERE.
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -F.N.
"Don't you ever just want to scream because of religious people?"
Frustration is a sign that you are looking at the situation from a perspective of misunderstanding. At least trying to force the reality you are choosing onto others. Perhaps if you were trying to learn rather than just preach.
---
"Is putting one's own mind to rest seriously more important than the search for truth?"
Is that what makes you reject and insult things you don't understand? 'Looking for truth' or trying to force a self-serving 'truth' on others? What part of seeking the truth as it actually is makes you so frustrated, insulting and proselytizing? It seems to me you think you own 'truth' when you call people:
"f-ed up religions"
"they would - most likely- end up being murderers"
"How F*cking stupid are people?"
"Religion is a huge F*cking problem"
If cussing doesn't help you to see your emotional rather than rational basis here, perhaps you should fill in ANY group other than the one you choose to HATE and see if you don't sound like a bigot. For instance put these words toward Gay people and see if they are the ravings of a mad man in your opinion.
---
"I seriously lose hope and reasons to live..."
Is that rational?
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
--Andre Gide
Frustration is a sign that you are looking at the situation from a perspective of misunderstanding. At least trying to force the reality you are choosing onto others. Perhaps if you were trying to learn rather than just preach.
OR, it can also be a reaction that comes when trying to impart knowledge to a person who SHOULD be able to understand the concept at hand, but who REFUSES to understand due to some irrational motivation.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
No, I'm not frustrated at all by trying to explain to you.
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
--Andre Gide
...but once again you are forgetting that YOU are the one who has proposed a belief in the existece of a thing for which there is NO actual, objective evidence in support.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"The claim that "'evidence' is...meaningless" is a canard"
What exactly would 'prove God exists' ? If it is not a meaningless demand or 'canard' if you prefer tell me what 'sign' you would accept?
Bear in mind that anything you can perceive could be an illusion perpetrated by a power much less than an infinite God.
So.. one single 'most elementary' evidence you would accept....What could it be?
You already evaded it once I expect you will again.
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
--Andre Gide
The easy answer is to point out that YOU'RE the one who claims to believe in a "god," and thus the burden of coming up with such a test is on YOU.
A less dismissive answer would be to point out that before even "elementary evidence" could be obtained by ANY test, you would FIRST need to refine your ideas into a valid hypothesis, which as noted above is somewhat lacking in this case.
But, just to entertain the peanut gallery, in order to rationally assert the existence of an object (in this case, your "god") you would need to present the object itself for scrutiny (direct evidence) or point to other objects which bore the marks of having encountered that object (secondary evidence), including of course a similarly supported explanation of how those marks could not have been produced in any other way.
Furthermore, that evidence would have to be objective, in that it would have to exist independently of your own senses, which would resolve the question of it being illusory, since other could be offered the same evidence and then we could compare with each other to make sure that we are all seeing the same things. This is one of the reasons why valid scientific testing requires independent duplication and verification before the results of an experiment or test are deemed valid.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
1) "you would need to present the object itself for scrutiny"
In front of your nose, everywhere you look.
---
2) "point to other objects which bore the marks of having encountered that object"
See 1.
---
3) "explanation of how those marks could not have been produced in any other way."
Here is where YOU 'prove' that another way is possible. As I recall one of your alternative hypotheses was "from nothing." I would dearly love to see THAT proof, but maybe you should stick to 'it is and always was' which is more defensible though thrown into doubt by the Big Bang. Do you have any other competitors?
---
"Furthermore, that evidence would have to be objective, in that it would have to exist independently of your own senses, which would resolve the question of it being illusory, since other could be offered the same evidence and then we could compare with each other to make sure that we are all seeing the same things."
Getting you to agree that you you see even the simplest of things the same way I do is indeed problematic. Billions of others do, but as with Global Warming, consensus has no bearing on scientific fact.
---
"FIRST need to refine your ideas into a valid hypothesis"
Excellent point, How can you say they are wrong without knowing what they are? Since God, Truth, Nature, and Reality are synonymous my hypothesis is simple enough.
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
--Andre Gide
I will try to refrain from rolling my eyes at your sophomorism.
1) "you would need to present the object itself for scrutiny"
In front of your nose, everywhere you look.
In front of my nose at the moment is a computer screen. If you want to find "god" in my computer, you'll have to do better than just telling me to look at it. Your response would require me to imagine something more than the actual objects sitting before me would suggest by there mere existence.
2) "point to other objects which bore the marks of having encountered that object"
See 1.
Ditto.
3) "explanation of how those marks could not have been produced in any other way."
Here is where YOU 'prove' that another way is possible. As I recall one of your alternative hypotheses was "from nothing." I would dearly love to see THAT proof, but maybe you should stick to 'it is and always was' which is more defensible though thrown into doubt by the Big Bang. Do you have any other competitors?
Nope. I'm sorry, but the burden of proof still lies with YOU to provide evidence for YOUR hypothesis. And, I will point out for our readers that you are taking the quip "from nothing" completely out of concept. That was a discussion on virtual particles, the existence of which I have previously provided you a great deal of evidence from respected scientific journals. (See the original discussion, here, and a subsequently related discussion, here.)
Honestly, I don't know if you just lack the education to understand the science, or if your beliefs have so warped your mind that you refuse to accept the evidence behind what is now a well-established field of scientific endeavor (i.e. quantum physics). In either case, your continued misrepresentation of that conversation (in several discussion, now) is really damaging to the credibility of either your intelligence, or your objectivity (depending on which it is).
For those who haven't yet had the opportunity, here is a fine lecture by Stephen Hawking that explains why the need of religious people to believe in a causal origin for the universe is simply unfounded.
The Origin of the Universe
1 of 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFjwXe-pXvM
2 of 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSUsXYcQ5qA
3 of 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzO5eSjgocA
4 of 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhNX1wKFbB0
5 of 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8Kp0rQ23PY
Getting you to agree that you you see even the simplest of things the same way I do is indeed problematic. Billions of others do, but as with Global Warming, consensus has no bearing on scientific fact.
I don't agree with you because the evidence which you have presented (or rather, the LACK of it) does not support the positions you espouse. My disagreement is further fueled by your seeming inability to correctly apply the standard definitions of terms, which of course we have also discussed many times. Perhaps if you ideas were less vague, more precisely framed, and better supported by at least SOME evidence, you might do better in these discussions. Unfortunately, that is not the case...
TTFN,
Blackout
---
"Furthermore, that evidence would have to be objective, in that it would have to exist independently of your own senses, which would resolve the question of it being illusory, since other could be offered the same evidence and then we could compare with each other to make sure that we are all seeing the same things."
Getting you to agree that you you see even the simplest of things the same way I do is indeed problematic. Billions of others do, but as with Global Warming, consensus has no bearing on scientific fact.
---
"FIRST need to refine your ideas into a valid hypothesis"
Excellent point, How can you say they are wrong without knowing what they are? Since God, Truth, Nature, and Reality are synonymous my hypothesis is simple enough.
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"In front of my nose at the moment is a computer screen."
Even when you turn your head.
---
"Your response would require me to imagine something more than the actual objects sitting before me would suggest by there mere existence."
You can 'imagine' anything and that proves nothing.
---
So, after lengthy ad hominem completely free of meaningful content, stalemate.
Neither of us can prove anything. LOL
Why, if only proof interests you, do you bother when YOU have none?
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
--Andre Gide
A computer screen is a computer screen. I can see its parts and describe them discretely. Your suggestion is that there is something ELSE in there as well, and frankly, the evidence just doesn't support that assumption. Just pointing at a random object and saying "that's god" is a meaningless assertion, though typical of your usual attempts to simply redefine objects in order to support your desperate theism.
You can 'imagine' anything and that proves nothing.
This is true, though probably not in the way that you intended it. The evidence (or rather, the lack thereof) suggests that your "god" is a figment of your imagination. If you want to prove that alleged being's existence, you need something more than the random re-definition of common objects in order to convince other than you aren't simply delusional.
Why, if only proof interests you, do you bother when YOU have none?
Why? Because the people who perpetuate this kind of religious crap are hindering the advancement of our society and driving us backwards into a more primitive, rather than more advanced state of being. There is a famous saying...
Good and evil may be somewhat nebulous concepts at times, but insofar as the idea of good and evil are useful, I think the spread of religion falls into the latter category and the principle of standing up to people who harm others, even if they do not harm ME directly, is a good one.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Idiots, the whole bunch of them.
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -F.N.
thanks for the compliment ^__*""
“You cannot wean away an addict from the drug. It is not possible for me to walk away from Ranjha. If it is our destiny to be together then who, other than God, can change it?”
http://pakistaniat.com/2008/01/01/heer-ranjha-the-story-of-punjabs-first...
...Sans Logique?
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
--Andre Gide