06 May 06
Originally posted by RBHILL
The Catholic Church doesn't even go with the Bible.
They use a misolet how ever you spell it.
The missalette is the collection of readings for the Sunday (or weekday) in question
which all derive from the Bible. Your ignorance of a faith you practiced for 20+ years
is astounding.
And plus the Church has more books then The Protestents.
What you mean is the Protestants took away books that were part of the Christian
tradition after 1500 years because they contained material inconvenient for their
theology.
A great read that I am reading right know is Called Talking with Catholic Friends and family.
You might want to start with learning the accurate truth about the Roman Catholic tradition
before you start talking to them.
Nemesio
06 May 06
4 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWhat a lot of non-sense. Please, first study the Roman-Catholic Faith and the Roman-Catholic Church before claiming anything at all about it.
But they are ultimately just paying lip service to science.
But they are ultimately just paying lip service to science
If not, then they are really just abusing science, trying to get the best of both worlds. They use it to bolster their doctrine when the two are in accord, but never allow for the possibility that the same scientific principle ...[text shortened]... bolstering discoveries might also lead to other discoveries that call for a doctrinal revision.
Why don't you start by checking out the list of Nobel Prize winners who were members of the Pontifical Academy of Science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Science
By the way, show me one, just one, Dogma of the Roman-Catholic Faith that science undisputedly has proven to be an untruth.
06 May 06
5 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeScience doesn't prove any theory undisputedly. The fact that you would ask for such an example betrays your misunderstanding of what does and does not constitute science or its abuse.
By the way, show me one, just one, Dogma of the Roman-Catholic Faith that science undisputedly has proven to be an untruth.
Contrary to Catholic doctrine, real scientific claims are always subject to dispute, as our set of information about the world ever increases. My point is that ultimately, the Church is only paying lip service to science because it never subjects its own doctrine to the same vulnerability to revision that scientific theories are subject to. If this is incorrect, you could give me one counterexample of a bit of doctrine endorsed by an infallible pope that is not claimed to be known to be true without any possibility of being incorrect- but it's a logical impossibility for such a counterexample to exist.
The fact that PAS members are Nobel Prize winners has no bearing on the matter. How many retractions of ex cathedra proclamations resulted from their work?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
06 May 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeDoctorScribbles is completely right. Even though the Catholic church does (and I have never asserted that it didn't) engage in science, it does not rigorously compare its own teachings to science- even where it is necassary. It is ultimately lip service, even doublethink.
Conrau: "I just feel that since science is advancing at such rapid pace, [b]the Vatican should discuss the implications of new discoveries."
If you check out the links I gave you, you will find that this is exactly what they do.
Pontifical Academy of Science:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/index.htm
H ...[text shortened]... eck out the site I gave you, you will undoubtedly find contributions dealing with this issue.[/b]
I am aware of no discourses in which the Catholic church has examined (consistently I should add) its teachings of moral accountability, even though recent developments in biology negate it.
06 May 06
Originally posted by Conrau KI guess since they're both human you would decide that you should sit down and not save either of them because that would entail the death of the other. Correct?
I accept that an embryo is a human, but not an intellectual human. A feotus (depending on period of gestation) is an intellectual human.
My "precedence thoery" is not mine. Hospitals use it. Say you find a child and his granfather stranded on a road. Both of them are dying. You can only save one. Who will use save?
I guess since they're both human y ...[text shortened]... t down and not save either of them because that would entail the death of the other. Correct?
I'm not the one advocating the breeding of humans to alleviate the suffering of others.
Of course a choice is made to save the one, but you don’t butcher the other to do so.
06 May 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI admit my statement was simplistic and unspecified, but it was not out of ignorance of the theory, rather hasty typing.
Dr. Scribbles has already demolished your ignorant conception of "survival of the fittest". This misunderstanding is repeatedly parroted by Fundamentalist critics of Darwin. I'd have thought that someone like you would make some kind of effort to actually have a mimimal understanding of a theory before trying to critique it, but obviously I was wrong.
Please give a page cite for the paragraph "quoted" from Descent of Man.
Trying to save a little face, by calling my bluff? đ
If you wish to verify my quotation, have at it. In my copy it is on pg 90, Chapter VI, the middle of paragraph 24. Have fun.
06 May 06
Originally posted by Conrau KWhat? Of course the theory has evolved since Darwin's time. Genetics was hardly a valid field and thus Darwin differed with modern science in the mechanism that drove the change within population groups; namely genetic mutations.
Darwin's theory is no longer used in society. The Theory of Evolution is. The theory of evolution is based on genetics. Darwinism is based on Gemmules.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
06 May 06
Originally posted by HalitoseClearly you do not understand where the embryos come from. They are certainly not "bred" as you might think. Most embryos are the superfluous embryos provided by IVF programs. Usually an IVF program creates three or four embryos for an aspiring couple. If after a period of time (I think twenty years in my country) they are not all used, they are destroyed. Would you prefer they be destroyed rather then used as treatment?
[b]I guess since they're both human you would decide that you should sit down and not save either of them because that would entail the death of the other. Correct?
I'm not the one advocating the breeding of humans to alleviate the suffering of others.
Of course a choice is made to save the one, but you don’t butcher the other to do so.[/b]
I dont see anything wrong with "butchering" embryos either. Is your stance just an emotional aversion that you have translated as an ethical code of conduct?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
06 May 06
Originally posted by HalitoseSo what exactly is your point?
What? Of course the theory has evolved since Darwin's time. Genetics was hardly a valid field and thus Darwin differed with modern science in the mechanism that drove the change within population groups; namely genetic mutations.
Darwin was wrong and his theory was obviously just speculation too (even when published).
Oh, and genetics was a valid science- even if genes hadn't been discovered.
06 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseDid you appreciate their levity?
I breezed through “Beyond Good and Evil” and “Thus spake Zarathustra” without much compulsion to turn the next page. Happy now?
Yes. I understand how Nietzsche's sister tailor-made his work to apply to Nazism. So? Are you implying that it could not in any way be construed to support Nazism or even moral nihilism?
People can find justification for any atrocity in almost any given text. For example, there is the "sons of Ham" line taken by certain Christian racists. Nobody suggests that the author of Genesis is responsible for their racism. By the same token, if Hitler found support for his views in the wilfully distorted edition of Will to Power cobbled together by Nietzsche's obnoxious sister, Nietszche is not to blame. The Nazis were the sort of Germans Nietszche despised. They could not read. They were certainly not the Superman type. Among other things, their attribution of evil to the Jews shows that they themselves had not exactly gone beyond Good and Evil.
I mentioned Wagner. Nietszche got over his early obsession with the Romantic monster; his sister, the proto-Nazi, never did. "In the late 19th century, a handful of German families settled in a remote jungle of Paraguay, where they intended to create a racially pure utopian settlement called Nueva Germania...Among the pioneers was Elisabeth Nietzsche-Foerster -- sister of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche -- who sailed to Paraguay with 14 German families to start a socialist, vegan utopia along the Aguaraya River. She got the idea after reading an 1880 essay by Richard Wagner called "Religion and Art," in which the composer ranted against Germany's 1871 emancipation of the Jews." (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/03/13/INGPOBMRMU1.DTL).
Moral nihilism. Here is a quote that I agree with: "His phrase 'god is dead, we are all his murderers' was not an attack against religion as such, but against nihilism which believed in nothing on the one hand, and on the churches and christians who had sapped the true value and meaning out of life and religion on the other. Thus he claimed the churches were 'sepulchres', and the nihilists he urged to 'keep holy your highest hope'. That hope he grounded in the act of creation, and affirmed in the idea of 'eternal recurrence' - the ultimate affirmation of life." (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nietzsche).
Nietszche and anti-Semitism: "Throughout the Genealogy, Nietzsche rants against "the antisemites who today roll their eyes in a Christian-Aryan bourgeois manner," and at the conclusion of the work, explodes mercilessly against the whole of modern Germany, including Duhring, Renan and the contemporary Lutheran state-church. He crucifies the "worms of vengefulness and rancor" that swarm on the soil of modern Europe, describing anti-Semites as "moral masturbators," "hangmen" and as those who represent the "will to power of the weakest": "They are all men of ressentiment, physiologlcally unfortunate and worm-eaten ... inexhaustible and insatiable in outbursts against the fortunate and happy." (http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/nietzsche.html).
So much for Nietszche.
I've pointed out before that the notion of Aryan racial superiority was the work of a man called Gobineau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_de_Gobineau) who was published before Darwin.
06 May 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWell put, Bosse. It's interesting how so many Christians accuse Nietszche's ideas of endorsing Nazism, when it is clearly false. I call it the "God is dead" syndrome.
Did you appreciate their levity?
People can find justification for any atrocity in almost any given text. For example, there is the "sons of Ham" line taken by certain Christian racists. Nobody suggests that the author of Genesis is responsible for their racism. By the same token, if Hitler found support for his views in the wilfully distorted editi ...[text shortened]... cyberone.com.au/myers/nietzsche.html).
So much for Nietszche.
06 May 06
Originally posted by PalynkaAll the same, it's not surprising when you consider his sister's achievements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_F%C3%B6rster-Nietzsche). An exceptionally nasty piece of work, that one.
Well put, Bosse. It's interesting how so many Christians accuse Nietszche's ideas of endorsing Nazism, when it is clearly false. I call it the "God is dead" syndrome.
06 May 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesAgain a lot of self satisfied gobbledeegook.
Science doesn't prove any theory undisputedly. The fact that you would ask for such an example betrays your misunderstanding of what does and does not constitute science or its abuse.
Contrary to Catholic doctrine, real scientific claims are always subject to dispute, as our set of information about the world ever increases. My point is that u ...[text shortened]... ng on the matter. How many retractions of ex cathedra proclamations resulted from their work?
You failed to answer my simple question.
Dr.S: "How many retractions of ex cathedra proclamations resulted from their work?"
None, genius. As I said, first research the subject you want to discuss before making any claims about it ... but I guess bashing the Roman-Catholic Faith or Church doesn't need any research or investigations, just the negative attitude will do.
06 May 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageDid you appreciate their levity?
Did you appreciate their levity?
People can find justification for any atrocity in almost any given text. For example, there is the "sons of Ham" line taken by certain Christian racists. Nobody suggests that the author of Genesis is responsible for their racism. By the same token, if Hitler found support for his views in the wilfully distorted editi ...[text shortened]... ia.org/wiki/Arthur_de_Gobineau) who was published before Darwin.
Unfortunately not. I found them deeply disturbing, any yet quite revealing.
What I can appreciate though, is that I think we've reached an impasse in our deliberations and I agree to disagree. You’ve made your point well enough.
07 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseA 'scientific groundwork' for social philosophy and political theory? How many times are you going to invoke the is-ought fallacy? Take the collection of descriptive claims that constitute a working TOE (actually, take any set of wholly descriptive claims you want), and use these descriptive claims alone to argue in a logically valid way to any normative conclusion or value statement. You’ll find that you simply cannot do it. So what is it that morally outrages you? The fact that the Nazis may have invoked the is-ought fallacy or the Naturalistic fallacy in development of their normative outlook? Probably not, since you are invoking exactly the same fallacious reasoning right now. So -- once again -- what outrages you are the outrageous normative premises that some people bring to the table. These views certainly do not follow logically from any scientific theory or scientific 'groundwork'. If you are suggesting otherwise, then you’re simply committing a fallacy.
[b]I don't recall your exact words, but I seem to remember you saying that Darwin was responsible for Hitler.
He (knowingly or unknowingly) laid the scientific groundwork for Nietzsche, Marx (to a slightly lesser degree) and ultimately Hitler to base their social philosophies and political theories on it. He was only one of the many links in the chai
Please. It would take more than outrage from a select few on this forum to get me ruffled.[/b]
On the other hand, let’s suppose I give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you’re not fallaciously trying to imply that normative claims follow from the TOE. Then, presumably, you’re basically stating that certain sets of descriptive claims may be unusually prone to promoting fallacious reasoning that gives rise to false normative outlooks. If true, what should we do about that, Halitose? Should we stop the quest for scientific knowledge? Should we stop formulating scientific theories altogether based on the consequentialist argument that there exists some non-zero probability that people will use these descriptive theories to fallaciously reason to false and/or socially harmful conclusions? What is your solution, Halitose? Stop scientific advance and dumb everybody up so that they are more apt to blindly follow the Christian God?