RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang

RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tweakabelle -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/10/2011 4:08:21 AM)
Last I heard those two are still arguing over who gets to wear the frocks [:D]

GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/10/2011 7:45:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl He states that religion is especially rife with bad ideas, calling it "one of the most perverse misuses of intelligence we have ever devised." Fair? Yes, I even expect theists who aren't objective in their assessments to realize that is a valid statement once they get over their emotional reaction to it. [image]local://upfiles/566126/71E9D62D0D034EFD8F1981F14B6CE8B0.jpg[/image]

Kirata -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/10/2011 9:40:54 AM)
~ FR ~ For anyone who might be interested... Debate: Chris Hedges vs. Sam Harris - Religion, Politics and the End of the World (1 of 2) Debate: Chris Hedges vs. Sam Harris - Religion, Politics and the End of the World (2 of 2) Total running time is 90 minutes. K.

anthrosub -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/10/2011 3:11:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata ~ FR ~ For anyone who might be interested... Debate: Chris Hedges vs. Sam Harris - Religion, Politics and the End of the World (1 of 2) Debate: Chris Hedges vs. Sam Harris - Religion, Politics and the End of the World (2 of 2) Total running time is 90 minutes. K. Hey there you are. I thought you had abandoned this thread and was missing you. Did you like my joke? Thanks for the links. I can't wait to check it out.

anthrosub -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/10/2011 3:32:26 PM)
I don't mean to change the subject too much but today I spent some time thinking about all that's been said up to now and had an idea. Instead of debating the validity of science and religion or those who stand on either side of the fence like the pope or Sam Harris, how about talking about what "truth" means to each of you? This way, nobody gets their toes stepped on (I hope). I'll go first. These are some of my basic tenents by the way. Truth is universal or it is not truth. To genuinely believe something is to say you believe it is the truth. But believing something does not make it true.

tazzygirl -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/10/2011 9:36:42 PM)
quote: Yes, I even expect theists who aren't objective in their assessments to realize that is a valid statement once they get over their emotional reaction to it. Amazingly, that statement produces no emotional reaction. Your posting of the photo was intended to produce something... but i think you failed on that front too.

GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/10/2011 10:54:53 PM)
Thanks I haven't seen that, sounds interesting.

GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/10/2011 11:26:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Amazingly, that statement produces no emotional reaction. Huh, the way you've been attacking Sam Harris, that really suprises me. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Your posting of the photo was intended to produce something... but i think you failed on that front too. There are some pretty bad religious ideas out there, that was a fairly obvious example.

tazzygirl -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/11/2011 1:20:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Amazingly, that statement produces no emotional reaction. Huh, the way you've been attacking Sam Harris, that really suprises me. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Your posting of the photo was intended to produce something... but i think you failed on that front too. There are some pretty bad religious ideas out there, that was a fairly obvious example. Attacking the idea, not Harris. Huge difference. Didnt realize you had it so bad for him. quote: There are some pretty bad religious ideas out there, that was a fairly obvious example. Explain how that was a religious idea, good, bad or indifferent.

anthrosub -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/11/2011 9:44:55 AM)
I watched the debate last night and gave it some time to digest. I think both sides brought up some good points that are worthy of consideration. Harris pointed out that religions contain a lot of concepts that after several centuries of science have become obsolete if not ridiculous. Hedges then makes the point that religion is not meant to be taken literally but has a deeper purpose and acts as an aid or guide in helping human beings realize their full potential...something he claims science is incapable of providing and even worse, can alienate people from that aspect of themselves. Harris counters that scientific reasoning and common sense can serve the same purpose that religious people claim makes religion necessary and important even in today's world. From there the debate seems to shift to whether religion alone can be shown as responsible for the violence we see today...particularly in the context of Islam. Harris makes some interesting observations...the one that stood out for me was that although all three of the major western religions have existed for centuries or longer, the reason most of the violence is coming from Islamic cultures is because the Muslim world until recently has existed more or less isolated from the rest of the world. It has not been directly in contact with scientific discoveries or experienced any major reformation/rennaisance movements as Christianity and Judaism have over the past couple centuries. Hedges (and to some extent the moderator) argued that the violence cannot be attributed to religion alone but to outside factors...primarily despair in the regions where poverty is at its worst. Harris countered that many of the people responsible for violence come from educated, affluent parts of Islamic societies (all the 9/11 terrorists were college educated for example...some with Ph.D's). There was a point where the discussion appeared to shift attention to how the more affluent members are exploiting the poor and desparate members of Islamic society. Harris' main point is that if human civilization can move past relying on religious dogma then the inherit violence found in the texts would no longer be available to give extremists an infrastructure to "solve" their problems. In short, the world needs to grow up a bit. My thoughts on the above...not surprisingly I agree with Harris. But I also agree that the whole problem is not so simple. There are a lot of factors involved that play off each other all the way down to the individual level. But even so, removing the availability of religion (and consequently, its obsolte and/or incompatible ideas) from the equation would be a big help in eliminating the divisions in the world. I also think this whole problem must be addressed by looking at the psychology of the human mind for although we all have our unique personalities and identities...how our brain functions is pretty much universal. I think understanding the psychology of the mind serves to fill the gaps and explain the conflicts people have over science versus religion. As has been said or written many times...science seeks to explain the what and how of life whereas religion seeks to explain the meaning of life. On this level, the two are apples and oranges. If religion (particularly western religion) could stick to discussing the meaning of life and leave things like creation to the scientists, there would be less conflict. But unfortunately western religion has come to derive its authenticity from the supposed "word of God" contained in its texts long before science arrived on the scene. So after all that time to say anything in those texts is invalid is to say the authenticity of the religion is invalid.

GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/11/2011 11:35:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Attacking the idea, not Harris. Huge difference. No, stating that Sam Harris doesn't poses intellectual honesty is most certainly a personal attack upon Mr. Harris. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Didnt realize you had it so bad for him. If you're not reacting emotionally, why would you write something like this?

GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/11/2011 11:55:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Explain how that was a religious idea, good, bad or indifferent. YUSUFALI: Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value). Qur'an 4:74

GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/11/2011 12:00:14 PM)
Another example is the topic of this thread. That in this day and age the Pope actually had to explain that the Big Bang occurred as opposed to Genesis being literally true is horrifying. One-Third of Americans Believe the Bible Is Literally True.

Demspotis -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/11/2011 1:20:48 PM)
As I understand it, the Roman Catholic Church does not (and never has) teach that the Bible is literally true; beyond that, it has generally given precedence to its own customs and traditions, in line with its teaching that itself and especially the lineage of Popes, is the representative of Jesus. Biblical literalism is a trait of some Protestant groups, particularly fundamentalists. Protestants took up the cause of emphasizing the Bible precisely because the Roman Church did not. Having read several translations of the Bible cover to cover and parts of the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts, I agree with those who say that SOME parts of the Bible are intended to be taken literally, while others are symbolic. The Bible itself says so, as it even includes some examples of interpretations of earlier parts which were allegorical or symbolic. It's well to remember that the Bible is an anthology of sacred texts, not one continuous book, so that it is entirely understandable that different books in it have different characteristics and are meant to read in different ways. About the Sabbath, which someone brought up somewhere in the early pages of this thread, the Roman Catholic Church agrees with the Jews (who know best about this!) that Saturday is the Sabbath day (despite this, there are many Catholic lay people who do call Sunday the Sabbath, apparently thinking that there is a Jewish Sabbath and a different Christian Sabbath), and they celebrated Sunday, the following day, as "the Lord's Day". In ancient times, religious services (with much longer liturgies) were held on both days, but gradually became abbreviated and celebrated only on the Lord's Day. There is a smoking gun: look at the days of the week as named in large parts of the Catholic world: in most of them, Saturday is named "Sabbath", in whatever is that particular language's form of the word. And correspondingly, Sunday often bears a name descended from Latin "dies Dominica" = "Lord's day". This subject was exhaustively researched, among other places, in a book entitled "Our Inheritance: An Account of the Eucharistic Service in the First Three Centuries", by Anglican scholar Rev. Sabine Baring-Gould. ~Demspotis

GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/11/2011 2:03:37 PM)
Another example would be that the Flinstones are historically accurate

tazzygirl -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/11/2011 8:33:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Attacking the idea, not Harris. Huge difference. No, stating that Sam Harris doesn't poses intellectual honesty is most certainly a personal attack upon Mr. Harris. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Didnt realize you had it so bad for him. If you're not reacting emotionally, why would you write something like this? Because i can... [8\|] As far as intellectual honesty.... 1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance. 2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence. 3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases. All of us rely on assumptions when applying our world view to make sense of the data about the world. And all of us bring various biases to the table. 4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak. Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points. 5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold. You get small points for admitting to being wrong on trivial matters and big points for admitting to being wrong on substantive points. You lose big points for failing to admit being wrong on something trivial. 6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues’ allies. 7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions. 8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it. A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponent’s argument in straw man terms. In politics, this is called spin. Typically, such tactics eschew quoting the person in context, but instead rely heavily on out-of-context quotes, paraphrasing and impression. When addressing an argument, one should shows signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form. 9. Show a commitment to critical thinking. ‘Nuff said. 10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. If someone is unable or unwilling to admit when their opponent raises a good point or makes a good criticism, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the give-and-take that characterizes an honest exchange. http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2009/08/12/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty-3/ According to the first two points, its intellectual dishonesty Harris portrays.

tazzygirl -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/11/2011 8:39:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Another example is the topic of this thread. That in this day and age the Pope actually had to explain that the Big Bang occurred as opposed to Genesis being literally true is horrifying. One-Third of Americans Believe the Bible Is Literally True. Ah so a sample of 1000 adults is convincing enough to lead you to the conclusion that Harris is right and that the 9/11 attacks were religiously motivated. quote: While opposition to the opening of an Islamic center at Ground Zero is certainly not surprising, it reflects a dismal level of intolerance, bigotry and ignorance that continues to plague our country. To characterize the existence of a place of worship for God-loving, law-abiding Muslim citizens as a 'stab in the heart' to Americans is to presume that 9/11 was a religious attack that exclusively targeted non-Muslims. I'm sorry Sarah Palin, but 9/11 was an attack against all Americans - including Muslim Americans. Muslim firefighters, lawyers, restaurant waiters, and dozens of other Muslims who worked at the World Trade Center lost their lives on that day. Hundreds of Muslims lost loved ones and millions of Muslims across the country grieved with everyone else on that day and continue to grieve every day that lives are unjustly taken. Sept. 11 was not a religious attack that exclusively targeted one religion, race or ethnicity, but one that stabbed all of our hearts. The victims of 9/11 spanned countless ethnicities, races and religions. Bin Laden's war, or the wars of those fighting America in Afghanistan, northern Pakistan or Iraq, cannot be explained by searching the Quran. Those wars can only be analyzed and explained through the lens of political, historic and geographic factors. As political scientist Robert Pape explained in Dying to Win: The Logic of Suicide Terror, military occupation rather than ideology is the primary cause of suicide terrorism, whether it is employed by the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka (the perpetrator of the largest number of suicide attacks), secular Palestinian groups in the West Bank or al-Qaeda in Iraq, Afghanistan or Western states. Pape bases his conclusion on empirical evidence he compiles on every single suicide attack or campaign around the world from 1980 to 2003 (Pape, Robert. Interview with The American Conservative. "The Logic of Suicide Terror." 18 July 2005. http://www.amconmag.com/article/2005/jul/18/00017/). These findings are consistent with Bin Laden's own articulations, who has repeatedly stated in online statements, video broadcasts and media interviews with journalists from all religious backgrounds that his war against the West is driven by what he perceives as the West's aggression, violence and injustice against Muslim lands - Chechnya, Afghanistan, Palestine, etc. The use of religious rhetoric by Bin Laden and others who share his ideology does not change the fact that their underlying motivation is political, not religious. http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/hadia_mubarak/2010/07/no_religious_basis_for_911.html I think the writer makes a compelling argument against the religious ties surrounding 9/11

tweakabelle -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/11/2011 11:28:55 PM)
The perpetrators of 9/11 were members of Al-Quada. This group developed out of Muslims, of many nationalities, who initially went to Afghanistan to fight 'jihad' or holy war against Russian occupation. Jihad is a religious term and concept not a political one. Bin Laden's anti-Americanism derives in substantial measure from his opposition to the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, described religiously in OBL's terms as the "Land of the Two Holy Places". That Islamic terrorists commonly seek the approval of religious authorities for their actions - by asking for a fatwa from a sympathetic Iman - is well established and documented. It seems perfectly reasonable and valid to me to assert that there are political economic and other social factors at play in Al-Quada's existence and 9/11. It is worth remembering that, for many Muslims, Islam does not make the neat Church-State separation that Westerners do. For many Muslims, Islam is an unitary identity/ideology/religion that embraces what Westerners think of separately as nationality, civil law, civil obligations and religion ie. these concepts are inseparable for many Muslims. Thus it makes sense to many Muslims that sharia (religious) law is the basis of State law. So to deny that there were religious motives involved in 9/11, or in the activities of groups such as Al-Quada seems as churlish as insisting that only religious motives were operating. They were certainly there in the mix. We can argue about the extent, but their presence and influence seems undeniable to me.

tazzygirl -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/12/2011 12:57:38 AM)
No one was denying anything. Read the article.

Edwynn -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/12/2011 2:18:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder No one forces it on you. Unless of course you were born into a Catholic family in which case it may well have been forced on you. and when you are an adult or even younger, you have the choice to walk away. Once you are an adult you have the legal right to walk away but after years of indoctrination managing to have the choice is somewhat harder. Even when someone manages to reject the Catholic claims of knowledge with respect to the existence of god, they still have to wade through all the dehumanizing propaganda that they have been taught thus far. It's a process which best case scenario takes years and worst case scenario they are physiologically scarred for life. - Lifts up shirt, slowly, afraid to look but ... there it is! a big "C" scar! Oh noes! - Oh man, I never knew that was there, in all this time. Wow. So it really is physiological too! All the while, I only thought it was psychological, as exemplified by my wearing of a short sleeve white shirt and clasp-on navy blue tie when I go visit a hooker. And then all the born Catholics on this site too ... well that certainly explains a lot! OK, all of you lift up your shirts so we can see the scar, you too ladies ... in fact especially you too, ladies. (hmmmm ... ) Come on now, you know that you must first look at the scar and acknowledge its existence before the long and arduous healing process can begin.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875