Exactly as much as this list of Catholic pederasts affects the claim that Christianity and pedophilia are in conflict.
Except that the homosexual behavior of said pederasts is entirely in conflict with Catholic teaching. "Science"? Not at all.
Further, the claim is that science and religion are in conflict, with it being implied that religion discourages and suppresses science in general. The list Victor gives damages that claim thoroughly.
And I'll note, as usual, Linton didn't even understand what he was linking. The list of 'Protestant Scientists' is loaded with Catholics.
Hiero5ant - The difference between science and pedophilia (in this context) is that a person who is a pedophile cannot be in good standing with the church, while a scientist can, except for a few exceptions (Galileo, etc.), but those had other factors at play.
I do think this list shows that science and religion are not in conflict, because many of these individuals were openly, publicly scientists, and yet were still in good standing with their religion and some held important positions.
This is not possible for something like pedophilia.
From the list of catholic scientists I counted 8 Nobel Laureates. From the list of atheist scientists I counted 37 Nobel Laureates.
Surely, a normal distribution curve should have emerged, or at least indicated comparable numbers. With a US population distribution of 25% catholic and 14% atheist the figures clearly demonstrate that adherence to religion is an impoverishment of the intellect.
Oh! Its good to see Yachov and Crude together again, the Tweedledee and Tweedledum of the DI website.
>From the list of catholic scientists I counted 8 Nobel Laureates. From the list of atheist scientists I counted 37 Nobel Laureates.
Because we both know these lists are exhaustive since your research skills are soooo impeccable.
Plueez!
The Nobel prize was started in 1895. What about scientists who lived prior to that time? Did you take any of this into account? Do you really know for certain the majority of the recipients in the sciences where Atheists?
What about the Muslim, Jewish and or Protestant scientists?
Are you padding you Calculations by ad hoc defining Agnostics and Deists as Atheists?
>14% atheist the figures clearly demonstrate that adherence to religion is an impoverishment of the intellect.
Says the guy who thinks Pope Sylvester II is a protestant oh & what about that Whopper you made up about Pope Gregory executing the Patriarch of Constantinople?
You so suck arse in Philosophy Logic & just plain common sense it's just not funny.
QUOTE"This list comprises historic laureates of the Nobel Prize, who self-identified as atheist, agnostic, nonbeliever or secular spiritual.END QUOTE
Einstein is on that list as a "religious non-believer" he is said to have ended his life as an "Atheist" yet they admit he has always rejected being labled an Atheist? Huh?
You can tell the Wiki is edited by too many Gnus. Of course over 800 people won the Nobel & the Atheists here count about 63 & some of them aren't even real Atheists.
A flea in his ear. It must feel terribly debilitating to be so impotent in protecting the god memeplex.
Incidentally, regardless of when the Nobel Prize started both catholics and atheists have had equal opportunity and with far greater numbers of catholics in any one community, their representation at the Nobel Laureate level is woefully below the 30 percentile range.
I might add, in times before the inaugural Nobel Prize, there were no atheists, publicly at least, because catholics used to kill them for sport. So there was an existential issue in play for much of the 1700 years up until the Enlightenment. The following is a comprehensive overview of the manner in which christianity regarded atheists [and others] and the form of punishment metered out.
http://www.heretication.info/_atheists.html
"Before Christianity appeared many educated Romans were also atheists, regarding all gods, including the Christian one, as man-made. Christianity would not countenance such ideas. Atheism was plainly blasphemous, which meant that atheists could expect to die unpleasant deaths if they admitted to their lack of belief. Those original enough to work out their own atheist ideas were generally intelligent enough to keep their ideas to themselves, though there were occasional exceptions. In Ireland Adam Duff O'Tool espoused views that had been common in early times but which seemed blasphemous in the fourteenth century: He denied the Trinity, doubted the Virgin birth, and regarded bible stories as fables. For these beliefs he was burned alive in Dublin in 1327."
This was usual business right up to humanity's Enlightenment period.
"From the late 19th century until discredited in the late 20th century,[1] the conflict thesis was a popular historiographical approach in the history of science."
Also, the USA has about 0.5% atheists, not 14% as came up earlier in the comments.
Today is holy to the Lord your God. Do not be sad, and do not weep; for today is holy to our Lord. Do not be saddened this day, for rejoicing in the Lord must be your strength! Nehemiah 8:9-10
I break for one short moment my Lenten internet fast to celebrate the fact that 3 years ago today, on this Feast of the Annunciation to the Blessed Virgin Mary, God the Son, who thus took on our nature, allowed my wife to take on His.
"Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat eis"
No footnotes, no scholarly citations to look up the context of their claims it has bad as reading any screed by Peter Rosa.
Paps your the guy who invented the claim Pope Gregory had the Patriarch of Constantinople killed. It was bogus so you dig up some obscure Gnu site that can't even give the pretense of a bibliography.
@Christofer, if you think pedophile priests weren't covered up for, transferred, and promoted for decades -- i.e. in pretty "good standing" institutionally speaking -- then you've been asleep for the past ten years of news stories.
What percentage of sexually active Catholics have used birth control? 90%? 99%? Are they "in good standing"? What would a list of some of them establish about the teachings of that religion? That is the question the OP is asking, and answer is, not much, other than that people can be remarkably adept at compartmentalizing and rationalizing away the teachings of their Church.
To address the actual claim of conflict in practice, you have to show that the list is historically representative, or that the actual teachings are or are not antiscientific. (This is why there is no list from Victor of Wahabi scientists, or Southern Baptists.)
"Oh sure, the Church maybe fumbled a bit just that one time with Galileo, but that's ancient history." And Galileo was taken off the Index Librorum Prohibitorum when? 1822. The Index itself wasn't abolished until 1966, and only as a positive legal prohibition -- it is still officially considered immoral to think those thoughts.
>Oh sure, the Church maybe fumbled a bit just that one time with Galileo, but that's ancient history." And Galileo was taken off the Index Librorum Prohibitorum when? 1822.
Well it wasn't until the late 18th and early 19th Centuries that Science progressed enough to actually prove the Earth moved around the Sun.
That jerkoff showboater Galileo didn't make the case.
What Fundie Atheists leave out is everybody based on the Science that existed at the time(Pagans, Atheists, Religion etc) believed the Earth was the Center.
Heck Democritus one of the world's first Atheist philosophers believed in a flat Earth(just saying).
>The Index itself wasn't abolished until 1966, and only as a positive legal prohibition -- it is still officially considered immoral to think those thoughts.
Dawkins thinks it's immoral to reject Evolution. Why? Because he believes(most likely correctly) the evidence shows that it is true.
I would agree rejecting the truth can be under certain circumstances immoral. But why is it wrong for Catholics to morally condemn rejection of truth but it's OK for Dawkins?
More Gnu'Atheist hypocrisy and double standards!
You might respond "Well Catholicism isn't true" which is fine but it begs the question.
"'The claim "religion and adultery are in conflict" takes a beating by presenting a list of religious adulterers.'"
Carr, the difference is obvious, isn't it? The adulterer will concede that his actions are indeed in conflict with his religious beliefs, while the scientists say precisely the opposite.
Over 10% of American population are atheist: (It's actually said to be around 16+% now, but this is the source I found) http://www.atheistempire.com/reference/stats/index.php
Majority of Nobel Prize winners atheist: The Religiosity and Religious Affiliation of Nobel Prize Winners (Beit-Hallahmi, 1989)
Majority of University professors atheist: Religion and Spirituality among University Scientists (Ecklund, 2007)
Majority of scientists atheist: http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Scientists_and_atheism
Poverty rate lower among atheists: Society Without God (Zuckerman, 2008)
IQ higher among atheists: http://www.interfaith.org/2008/06/20/study-links-atheism-to-high-iq/
Illiteracy rate lower among atheists: United Nations Human Development Report (2004)
Average Income higher among atheists: United Nations Human Development Report (2004)
Divorce rate lower among atheists: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
Teen pregnancy rate lower among atheists: http://www.americablog.com/2009/01/red-states-dominate-teen-pregnancy.html
STD infection lower among atheists: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk…
Crime rate lower among atheists: Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look (Paul, 2005)
Homicide rate lower among atheists: Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look (Paul, 2005) ___________________________
And to throw this in there, prayer doesn't help sick, in fact, can make it worse: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2002901053_pray31.html
You are just recycling phoney data from Gnu'Atheist sources that Vox Day dismantlement in his Book THE IRRATIONAL ATHEIST citing un-bias secular sources.
BTW you still made up that bullshit about Pope Gregory having the Patriarch of Constantinople killed.
Why should I believe anything you say?
You are citing rationalresponders?
Seriously!!!!!
You do realize all of those clowns are undergrads? They have had a felon run them for a while then there was Kelly the stripper who had her child taken away.
Richard Dawkins used to support their work till they tried to blackmail him by threatening to start a rumor he was cheating on his wife.
(Which of course is bullshit! I may tend to believe the worst of Dick but I could never believe he would be dumb enough to cheat on Romana from Dr Who)
One day, just one day, you might add to the conversation rather than vent spleen. But then with a mind and an intellect that has not advanced beyond Aquinas, and indeed is not capable of sustaining contemporary thought patterns, it is highly unlikely that will eventuate.
As Henry Mencken, American journalist notes, "God is the immemorial refuge of the incompetent, the helpless, the miserable. They find not only sanctuary in his arms, but also a kind of superiority, soothing to their macerated egos; he will set them above their betters."
Despite its rhetoric, christian theism was conceived in the dark, operates in the dark, indeed presided over an era that christian theism itself spawned, the Dark Ages, and continues to live in the shadows. Christian theism is antithetical to the Enlightenment and science.
While I don't think there is an unresolvable conflict between religion and science, and I think that Hero and Pap are off track in their criticism of your post, I do think that this as a response misses the charge. For one thing, many on this list are people who lived before the discovery of Evolution and The Big Bang so many atheists would charge that they had religion because that was the only game in town. Another issue is that the argument by smart atheists is not that one cannot do science and be religious but that the thought behind religion is incompatible than the thought behind science. Scientists who are religious wear their science-thinking hat in the lab then they take it off when they go to church. It is similar to the apologists' "You can be moral without belief in God but belief in morality and atheism are intellectually incompatible." Not saying there's a conflict, just saying a list of scientists who are believers doesn't really further the conversation.
>One day, just one day, you might add to the conversation rather than vent spleen.
One day you might read someone intelligent & make an intelligent argument for once. You might have done it a few times I recall but it's been the exception for you "Teacher" not the rule.
>But then with a mind and an intellect that has not advanced beyond Aquinas,
For example if you got off your lazy fat arse and pick up some Anthony Kenny you could (a) Get and intelligent education on the subject matter and (b) read a critic of Thomism that could at least help you form coherent philosophical objections.
Instead of this mindless shit bellow.
>and indeed is not capable of sustaining contemporary thought patterns, it is highly unlikely that will eventuate.
See what I mean? The "Aquinas was not contemporary therefore he is suspect" meme is not convincing.
"Over 10% of American population are atheist: (It's actually said to be around 16+% now, but this is the source I found) http://www.atheistempire.com/reference/stats/index.php"
@Hiero5ant - The Catholic church has always had a policy of dealing with corrupt priests and those who cover for them in ways that include automatic excommunication.
Just because they were able to hide what they did does not mean they were in good standing with the church any more than a person who murders and gets away with it is any less a murderer. The fact that they performed their indiscretions in secret is itself evidence that it was looked down upon.
While those who took part in science, with a few unfortunate exceptions, could always do so publicly.
Heuristics "In your own link it says: Atheist: 0.4%"
If that is the case, then the number of Nobel Laureates that are atheists compared to catholics are even more astounding, vis-a-vis the population distribution.
It is proof beyond a shadow of doubt the forfeiture of intellect when one self-servingly wallows in superstition of the supernatural kind.
Ben You win. You are the Victor [no pun intended] I am no match for your level of personal abuse and character dissembling. My little foray of dipping my toe into the dark turgid sea of your world poisons me and disorders my moral and ethical compass, emotionally rendering me all the poorer for it.
papalinton: The links posted show far does not work as a comparison of catholics vs atheists when comparing nobel prize winners as far as I know. The only catholic nobel related link I saw was for catholic clerics.
So sure, if you compare atheist nobel winners to catholic clerical nobel winners the atheists might have an edge, but so what, apples and oranges you know.
But still, perhaps I missed a link somewhere in the thread that had actual catholic prize winners. Though how any of this matters is beyond me, the conflict thesis is discredited, what more needs to be said?
Heuristics Yes, you are right. The exercise is pointless and indeed there was little merit in posting the original OP in the first instance. And for the sucker that I am, I selfishly indulged in a little baiting.
39 comments:
Here is a list of Muslim scientists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists
Protestant scientists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science
Atheist scientists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology
I don't think it tells much.
Exactly as much as this list of Catholic pederasts affects the claim that Christianity and pedophilia are in conflict.
Exactly as much as this list of Catholic pederasts affects the claim that Christianity and pedophilia are in conflict.
Except that the homosexual behavior of said pederasts is entirely in conflict with Catholic teaching. "Science"? Not at all.
Further, the claim is that science and religion are in conflict, with it being implied that religion discourages and suppresses science in general. The list Victor gives damages that claim thoroughly.
And I'll note, as usual, Linton didn't even understand what he was linking. The list of 'Protestant Scientists' is loaded with Catholics.
>And I'll note, as usual, Linton didn't even understand what he was linking. The list of 'Protestant Scientists' is loaded with Catholics.
So Pope Sylvester II was a Protestant about 500+ years before the so called reformation?
Who knew?
@Crude
In spite of being an Atheist Paps still thinks like a Protestant Fundie. They often disassociate being a Christian with being a Catholic.
The "Oh he's not a Christian he's a Catholic" fundie meme.
Classic!!:-)
See, Crude gets my point.
A list of people who X does not affect the claim that religion teaches not-X.
See, Crude gets my point.
No, I questioned your point. Feeling slow this evening?
A list of people who X does not affect the claim that religion teaches not-X.
The claim "religion and science are in conflict" takes a beating by presenting a list of religious scientists.
Though I agree with your point that pedarasty is an atheistic behavior. ;)
Hiero5ant - The difference between science and pedophilia (in this context) is that a person who is a pedophile cannot be in good standing with the church, while a scientist can, except for a few exceptions (Galileo, etc.), but those had other factors at play.
I do think this list shows that science and religion are not in conflict, because many of these individuals were openly, publicly scientists, and yet were still in good standing with their religion and some held important positions.
This is not possible for something like pedophilia.
From the list of catholic scientists I counted 8 Nobel Laureates.
From the list of atheist scientists I counted 37 Nobel Laureates.
Surely, a normal distribution curve should have emerged, or at least indicated comparable numbers. With a US population distribution of 25% catholic and 14% atheist the figures clearly demonstrate that adherence to religion is an impoverishment of the intellect.
Oh! Its good to see Yachov and Crude together again, the Tweedledee and Tweedledum of the DI website.
A pedophile is a person sexually attracted to children & who seems to have a strong compulsion toward sex with children.
In one way it like asking can you be a serial kill and be a scientist or religious? Can you be mentally ill & be a scientist or religious?
Category mistake much?
Some Religions might be in conflict with Scientism but clearly not science.
>From the list of catholic scientists I counted 8 Nobel Laureates.
From the list of atheist scientists I counted 37 Nobel Laureates.
Because we both know these lists are exhaustive since your research skills are soooo impeccable.
Plueez!
The Nobel prize was started in 1895. What about scientists who lived prior to that time? Did you take any of this into account?
Do you really know for certain the majority of the recipients in the sciences where Atheists?
What about the Muslim, Jewish and or Protestant scientists?
Are you padding you Calculations by ad hoc defining Agnostics and Deists as Atheists?
>14% atheist the figures clearly demonstrate that adherence to religion is an impoverishment of the intellect.
Says the guy who thinks Pope Sylvester II is a protestant oh & what about that Whopper you made up about Pope Gregory executing the Patriarch of Constantinople?
You so suck arse in Philosophy Logic & just plain common sense it's just not funny.
Read this:
http://www.thelangreport.com/brain-food/jewish-nobel-prize-winnerswhy-so-many/
So there have been 178 persons of Jewish ancestory who won the Nobel prize vs 9 Muslims?
So Jews are smarter than Muslims according to Paps Logic?
Or could it be Europeans in general are demographically more likely to win the Prize then persons outside of Europe?
But I suppose if you are looking for an excuse to be racist against Arabs you might follow Paps' "Logic".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheist_Nobel_laureates
QUOTE"This list comprises historic laureates of the Nobel Prize, who self-identified as atheist, agnostic, nonbeliever or secular spiritual.END QUOTE
Einstein is on that list as a "religious non-believer" he is said to have ended his life as an "Atheist" yet they admit he has always rejected being labled an Atheist? Huh?
You can tell the Wiki is edited by too many Gnus. Of course over 800 people won the Nobel & the Atheists here count about 63 & some of them aren't even real Atheists.
This is just too easy.
I'll see you a Catholic Scientist and raise you a JFK, proving that religion and adultery are not in conflict.
'The claim "religion and science are in conflict" takes a beating by presenting a list of religious scientists.'
'The claim "religion and adultery are in conflict" takes a beating by presenting a list of religious adulterers.'
'The difference between science and pedophilia (in this context) is that a person who is a pedophile cannot be in good standing with the church,...'
What are the rules the Catholic Church uses before deciding to proclaim there are 1,000 million Catholics in the world?
We should use those rules to decide who is a Catholic and who is not.
A flea in his ear.
It must feel terribly debilitating to be so impotent in protecting the god memeplex.
Incidentally, regardless of when the Nobel Prize started both catholics and atheists have had equal opportunity and with far greater numbers of catholics in any one community, their representation at the Nobel Laureate level is woefully below the 30 percentile range.
I might add, in times before the inaugural Nobel Prize, there were no atheists, publicly at least, because catholics used to kill them for sport. So there was an existential issue in play for much of the 1700 years up until the Enlightenment.
The following is a comprehensive overview of the manner in which christianity regarded atheists [and others] and the form of punishment metered out.
http://www.heretication.info/_atheists.html
"Before Christianity appeared many educated Romans were also atheists, regarding all gods, including the Christian one, as man-made. Christianity would not countenance such ideas. Atheism was plainly blasphemous, which meant that atheists could expect to die unpleasant deaths if they admitted to their lack of belief. Those original enough to work out their own atheist ideas were generally intelligent enough to keep their ideas to themselves, though there were occasional exceptions. In Ireland Adam Duff O'Tool espoused views that had been common in early times but which seemed blasphemous in the fourteenth century: He denied the Trinity, doubted the Virgin birth, and regarded bible stories as fables. For these beliefs he was burned alive in Dublin in 1327."
This was usual business right up to humanity's Enlightenment period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis
"From the late 19th century until discredited in the late 20th century,[1] the conflict thesis was a popular historiographical approach in the history of science."
Also, the USA has about 0.5% atheists, not 14% as came up earlier in the comments.
Today is holy to the Lord your God. Do not be sad, and do not weep; for today is holy to our Lord. Do not be saddened this day, for rejoicing in the Lord must be your strength! Nehemiah 8:9-10
I break for one short moment my Lenten internet fast to celebrate the fact that 3 years ago today, on this Feast of the Annunciation to the Blessed Virgin Mary, God the Son, who thus took on our nature, allowed my wife to take on His.
"Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat eis"
So Paps if your argument is true then Jews are smarter than Arabs and racism against Arabs must be justified?
Seriously?
As for burning people at the stake that was the past Atheist Regimes are still killing religious people today.
After Lent I'm sure Bob can give you an earful.
Will you ever come up with an intelligent argument? Just once this week? For me?
Oh wait Bob is back! I didn't see ya buddy.
Cheers!
More Jews won the Nobel Prize then Atheists it seems.
Judaism is the basis for Christianity & the original monotheists.
Just saying......
>http://www.heretication.info/_atheists.html
No footnotes, no scholarly citations to look up the context of their claims it has bad as reading any screed by Peter Rosa.
Paps your the guy who invented the claim Pope Gregory had the Patriarch of Constantinople killed. It was bogus so you dig up some obscure Gnu site that can't even give the pretense of a bibliography.
Seriously?
@Christofer, if you think pedophile priests weren't covered up for, transferred, and promoted for decades -- i.e. in pretty "good standing" institutionally speaking -- then you've been asleep for the past ten years of news stories.
What percentage of sexually active Catholics have used birth control? 90%? 99%? Are they "in good standing"? What would a list of some of them establish about the teachings of that religion? That is the question the OP is asking, and answer is, not much, other than that people can be remarkably adept at compartmentalizing and rationalizing away the teachings of their Church.
To address the actual claim of conflict in practice, you have to show that the list is historically representative, or that the actual teachings are or are not antiscientific. (This is why there is no list from Victor of Wahabi scientists, or Southern Baptists.)
"Oh sure, the Church maybe fumbled a bit just that one time with Galileo, but that's ancient history." And Galileo was taken off the Index Librorum Prohibitorum when? 1822. The Index itself wasn't abolished until 1966, and only as a positive legal prohibition -- it is still officially considered immoral to think those thoughts.
>What percentage of sexually active Catholics have used birth control? 90%? 99%?
You do realize that statistic is full of shit?
http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2012/02/how_to_lie_with_statistics_exa_1.html
Fail!
>Oh sure, the Church maybe fumbled a bit just that one time with Galileo, but that's ancient history." And Galileo was taken off the Index Librorum Prohibitorum when? 1822.
Well it wasn't until the late 18th and early 19th Centuries that Science progressed enough to actually prove the Earth moved around the Sun.
That jerkoff showboater Galileo didn't make the case.
What Fundie Atheists leave out is everybody based on the Science that existed at the time(Pagans, Atheists, Religion etc) believed the Earth was the Center.
Heck Democritus one of the world's first Atheist philosophers believed in a flat Earth(just saying).
>The Index itself wasn't abolished until 1966, and only as a positive legal prohibition -- it is still officially considered immoral to think those thoughts.
Dawkins thinks it's immoral to reject Evolution. Why? Because he believes(most likely correctly) the evidence shows that it is true.
I would agree rejecting the truth can be under certain circumstances immoral. But why is it wrong for Catholics to morally condemn rejection of truth but it's OK for Dawkins?
More Gnu'Atheist hypocrisy and double standards!
You might respond "Well Catholicism isn't true" which is fine but it begs the question.
"'The claim "religion and adultery are in conflict" takes a beating by presenting a list of religious adulterers.'"
Carr, the difference is obvious, isn't it? The adulterer will concede that his actions are indeed in conflict with his religious beliefs, while the scientists say precisely the opposite.
Yachov needs a reality check:
Over 10% of American population are atheist: (It's actually said to be around 16+% now, but this is the source I found)
http://www.atheistempire.com/reference/stats/index.php
Majority of Nobel Prize winners atheist:
The Religiosity and Religious Affiliation of Nobel Prize Winners (Beit-Hallahmi, 1989)
Majority of University professors atheist:
Religion and Spirituality among University Scientists (Ecklund, 2007)
Majority of scientists atheist:
http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Scientists_and_atheism
Poverty rate lower among atheists:
Society Without God (Zuckerman, 2008)
IQ higher among atheists:
http://www.interfaith.org/2008/06/20/study-links-atheism-to-high-iq/
Illiteracy rate lower among atheists:
United Nations Human Development Report (2004)
Average Income higher among atheists:
United Nations Human Development Report (2004)
Divorce rate lower among atheists:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
Teen pregnancy rate lower among atheists:
http://www.americablog.com/2009/01/red-states-dominate-teen-pregnancy.html
STD infection lower among atheists:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk…
Crime rate lower among atheists:
Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look (Paul, 2005)
Homicide rate lower among atheists:
Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look (Paul, 2005)
___________________________
And to throw this in there, prayer doesn't help sick, in fact, can make it worse:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2002901053_pray31.html
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/188
http://godisimaginary.com/i1.htm
[Lifted from http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100410115522AAZH6v8 ]
@Paps
>Yachov needs a reality check:
You are just recycling phoney data from Gnu'Atheist sources that Vox Day dismantlement in his Book THE IRRATIONAL ATHEIST citing un-bias secular sources.
BTW you still made up that bullshit about Pope Gregory having the Patriarch of Constantinople killed.
Why should I believe anything you say?
You are citing rationalresponders?
Seriously!!!!!
You do realize all of those clowns are undergrads? They have had a felon run them for a while then there was Kelly the stripper who had her child taken away.
Richard Dawkins used to support their work till they tried to blackmail him by threatening to start a rumor he was cheating on his wife.
(Which of course is bullshit! I may tend to believe the worst of Dick but I could never believe he would be dumb enough to cheat on Romana from Dr Who)
Give it a rest buddy.
One day, just one day, you might add to the conversation rather than vent spleen. But then with a mind and an intellect that has not advanced beyond Aquinas, and indeed is not capable of sustaining contemporary thought patterns, it is highly unlikely that will eventuate.
As Henry Mencken, American journalist notes, "God is the immemorial refuge of the incompetent, the helpless, the miserable. They find not only sanctuary in his arms, but also a kind of superiority, soothing to their macerated egos; he will set them above their betters."
Despite its rhetoric, christian theism was conceived in the dark, operates in the dark, indeed presided over an era that christian theism itself spawned, the Dark Ages, and continues to live in the shadows. Christian theism is antithetical to the Enlightenment and science.
While I don't think there is an unresolvable conflict between religion and science, and I think that Hero and Pap are off track in their criticism of your post, I do think that this as a response misses the charge. For one thing, many on this list are people who lived before the discovery of Evolution and The Big Bang so many atheists would charge that they had religion because that was the only game in town. Another issue is that the argument by smart atheists is not that one cannot do science and be religious but that the thought behind religion is incompatible than the thought behind science. Scientists who are religious wear their science-thinking hat in the lab then they take it off when they go to church. It is similar to the apologists' "You can be moral without belief in God but belief in morality and atheism are intellectually incompatible." Not saying there's a conflict, just saying a list of scientists who are believers doesn't really further the conversation.
>One day, just one day, you might add to the conversation rather than vent spleen.
One day you might read someone intelligent & make an intelligent argument for once. You might have done it a few times I recall but it's been the exception for you "Teacher" not the rule.
>But then with a mind and an intellect that has not advanced beyond Aquinas,
For example if you got off your lazy fat arse and pick up some Anthony Kenny you could (a) Get and intelligent education on the subject matter and (b) read a critic of Thomism that could at least help you form coherent philosophical objections.
Instead of this mindless shit bellow.
>and indeed is not capable of sustaining contemporary thought patterns, it is highly unlikely that will eventuate.
See what I mean? The "Aquinas was not contemporary therefore he is suspect" meme is not convincing.
It never will be my friend.
"Over 10% of American population are atheist: (It's actually said to be around 16+% now, but this is the source I found)
http://www.atheistempire.com/reference/stats/index.php"
In your own link it says: Atheist: 0.4%
@Hiero5ant - The Catholic church has always had a policy of dealing with corrupt priests and those who cover for them in ways that include automatic excommunication.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#Vatican_responses
Just because they were able to hide what they did does not mean they were in good standing with the church any more than a person who murders and gets away with it is any less a murderer. The fact that they performed their indiscretions in secret is itself evidence that it was looked down upon.
While those who took part in science, with a few unfortunate exceptions, could always do so publicly.
Heuristics
"In your own link it says: Atheist: 0.4%"
If that is the case, then the number of Nobel Laureates that are atheists compared to catholics are even more astounding, vis-a-vis the population distribution.
It is proof beyond a shadow of doubt the forfeiture of intellect when one self-servingly wallows in superstition of the supernatural kind.
Ben
You win. You are the Victor [no pun intended]
I am no match for your level of personal abuse and character dissembling. My little foray of dipping my toe into the dark turgid sea of your world poisons me and disorders my moral and ethical compass, emotionally rendering me all the poorer for it.
Cheers
papalinton: The links posted show far does not work as a comparison of catholics vs atheists when comparing nobel prize winners as far as I know. The only catholic nobel related link I saw was for catholic clerics.
So sure, if you compare atheist nobel winners to catholic clerical nobel winners the atheists might have an edge, but so what, apples and oranges you know.
But still, perhaps I missed a link somewhere in the thread that had actual catholic prize winners. Though how any of this matters is beyond me, the conflict thesis is discredited, what more needs to be said?
Heuristics
Yes, you are right. The exercise is pointless and indeed there was little merit in posting the original OP in the first instance. And for the sucker that I am, I selfishly indulged in a little baiting.
As you ask, what more needs to be said?
There are more Jewish Nobel Prize winners than Atheist ones!
Therefore monotheism is superior!!!!
No of course not! That would be silly! I don't believe that I am too smart for that.
But it is funny how simpletons like Paps can think it's a good argument.
>And for the sucker that I am, I selfishly indulged in a little baiting.
That is the most honest thing you said. But it shows you have nothing to offer either the believer or un-believer by way of intelligent argument.
Just baiting.
Preety piss poor for an alleged teacher. My Atheist teachers & Professors over the years at least had some pride.
Post a Comment