Dispelling the usual nonsense about the Galileo affair.....

[Murat Baslamisli]

Thanks for posting this video Cali, because before that, I was sure I have heard plenty of stupid things in my life, but this guy Dr Thomas Woods seems like the biggest moron I have ever seen, hands down.... He is dissing Galileo for not being able to "prove" his theories, and yet he has absolutely ZERO proof about every single thing that he believes in. No religious person has the friggin RIGHT to use the word "Proof" The word "proof" used by a believer has to be height of hypocrisy. I am supposed to believe in his stories and accept them in "Faith" but everyone else have to prove their stuff? Get outa here...

Okay, so you concede that Galileo did not adequately make the case for the heliocentric model and that he was unable to refute the legitimate scientific objections being made to it in his day?

Great, I am very happy to hear that.

You don't get it. When people believed that the gods needed a virgin sacrifice because a volcano has erupted, that was because they did not know that it was only lava trying to find a crack in the surface of the earth to come out. THAT was learned later...Maybe Galileo did not have the proof at the time but that is how science works...it takes time. Whereas religion KNOWS without effort. Your doctor Woods does not even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as Galileo, period.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Thanks for posting this video Cali, because before that, I was sure I have heard plenty of stupid things in my life, but this guy Dr Thomas Woods seems like the biggest moron I have ever seen, hands down.... He is dissing Galileo for not being able to "prove" his theories, and yet he has absolutely ZERO proof about every single thing that he believes in. No religious person has the friggin RIGHT to use the word "Proof" The word "proof" used by a believer has to be height of hypocrisy. I am supposed to believe in his stories and accept them in "Faith" but everyone else have to prove their stuff? Get outa here...

Yeah, Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer are such pea brains to believe in religion. I don't know what is wrong with them.

And again, your highly intolerant and hostile rhetoric serves, yet again, as proof that Kieran and Britbox were spot-on in their critique of so-called "democracy". No society genuinely believes in tolerance of everything, because logically that means having no standards or values whatsoever. Thank you for serving as proof of that great lie. Well-done.

I have a brain. I don't accept anything on faith. And yes, I have no tolerance for people that do absolutely nothing and claim to KNOW everything and than judge people who dedicate their lives to finding something to improve mankind.

 

[calitennis127]

Thanks for posting this video Cali, because before that, I was sure I have heard plenty of stupid things in my life, but this guy Dr Thomas Woods seems like the biggest moron I have ever seen, hands down.... He is dissing Galileo for not being able to "prove" his theories, and yet he has absolutely ZERO proof about every single thing that he believes in. No religious person has the friggin RIGHT to use the word "Proof" The word "proof" used by a believer has to be height of hypocrisy. I am supposed to believe in his stories and accept them in "Faith" but everyone else have to prove their stuff? Get outa here...

Okay, so you concede that Galileo did not adequately make the case for the heliocentric model and that he was unable to refute the legitimate scientific objections being made to it in his day?

Great, I am very happy to hear that.

You don't get it. When people believed that the gods needed a virgin sacrifice because a volcano has erupted, that was because they did not know that it was only lava trying to find a crack in the surface of the earth to come out. THAT was learned later...Maybe Galileo did not have the proof at the time but that is how science works...it takes time. Whereas religion KNOWS without effort. Your doctor Woods does not even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as Galileo, period.

Well unlike Galileo, Dr. Woods appears to be able to win his main arguments with clear evidence that decides the debate. So yes, you're right, they are separate.

As for the rest of your post - you demonstrate appalling ignorance, but I should not be so taken aback by it. I should know better. There is more than a little "proof" out there for the Christian religion, if you care to look for it. For one thing, numerous archaeological digs have verified the veracity of Biblical stories. For another, there is a long and well-developed tradition within Christianity, the Catholic Church in particular, of reconciling faith with reason. This is well-documented to anyone who knows about the Middle Ages.

Your time distinction is laughable. There are countless brilliant scholars in the Christian tradition who introduced new ideas and spent lifetimes developing and elaborating their thought. To say that they did this without any effort makes you sound as obtuse as a U.S. president. What's funny as well is that in Dr. Woods' second lecture, he lists numerous great scientists who were Catholic clergymen.

Did you know that 32 craters on the moon are named after Jesuit priests, because of their contributions to astronomy?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

 

[Moxie]

I am not at all a homophobe, because I do not harbor any irrational fear of homosexuals.

I prefer the term homo-despiser, as well as perhaps homophiliac-despiser. The Latin verb "despicio" means "to look down upon", and I genuinely look down upon gays who truly want to get married (a tiny group if ever there was one), gay activist organizations that pine for changes in legislation, and especially the legions of moronic heterosexuals who treat the matter of gay marriage/gay rights sanctimoniously and piously.

So I prefer to be thought of that way, if you don't mind.

Actually, I do mind. Homophobe/homophobic are the standard words to describe people like you, so they are what I'll use.

Well, go with that if you prefer. It's just a misuse of language, kind of like pairing the words "gay" and "marriage" in a single coherent phrase.

Not that that matters or anything.

Trent is right about the conventional words (ugly as they are,) and you have to recognize that language doesn't bend to your will. To say that you are a "homo-despiser," (your word) proves that you are embracing hateful speech, and expresses your ugly feelings about an entire group of people. I'm surprised if you think that would be welcomed. The tide tends towards generosity and inclusiveness. Clearly, you were not interested in a conversation about science and the Catholic Church. You just wanted to demean gays, gay marriage, and those that support it. You should remember that this country, and I know you're from the US, was founded, however imperfectly, initially, on equal justice for all.

"Equal justice for all" is a hollow and meaningless expression. It is amazing that the enlightened founding fathers never even contemplated the absurd monstrosity of "gay marriage", given the ideals they were guided by. It must have just slipped their minds!

My intention in this post was primarily to discuss Galileo. But that doesn't mean tie-ins and connections can't be made. My point - which apparently went right over your head - was that it is sad how we live in a world where there is an ignorant mythology of the Galileo affair that no one seems interested in learning the truth about, while an immense horde of media dunces celebrates something entirely trivial and silly like Jason Collins signing a 10-day contract.

That was the connection.

As for language, I am not bending it at all. I am using it accurately. Calling someone a homophobe suggests that they suffer from "irrational fear". I, on the other hand, have entirely rational objections and I genuinely look down upon the widespread trendy foolishness on this question.

It's you that injected Jason Collins and moved the conversation of the thread. As I bolded above, you say that "equal justice for all," is a 'hollow and meaningless expression.' What a cynical thing to say. Do you not think that everything the US stands for is that, i.e. equal justice? It may be a hard thing to strive for, but it is our ideal. You seems to be selecting "equality," and I don't think that's where this country is going, thankfully.

 

[calitennis127]

Thanks for posting this video Cali, because before that, I was sure I have heard plenty of stupid things in my life, but this guy Dr Thomas Woods seems like the biggest moron I have ever seen, hands down.... He is dissing Galileo for not being able to "prove" his theories, and yet he has absolutely ZERO proof about every single thing that he believes in. No religious person has the friggin RIGHT to use the word "Proof" The word "proof" used by a believer has to be height of hypocrisy. I am supposed to believe in his stories and accept them in "Faith" but everyone else have to prove their stuff? Get outa here...

Yeah, Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer are such pea brains to believe in religion. I don't know what is wrong with them.

And again, your highly intolerant and hostile rhetoric serves, yet again, as proof that Kieran and Britbox were spot-on in their critique of so-called "democracy". No society genuinely believes in tolerance of everything, because logically that means having no standards or values whatsoever. Thank you for serving as proof of that great lie. Well-done.

I have a brain. I don't accept anything on faith. And yes, I have no tolerance for people that do absolutely nothing and claim to KNOW everything and than judge people who dedicate their lives to finding something to improve mankind.

You accept nothing on faith?

Nonsense.

There are hundreds of mythical stories - unrelated to the Bible - that people learn in history courses all the time without ever knowing for sure if they are true. The mythical story of Abraham Lincoln as the "Great Emancipator" is case and point. Your blind faith in the usual Galileo narrative up to now is also a great example.

As for Woods "judging people" - this is what any historian does. It's called analysis. You just don't happen to like how he is exposing the weaknesses in Galileo's argument, when - I am sure - this episode is something that you have always felt so convinced about as evidence of the Church's backwardness. Naturally, you are annoyed to see someone show that the narrative you believed blindly, by faith in what you were told, is incorrect.

So, like Galileo, you are getting a little testy about it.

Just calm down and have a drink of ice water. You'll be fine. You can get through it.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Cali, there will be a cure for your kind, but I will not live to see it. You don't even understand what you read. Actually, I believe you did not even read anything I wrote. You just saw a post and press reply to write more garbage.And it is what it is. Garbage. Have I ever said anywhere Christianity does not exist? No I did not. I said what it BELIEVES in requires no effort, no work, no thinking, NOTHING. A religious person KNOWS there is an invisible man in the sky, KNOWS there is heaven, KNOWS there is hell, KNOWS that snakes talk and people get swallowed by whales. When I ask where is the PROOF, what answer do I get? NONSENSE is what I get ...They always KNOW, period. No effort is needed. A scienetist , on the other hand, does not know anything. He works at it, they in, day out, tries to come up with theories, prove them, disprove them, discard them, publish them. He does not just say "god did it" and sits on his rich Vatican ass all his life , denying people basic rights that comes from just being human.
A homophobic calling me ignorant...boy oh boy...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

There is no weakness in Galileo's argument. Just not enough science AT THE TIME. That is how science works. Morons believed a lightning bolt was the wrath of god...there was no science to prove otherwise. NOW we KNOW what a lighning bolt is, don't we???? Or am I assuming too much in your case?

 

[Kieran]

Crikey, this one's a tinderbox! The only thing I'll say, Murat, is in defence of "faith", as humans we take a lot more things on faith every day than we notice. From timetables down to the chap who steps into the operating theatre and says, "I'm your surgeon Dave, don't worry, I've done this loads of times."

Catholic faith isn't a question of believing what we're told, although of course a lot of people of all faiths - and none - have been given their beliefs by their families. But stepping out of that, I would say the faith is experiential. It's a relationship, as much as any relationship on earth. And it should be tested and examined. Nobody should gloat and say, "I know!" Faith carries dark holes too, and it has to be explored and deciphered, as well as lived and enjoyed. The Jesus of the bible is familiar to us. Now, you might say we're mad, but then we might say that of everybody else. But there are stories we could tell each other and maybe you'd believe some of them and maybe you'd believe none of them, and that wouldn't make me right or wrong.

But I just wanted to address the idea of faith, because it isn't something that we can put in a test tube and weigh. But scientific proof isn't the full measure of everything either, since science can't prove or disprove certain things. I remember arguing with my bro in law for hours about the existence of Love, something I couldn't actually prove according to the terms he was seeking. To answer that "I feel it" became inadequate, eventually. Another guy in a pub argued the brain in a jar. Try battling these folks. Seriously, you'd enjoy it more than arguing for Federer! :snigger

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Kieran, normally, I am the most docile atheist you can find. I don't even get into arguments about this stuff because what is the point. But when I listened to what Cali posted, I almost broke my laptop I was so mad...Religion, whose existence depends on none-proof, dissing a scientist who spent his life trying to better mankind with pretty much getting nothing in return, because he could not prove his theories properly with the science at hand at the time...while having absolutely zero proof in what they believe in. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

 

[Kieran]

Kieran, normally, I am the most docile atheist you can find. I don't even get into arguments about this stuff because what is the point. But when I listened to what Cali posted, I almost broke my laptop I was so mad...Religion, whose existence depends on none-proof, dissing a scientist who spent his life trying to better mankind with pretty much getting nothing in return, because he could not prove his theories properly with the science at hand at the time...while having absolutely zero proof in what they believe in. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

I think you're being a bit strong. Religion doesn't exist in non-proof - it just doesn't provide proof that will satisfy everybody. This is why it's called "faith", but I would reject an atheistic view that we hold our beliefs without providing reasons. The "proofs" for us are spiritual and in the effect of the faith. They're also historical, in the Person of Christ, and personal, in our living experience of Him.

This isn't science we're discussing, which involves a different set of proofs - though science isn't without arguments within their community too...

 

[calitennis127]

There is no hypocrisy at all there, Murat. Evidently it just beyond your intellectual capacity to follow a chronology of thought or understand a specific detailed issue.

 

[britbox]

Science and religion can co-exist in the main. It doesn't have to be one or another... unless you're talking about the creation of the world... and a "Big Bang" to explain everything is a pretty tough sell IMO.

Science is about discovery... not all for the good of mankind either. I'd differentiate between the guy who made the penecillin discovery and the guy who split the atom.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

There is no hypocrisy at all there, Murat. Evidently it just beyond your intellectual capacity to follow a chronology of thought or understand a specific detailed issue.

My intellectual capacity is good enough for me, thanks. Why don't you worry about yours, since you believe in talking snakes???

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Kieran, normally, I am the most docile atheist you can find. I don't even get into arguments about this stuff because what is the point. But when I listened to what Cali posted, I almost broke my laptop I was so mad...Religion, whose existence depends on none-proof, dissing a scientist who spent his life trying to better mankind with pretty much getting nothing in return, because he could not prove his theories properly with the science at hand at the time...while having absolutely zero proof in what they believe in. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

I think you're being a bit strong. Religion doesn't exist in non-proof - it just doesn't provide proof that will satisfy everybody. This is why it's called "faith", but I would reject an atheistic view that we hold our beliefs without providing reasons. The "proofs" for us are spiritual and in the effect of the faith. They're also historical, in the Person of Christ, and personal, in our living experience of Him.

This isn't science we're discussing, which involves a different set of proofs - though science isn't without arguments within their community too...

Kieran, I just cannot believe that sentence. There is no proof, PERIOD. The fact that you choose to believe on faith is not proof. There is not one iota of proof for the existence of god. Faith is not proof. And it is fine.

Of course science is with arguments. That's how it works. Science changes its position in light of new facts. When was the last time god sent even a tiny addenda to the bible ???? It does not, because religion KNOWS everything without effort.

 

[Kieran]

It is proof, Murat. It's proof that satisfies me. It's an absolutely gratuitous experience, it comes out of nowhere and transforms your life. And when you read the gospel, you recognise that Guy who did it. And when you read the lives of the saints, you recognise the exact same spirit at work.

It's not scientific proof, but that's a different thing. And of course, to challenge the perspective of a sentence above, there's no proof that God doesn't exist. So the best position, surely, if you disbelieve, is to keep a somewhat open mind and be an agnostic?

When was the last time god sent even a tiny addenda to the bible ???? It does not, because religion KNOWS everything without effort.

Why would God add to the Bible? And who said "religion knows everything without effort?"

 

[calitennis127]

Cali, there will be a cure for your kind, but I will not live to see it.

Such as.....genocide? The great non-religious, post-Christian leader Joseph Stalin already tried that, and it didn't manage to completely eliminate what you think of as "religion".

Speaking of genocide, is that one of those very moral policies of great atheist leaders? They only claimed about 100 million lives in the 20th century with it.

You don't even understand what you read. Actually, I believe you did not even read anything I wrote.

No, I read it, I understood it, and I refuted it. And you couldn't take it.

You just saw a post and press reply to write more garbage.And it is what it is. Garbage.

If you call something garbage, that more likely than not makes it a treasure.

Have I ever said anywhere Christianity does not exist? No I did not.

Have I ever said anywhere that I think you don't believe Christianity exists? No I did not.

What I said - and what went right over your head - is that there is all kinds of evidence for the historical veracity of many Biblical stories, and there have been many high-level intellectual schools of thought elucidating the rationale of Christianity. Many scholars, theologians, historians, and intellectuals within the Christian tradition have worked strenuously and tirelessly on this for generations.

But being as ignorant as you are, you know nothing about that.

I said what it BELIEVES in requires no effort, no work, no thinking, NOTHING.

After saying this, you may as well stand on the roof of your house with a huge sign that says "I KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT ANYTHING". Stand there for 10 hours and let the world know.

Joseph Ratzinger - the man who became Pope Benedict XVI - wrote 66 books on Christianity in his life. Would you like to say that he did that with "no effort, no work, no thinking, NOTHING". If yes, then you are just an abject fool.

Read through this list and tell me that this wasn't a man who put any rigorous thought into the question of religion, but just sat on his rich Vatican ass. Just skimming through this list must make you feel like the ultimate dumbo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI_bibliography

The man wrote books on the liturgy, world religions, the Apostles, the early Church, charity, the greatest theologians, and the greatest women in Christian history, among other subjects. And you dare to say that his life required "no effort, no work, no thinking, NOTHING". Your ignorance is astonishing.

You know what requires "no effort, no work, no thinking, NOTHING"? The vast majority of courses at contemporary leftist-atheist created universities, where standards have been destroyed in the last 50 to 70 years. The study of Classics and foreign/ancient languages has been obliterated. There are way too many people in schools. Money is wasted left and right.

It takes a lifetime of rigorous study to be a Pope Benedict XVI. It takes getting a B in a worthless "English" class at a modern university to think you're smart when you listen to an ignoramus like Bill Maher spout off on history or what he moronically calls "religion".

A religious person KNOWS there is an invisible man in the sky, KNOWS there is heaven, KNOWS there is hell, KNOWS that snakes talk and people get swallowed by whales.

Maybe you should read some of the explanations of the former Pope Benedict XVI or the early doctors of the Church to get some of those answers. Those are just a couple places to start.

When I ask where is the PROOF, what answer do I get? NONSENSE is what I get

That's because you have been going to the wrong people, while also looking for the cheapest and easiest answers possible.

A scienetist , on the other hand, does not know anything.

LOL.....yes of course. Scientists are just humble, innocent little men seeking the truth in a life of penury. They are concerned with nothing but meekly pursuing truth.

This perfectly describes someone like Richard Dawkins, for instance, doesn't it? He doesn't enjoy any celebrity, or exhibit any arrogance, or pontificate about subjects that go well beyond science - or does he, Murat? :laydownlaughing

No, it's just his test tube and goggles and honestly studying the data.

And you criticize religious people for believing in fantasy? Look in the mirror.

He works at it, they in, day out, tries to come up with theories, prove them, disprove them, discard them, publish them.

Theologians, philosophers, historians, and literary critics do the exact same thing in their fields. Scientists are not unique for this.

He does not just say "god did it" and sits on his rich Vatican ass all his life

Yeah, writing 66 books in a single life amounts to just "sitting on one's rich Vatical ass all one's life".

You're a genius!:laydownlaughing

denying people basic rights that comes from just being human.

Oh okay - so you take nothing on faith. Except some mythical stories from Locke and Rousseau about "states of nature" that never existed from which theories of "basic rights" were developed.

Right. And you take nothing from faith.

Are you familiar with the term "non sequitur"? You should be, because evidently you believe that if one is human, he or she should automatically have a legal "right" to marry whomever he or she pleases, of either gender. This is the height of bad logic.

A homophobic calling me ignorant...boy oh boy...

The term "ignorant" properly refers to not knowing something, or not possessing knowledge - it does refer to not having a sissy little temperamental feeling about how "gay people should have certain rights".

Use the word properly, and then we can talk.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

It is proof, Murat. It's proof that satisfies me. It's an absolutely gratuitous experience, it comes out of nowhere and transforms your life. And when you read the gospel, you recognise that Guy who did it. And when you read the lives of the saints, you recognise the exact same spirit at work.

It's not scientific proof, but that's a different thing. And of course, to challenge the perspective of a sentence above, there's no proof that God doesn't exist. So the best position, surely, if you disbelieve, is to keep a somewhat open mind and be an agnostic?

When was the last time god sent even a tiny addenda to the bible ???? It does not, because religion KNOWS everything without effort.

Why would God add to the Bible? And who said "religion knows everything without effort?"

A proof that satisfies you is not proof. It is for YOU. I get that and it is fine.
I cannot proove god does not exist because it is extremely difficult to prove a negative, scientifically speaking. Can you prove that a big dildo is not circling the second moon of some distant planet in some distant galaxy as we speak? No you can't. But you would rather not believe that , right?

Why would god add to the bible? Why not? That is what science does. When new facts arise, it changes its position. Why can't god? He can say" Sorry guys, I messed up with adam and eve thing because it is now a known fact genetically that it is impossible for all people to decent from 2 persons..besides it would be incest in the worst kind" or " My bad, water just does not turn to wine...scratch that" or " Ditto with the talking snake...the vocal cords just does not allow it"...

Religion DOES know everything without effort. It knows there is Heaven, right? What kind of work did go into finding that out? People put together expeditions, spent their lives trying to locate it and than finally did? No. Because god said so. Is there effort there, you tell me...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Cali, there will be a cure for your kind, but I will not live to see it.

Such as.....genocide? The great non-religious, post-Christian leader Joseph Stalin already tried that, and it didn't manage to completely eliminate what you think of as "religion".

Speaking of genocide, is that one of those very moral policies of great atheist leaders? They only claimed about 100 million lives in the 20th century with it.

You don't even understand what you read. Actually, I believe you did not even read anything I wrote.

No, I read it, I understood it, and I refuted it. And you couldn't take it.

You just saw a post and press reply to write more garbage.And it is what it is. Garbage.

If you call something garbage, that more likely than not makes it a treasure.

Have I ever said anywhere Christianity does not exist? No I did not.

Have I ever said anywhere that I think you don't believe Christianity exists? No I did not.

What I said - and what went right over your head - is that there is all kinds of evidence for the historical veracity of many Biblical stories, and there have been many high-level intellectual schools of thought elucidating the rationale of Christianity. Many scholars, theologians, historians, and intellectuals within the Christian tradition have worked strenuously and tirelessly on this for generations.

But being as ignorant as you are, you know nothing about that.

I said what it BELIEVES in requires no effort, no work, no thinking, NOTHING.

After saying this, you may as well stand on the roof of your house with a huge sign that says "I KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT ANYTHING". Stand there for 10 hours and let the world know.

Joseph Ratzinger - the man who became Pope Benedict XVI - wrote 66 books on Christianity in his life. Would you like to say that he did that with "no effort, no work, no thinking, NOTHING". If yes, then you are just an abject fool.

Read through this list and tell me that this wasn't a man who put any rigorous thought into the question of religion, but just sat on his rich Vatican ass. Just skimming through this list must make you feel like the ultimate dumbo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI_bibliography

The man wrote books on the liturgy, world religions, the Apostles, the early Church, charity, the greatest theologians, and the greatest women in Christian history, among other subjects. And you dare to say that his life required "no effort, no work, no thinking, NOTHING". Your ignorance is astonishing.

You know what requires "no effort, no work, no thinking, NOTHING"? The vast majority of courses at contemporary leftist-atheist created universities, where standards have been destroyed in the last 50 to 70 years. The study of Classics and foreign/ancient languages has been obliterated. There are way too many people in schools. Money is wasted left and right.

It takes a lifetime of rigorous study to be a Pope Benedict XVI. It takes getting a B in a worthless "English" class at a modern university to think you're smart when you listen to an ignoramus like Bill Maher spout off on history or what he moronically calls "religion".

A religious person KNOWS there is an invisible man in the sky, KNOWS there is heaven, KNOWS there is hell, KNOWS that snakes talk and people get swallowed by whales.

Maybe you should read some of the explanations of the former Pope Benedict XVI or the early doctors of the Church to get some of those answers. Those are just a couple places to start.

When I ask where is the PROOF, what answer do I get? NONSENSE is what I get

That's because you have been going to the wrong people, while also looking for the cheapest and easiest answers possible.

A scienetist , on the other hand, does not know anything.

LOL.....yes of course. Scientists are just humble, innocent little men seeking the truth in a life of penury. They are concerned with nothing but meekly pursuing truth.

This perfectly describes someone like Richard Dawkins, for instance, doesn't it? He doesn't enjoy any celebrity, or exhibit any arrogance, or pontificate about subjects that go well beyond science - or does he, Murat? :laydownlaughing

No, it's just his test tube and goggles and honestly studying the data.

And you criticize religious people for believing in fantasy? Look in the mirror.

He works at it, they in, day out, tries to come up with theories, prove them, disprove them, discard them, publish them.

Theologians, philosophers, historians, and literary critics do the exact same thing in their fields. Scientists are not unique for this.

He does not just say "god did it" and sits on his rich Vatican ass all his life

Yeah, writing 66 books in a single life amounts to just "sitting on one's rich Vatical ass all one's life".

You're a genius!:laydownlaughing

denying people basic rights that comes from just being human.

Oh okay - so you take nothing on faith. Except some mythical stories from Locke and Rousseau about "states of nature" that never existed from which theories of "basic rights" were developed.

Right. And you take nothing from faith.

Are you familiar with the term "non sequitur"? You should be, because evidently you believe that if one is human, he or she should automatically have a legal "right" to marry whomever he or she pleases, of either gender. This is the height of bad logic.

A homophobic calling me ignorant...boy oh boy...

The term "ignorant" properly refers to not knowing something, or not possessing knowledge - it does refer to not having a sissy little temperamental feeling about how "gay people should have certain rights".

Use the word properly, and then we can talk.

I seriously believe your IQ is below freezing point, so why don't you go home, turn some water into wine, pray to your invisible man in the sky to give you brains. You have the nerve to talk about wars? Stalin was an atheist but he did not wage war in the name of atheism. In fact, no war has ever been waged in the name of atheism, even though the person waging it might be atheist. Now, you tel, me how many millions have died in the name of religion?

Goodbye.

 

[Kieran]

A proof that satisfies you is not proof. It is for YOU. I get that and it is fine.
I cannot proove god does not exist because it is extremely difficult to prove a negative, scientifically speaking. Can you prove that a big dildo is not circling the second moon of some distant planet in some distant galaxy as we speak? No you can't. But you would rather not believe that , right?

Well, not yet I won't. :snigger

But the fact is, you accept a lot of things on faith. And as I showed above, arguing for the existence of an intangible such as "Love" is an argument you're bound to lose if you look for scientific proof. Don't even get me started on the Brain in a Jar debate I had with a guy in a pub. :wow:

Why would god add to the bible? Why not? That is what science does. When new facts arise, it changes its position. Why can't god? He can say" Sorry guys, I messed up with adam and eve thing because it is now a known fact genetically that it is impossible for all people to decent from 2 persons..besides it would be incest in the worst kind" or " My bad, water just does not turn to wine...scratch that" or " Ditto with the talking snake...the vocal cords just does not allow it"...

Did you think that Genesis is an attempt at journalism, or science - or is it something else? What makes you think that there is nothing to learn there? Even the early Church grappled with the "science" of Genesis and concluded that it could be read allegorically. Now, these were people who didn't have the benefit of fossils etc.

I tend to read it allegorically.

Religion DOES know everything without effort. It knows there is Heaven, right? What kind of work did go into finding that out? People put together expeditions, spent their lives trying to locate it and than finally did? No. Because god said so. Is there effort there, you tell me...

Well, we know not the hour, that's one thing we don't know. We don't know who'll win Wimbledon twenty years from now. And so on.

Who said "religion knows everything without effort?"

I don't buy it, buddy... :nono

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

A proof that satisfies you is not proof. It is for YOU. I get that and it is fine.
I cannot proove god does not exist because it is extremely difficult to prove a negative, scientifically speaking. Can you prove that a big dildo is not circling the second moon of some distant planet in some distant galaxy as we speak? No you can't. But you would rather not believe that , right?

Well, not yet I won't. :snigger

But the fact is, you accept a lot of things on faith. And as I showed above, arguing for the existence of an intangible such as "Love" is an argument you're bound to lose if you look for scientific proof. Don't even get me started on the Brain in a Jar debate I had with a guy in a pub. :wow:

Why would god add to the bible? Why not? That is what science does. When new facts arise, it changes its position. Why can't god? He can say" Sorry guys, I messed up with adam and eve thing because it is now a known fact genetically that it is impossible for all people to decent from 2 persons..besides it would be incest in the worst kind" or " My bad, water just does not turn to wine...scratch that" or " Ditto with the talking snake...the vocal cords just does not allow it"...

Did you think that Genesis is an attempt at journalism, or science - or is it something else? What makes you think that there is nothing to learn there? Even the early Church grappled with the "science" of Genesis and concluded that it could be read allegorically. Now, these were people who didn't have the benefit of fossils etc.

I tend to read it allegorically.

Religion DOES know everything without effort. It knows there is Heaven, right? What kind of work did go into finding that out? People put together expeditions, spent their lives trying to locate it and than finally did? No. Because god said so. Is there effort there, you tell me...

Well, we know not the hour, that's one thing we don't know. We don't know who'll win Wimbledon twenty years from now. And so on.

Who said "religion knows everything without effort?"

I don't buy it, buddy... :nono

I will not push this more since nobody has ever changed anybodies opinion on this debate, but the above sentence pretty much describes the frustration me and people that think like me have. A thing that can be interpreted a billion different ways by a billion different people ...some take it literal, others take part of it, leave out others...
There is always tennis, no?