Polish Scientist and Priest Wins Templeton Prize

[Aberrosexualismo]

Apparently, Rev. Heller does not like being a priest very much when he dresses as a Mister instead of as Father. He seems to be a Modernist. “More than Liberalism itself, fear Liberalism camouflaged as ‘Catholic,’ which is none other than hypocrisy, opportunism, and vileness, the sum of which is the practical denial of the Faith.” -- Blessed Pius IX.

[ayahpapayaboy]

"People confident in their ideas are not afraid of criticism." -- Ben Stein in film documentary 'Expelled' Neither are they SO ANGRY about conflicting opinions and ideas.

[RUBENSolol]

Science giv es us knowledge and religion gives us bullshit.

[patientthomist]

@RUBENSolol

Let's see your evidence for that statement ... that is the scientific way :)

[DarkAngel182]

@KC101X you are obviously an idiot who cannot back up anything he says, otherwise you would not have to resort to ad-hom attacks. What does the bible say about 'judge not lest ye be judged' exactly?

[DarkAngel182]

@KC101X values like sexually molesting kids, then covering it up?

[patientthomist]

@DarkAngel182

Less than 1% of priests have molested kids (hideous crime)... far less than other professions, though ... be honest and give fair perspectives ... the Church would never intentionally ordain pedophiles

[DarkAngel182]

@KC101X no I did not lie, and I resent the accusation.

[cracknik]

Isn't "polish scientist" an oxymoron?

[robertsonick]

@cracknik  YOU'RE moron like an OX !!!!

( although castrated bull of the genus is smarter we hope that your mental retardation can be cured )

good luck

[bevitory342743]

Jews and Pollacks - great combo.

[ravensbleed]

priest: scientist can you turn around for just a moment

scientist: sure

-priest puts an object behind the scientist-

priest: do u believe that someone put that object on that table

Scientist: yes i do believe

now its ur turn to think about this

[michalhellerfox]

Ksiądz jest The Best!

[Andrewlohbihler]

It really looks like this guy's blindness won him $1.6 million dollars. Not a bad windfall for being a scientific coward.

[Andrewlohbihler]

It is true that science wants to explore "God's" creation, but science wants to explore the very nature of "God" too even if it means finding out that god does not exist.

[flockofseagulls87]

Dawkins is not pretending to be a scientist. Everyone in the field of biology knows he is top notch. But he isn't a biologist, or even a scientist when he rails against religion. He is a philosopher and metaphysician. Likewise, Michael Heller is not a scientist when he talks about his faith, but he is when he is writing a scientific paper on the big bang.

[flockofseagulls87]

DarkAngel, I'm not trolling. I'm challenging your opinion, that's all. You don't have to take it personally. If you didn't want to be challenged, than you probably would not have left a comment.

[flockofseagulls87]

In public, Hitler was a comitted Christian. In private, he detested Christianity as a vile mutation of judaism. Think of some of his quotes "I do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature" or "humanitarianism is the expression of stupidity and cowardice". I am not saying that religious people have not done terrible things, but Hitler did not believe in the kind of God that the vast majority of religious believers believe in today.

[DarkAngel182]

His beleif/religion did not make him a better person though did it?

Has anyone been killed in the name of athiesm???

[dacatholicbandorgan]

Of Course. It gives people a sort of peace. In most cases.

[flockofseagulls87]

He didn't exactly believe in the usual warm and fuzy thesis that most religious believers do, so I don't see your point. As for people being killed in the name of atheism, yes, hundreds of thousands of priests, nuns, monks etc were killed under Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot's anti-religious fanatacism.

[DarkAngel182]

What difference does that make? Did you actually read the entire thread in which I was responding to the other 2 posters? If you did you wouldn;t be making such idiotic comments, unless this is your attempt at trolling.

These people were not killed in the name of athiesm, they were killed in the name of communism, or whatever political ideology these people practiced. Their lack of beleif had nothing to do with it, they considered the church a threat to their political position.

[flockofseagulls87]

Mao Tse Tung personally told the Dalai Lama after killing tens of thousands in Tibet, "religion is poison". To me, that's killing in the name of an anti religious bias. And to answer your question, no one has ever killed in the name of atheism. No one has ever killed in the name of theism either. Only when it is attached to a certain organization, be it political, religious, or secular does the killing occur. I don't quite understand why you use Hitler to support your argument.

[DarkAngel182]

Hitler came into the argument after someone posted the exact same list you did about so called "athiest" dictators.

My point was their athiesm was incidental to their political ideologies, not the driving force behind it in the same way Hitler;s catholicism was incidental to his political ideals.

As for no one ever killing in the name of thiesm, you ever heard of the crusades? I suppose that was just an athiest conspiracy?

[flockofseagulls87]

Hitler was a catholic in public, in private he detested the faith. Theism is the belief that God exists. No war has ever been fought for "the belief that God exists." People have killed in the name of Yaweh, Allah, and Christ because they believed their particular notion of God was challenged. Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot killed religious persons because their ideology, which included atheism, was challenged. What's the difference?

[DarkAngel182]

How do you know he detested the faith? You're making an awful lot of assumptions.

As for your second paragraph, you are quibbling over semantics. The fact is, plenty of people have killed as a direct result of their religious beleifs . No one has killed because of a lack of beleif, people like Stalin saw the church as a political threat. As soon as the church said they wouldn't oppose him, he stopped persecuting them.

That lot would have been just as bad even if they did have faith.

[AteoConPimienta]

Templeton Foundation, say something about god, science and spirituality in the same pharse (it doenst matter if its rubbish) and win a big pile money.

Nobel can be less money, but its more honesty and knoldage.

[dacatholicbandorgan]

Why is that Priest wearing a suite and tie?

[DarkAngel182]

He is pretending to be a scientist!

[flockofseagulls87]

His religious leanings don't make him any less of a scientist. Maybe George Lemaitre and John Polkinghorne were pretending to be scientists as well.

[DarkAngel182]

Yes but does having a degree in mathematics automatically make you a scientist?

[flockofseagulls87]

The man has a ph.d in cosmology. I would most certainly call him a scientist.

[DarkAngel182]

Last time I checked, his degree was in mathematics. Unless I googled the wrong Michael Heller.

[flockofseagulls87]

Google it again. His degree is in philosophy and his ph.d in cosmology.

[cublop]

atheism is IGNORANCE

[DarkAngel182]

Is a lack of beleif in fairies ignorance to then?

[billyJoker]

ig⋅no⋅rance /ˈɪgnərəns/ Show Spelled [ig-ner-uhns] Show IPA

noun

the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.

Origin:

11751225; ME < L ignōrantia. See ignore, -ance

so the people who seek knowledge are ignorant, and the people who believe a magic book are wise ?

ok !!!

[workforcetrust]

How will the vatican respond? That is the question! What has the pope to say?

[chrisbuxton1958]

there's no fool like an old fool...

[DarkAngel182]

Does being a proffessor of mathematics actually qualify as being a "scientist"?

These creationists use some very loose definitions!

[xtrashed]

The blindness of the atheist community on this point is a continual source of astonishment to me. Evolution, as a biological process, does not contradict religious/Christian faith. And it does not contradict the Bible .

[xtrashed]

The Church has written a great deal about evolution as expressed in textbooks. The key points made by Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II is that current theories of evolution tell you that man arose due to random genetic mutations and natural selection, and that, from the Catholic perspective, that answer is incomplete. The Church views scientific knowledge and knowledge given by God, what it calls 'the deposit of faith,' as complementary, like two halves that when combined, make up a whole.

[xtrashed]

"the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life....the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago." (International Theological Commission headed by Ratzinger / Benedict, Communion and Stewardship, 2004)

[xtrashed]

Evolution is perfectly compatible with the book of Genesis when properly interpreted. But evolution can not answer questions such as the Origin of life, Origin of consciousness, Origin of morality etc.

[DarkAngel182]

Indeed, accepting evolution does not necessarily preclude the existence of a god, but whether that is enough reason to believe in one is another matter.

As for Evolution being compatible with the bible, I think you need to convince the Young Earth Creationists of this, not me.

[DarkAngel182]

A quick addendum, evolution does not answer the question of the origin of life as that is a seperate study called "abiogenesis".

Much has been written on the origins of morality, most likely this is an inherited evolutionary trait. Dawkins touches on this in the god delusion.

[RussianPeace1]

Great man! I've been to Poland. Great country! Long live Catholicism and Christianity both East and West!

[DarkAngel182]

Why? What's so good about them?

[RussianPeace1]

Why are you ignorant dumbshit? Copernicus who was Catholic and also Curie who only became atheist later in life in France were famous Poles who contributed to science. There are plenty of Christian Slavs who have contributed to science. You are just ignorant.

[DarkAngel182]

Well that's very unchristian language, Is that how Jesus teaches you to behave?

If you're attitude towards others is typical of all christians then I think we need more atheists.

[RussianPeace1]

You are ignorant. We do not need more Stalins, Castros, Kim Jong Il's, and Rakosi's. We need more Christian Democrats and Nationalists

[DarkAngel182]

I find it highly amusing you call others ignorant, when your posts are full of insults, profanity and ill founded remarks. You hardly come accross as being the bastion of enlightenment!

NOT believing in a god does not make you a worse person any more than not believing in fairies does.

Tell me then, did Stalin kill in the name of atheism or communism? Did Hitler kill in the name of Catholicism, or Fascism? Maybe you should look that up!

[RussianPeace1]

In a way it does. Most ppl that do go to church do better in school and live longer. Thats a fact I've seen in a lot of places not just Christian websites. Enlightenment especially the French one can kiss my ass. Even French and Germans picked De Gaulle and Adenauer as favorite Germans and French in a nationwide poll. You started insulting others on here. Stalin did kill in the name of communism 62 million dead!!! Hitler was also anti-clerical you moron!

[DarkAngel182]

Hmmm, well lets see now. You started with the words "ignorant dumbshit", I don;t see me using any words like that towards yourself or anyone else? Is that typical chirstian behavior?

Whilst I'm pointing out the fallacies in your argument, even if church goers fo live longer or do better in class that does not make gods existence any more likely.

Thankyou for pointing out that Stalin actually killed in the name of communism and NOT atheism, you have defeated your own argument.

[DarkAngel182]

My point with Hitler was that even though he was Catholic, he didn;t kill in the name if his religion. He killed in the name of a political ideology (Fascism). It was the same with Satlin, he killed in the name of communism. not atheism. However you seem to have already acknowledged that fact, which is why I find it odd you missed my subsequent point about Hitler.

You may also wish to look up the names Jim Jones and David Koresh and see what faith they were.

[RussianPeace1]

He was raised Catholic but became agnostic. Even the Pope at that time stated Nazism was not Catholicism since many Catholic schools were being closed. Hitler rejected the sacraments and hardly ever went to church. Communism is atheism basically since almost all of them were.

[DarkAngel182]

Well you clearly haven't got a clue what your talking about.

These communists probably didn't believe in fairies either, does that have any bearing on their actions? So how does a lack of beleif in something lead to attrocitries?

Hitler might not have been a practising christian, but how many of his followers were? So again, were these attrocities commited because of beleif (or lack thereof) or was it something else?

You really ought to look into this stuff a bit more!

[RussianPeace1]

I'm not saying atheists are bad you should not single out religious ppl. This priest won something so you seem jealous or stuck up.

[DarkAngel182]

If you read my original post, all I did was query the claim that being a maths proffessor makes you a scientist. I'm not so sure it does.

At no point did I claim that all religious people are bad. You on the other hand turned this into a personal attack by directing a tirade of abuse towards me and then started equating atheism with mass murder, which I have shown to be false.

[RussianPeace1]

No, if you are apologetic about atheism's crimes then I will be about Christianity cause not every so-called Christian-oriented war was technically Christian.

[DarkAngel182]

What do you mean "atheist crimes"? Name ONE atrocity that has been carried out in the name of atheism?

People like Stalin killed in the name of a political ideology, NOT because of there religious beleifs, or lack thereof. These had no more bearing on his actions than his beleif in fairies.

As I have already explained, atheism is a word that merely means an absense of beleif. It is not a philosophy or an ideology. Please look into this before posting any more absurd assumptions.

[RussianPeace1]

atheism is a big part of communism. its almost part of the foundation. don't tell me bullshit cause i know.

[DarkAngel182]

Whether or not certain communists happen to be atheists does not mean their lack of faith was the motivation for their actions,

Again, did Stalin commit his crimes in the name of communism or atheism?

What if catholicism was the main religion of the Nazi's (the vatican certainly never opposed them)? Their crimes were commited in the name of fascism, again their religious views were not the motivational factor.

Again, name ONE atrocity commited in the name of atheism.

[RussianPeace1]

Never opposed them? 16% of Catholic priests in Poland died because of Nazis. Read about Father Kolbe. Who do you think influenced the Nazis in stopping the T-4 Euthanasia Program. Even the Pope at the time was concerned about the number of Catholic schools being closed down in Germany. A lot of communist crimes in my country were done in the name of atheism. Look what Nikita was saying! Atheism is a big part of it.

[DarkAngel182]

Actually, they only started critisising Hitler AFTER they went back on some of their promises in the "Reichskonkordat"

How come the cathoilc church had to make a grovelling apology in recent years over Pope PIus XII's refusal to speak out over the holocaust in WW2?

Google the name Richard Williamson, a holocaust denying catholic bishop who has recently been allowed to resume his position.

So dont give me any of your "holier than thou" nonsense.

[DarkAngel182]

It is obvious from reading your posts that being a christian does NOT make you a better person than anyone else.

In your case it has lead you to develop a pathological hatred of anyone who doesn't share your religious views.

[RussianPeace1]

Thank you for admitting you are atheist and a hypocritical one at that. Atheists themselves are responsible for Hitler's rise to power. Social Darwinism for example was a big part of Hitler's ideas as well as Stalin telling the KPD to break away from the SPD. Look how many countries in East Europe have a religious revival right now. Cause they don't find solace in atheism or communism.

[DarkAngel182]

I have never denied that I am an athiest. You however epitomise eveything that is wrong with your religion.

You wrongly assert, without providing any proof, that atheism equates to communism and/or fascism. Again HOW does a lack of beleif in god lead to attrocities any more than a lack of beleif in fairies?

You don't want to believe everything you read on these right wing christian websites. You do your religion a great disservice by quoting from them as your posts smack of hatred.

[RussianPeace1]

I don't see you providing evidence lol. Even atheists like Christopher Hitchens admit that there have been ppl who do not believe in God who have done atrocities in the name of God. I don't read right-wing Christian websites lol. Did you know John Paul II had 2 billion ppl watch his funeral. There are only 1.1 billion Catholics. Fidel Castro declared three days of mourning for Pope John Paul II. Do you know the Catholic Church was more loved then Solidarity in Poland in terms of trust.

[DarkAngel182]

You're the one claiming atheism leads to communist attrocities, its up to you to prove it, which so far you haven't done. Where does Hitchens say that atheisst have commited attrocities in the name of god?

So what if 2 billion watched the popes funeral? How does that make the existence of giod any more likely?

Do you even know how to contruct a coherant argument (preferably without resorting to personal abuse)?

[xtrashed]

Go and Watch 'The Trouble With atheism Part 6' - 4:15. On Youtube. The Russian Priest (who was once an atheist, lived in Russia during this time, before emigrating). He said himself, 'BEING RELIGIOUS WAS A VIOLATION OF STATE LAWS' . He says this himself, in his own words 'THE PARTY DEMANDED ATHEISM, YOU CAN'T BE A PARTY MEMBER OF ANY RELIGION'. That same secularism exterminated religious people with much cruelty! You can not deny that.

godandscience . org/apologetics/atrocities.htm­l

[DarkAngel182]

Firstly, go back and read what I have already said on this subject. You are conflating atheism, secularism and communism, the 3 are entirely seperate. All you are doing is showing your ignorance.

Just look at America. It's predominently christian, but its government is secular.

Stalin commited his crimes in the name of communism. Are you saying if he was Christian he would have been better behaved? Look at Hitler, he was Catholic.

[xtrashed]

While religious people have been responsible for some atrocities throughout history, I would venture to say that 20th century atheists have been responsible for a great deal more.

But begin before the 20th century. Look at the history of the Enlightenment in France, which resulted in the Reign of Terror, with its killing of innocents. Then consider the millions of deaths perpetrated by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others, all in the name of their particular atheist ideology.

[DarkAngel182]

Oh yes we all know the crusades was started by the atheists now don't we?

Again, these subjects have all been debunked in my earlier responses to Russianpeace. Go back and read what I've already posted.

Atheism is simply a name given for a lack of beleif. It is not an ideology or a philosophy.

Tell me, did Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot kill in the name of atheism, or in the name of a POLITICAL ideology?

[xtrashed]

Even the religious wars pale in comparison, and in the determined manner in which these exterminations were carried out. Even Castro, after gaining power, made a determined and continued effort to eliminate anyone in the bourgeoisie, including businessmen, clerics, and the middle class. His supposed enemies were lined up against the wall and shot.

[DarkAngel182]

Castro was actually a Catholic.

Communist regimes frequently suppress the church because they see them as political rivals.

Stalin actually stopped his crimes against the church once they agreed they wouldn't oppose him.

[RussianPeace1]

He was raised Catholic LOL

[DarkAngel182]

Indeed, but he was a secularist (beleived in the seperation of church and state), NOT an atheist.

You need to distibguish between the two.

Also try googling "Hitler was not an Atheist" by John Patrick Michael Murphy

[therock27374]

I thought Hitler was not an athiest? Is it true that he claimed his nazi soldiers as "gods army"? Its what I heard and I don't know if its true...

[DarkAngel182]

Hitler makes many references to god in Mein Kampf. Not least his in his persecution of the jews.

Of course, that's not to say that his religion was the cause of the attrocities he commited. But it blows the religious argument that religion makes you a better person out of the water.

[metalnecromancer]

Hitler was not religious. In Mein Kampf he says he wants to eliminate religion as it can't exist in his Germany. Since when does believeing in god automatically make you religious? Hitler had a personal god who was his own. Also, pope pius XII and the catholic church's efforts to save jews were praised by Einstein in Time magazine and Nahum Goldmann who was president of the World Jewish Congress.

[DarkAngel182]

Semantics aside, the point I was making was that he wasn't an athiest.

[rdiofreeurope]

he was disagreeing with your last paragraph. You said Hitler proves that religion doesn't make you a better person.

metalnecromancer pointed out that Hitler wasn't religious, so he is not a counterexample.

Hitler stopped going to religious services when he left home, and from then on only went to religious places when there was Nazi functions there.

That would be like using a high school-dropout as a counterexample to the argument that school makes you an educated person.

[DarkAngel182]

You are arguing over semantics, Hitler may not have been an active church goer, but he certainly believed in god.

In any case, you only need to look at some of the so-called "christian" replies to me in this thread to see that religion ,or a beleif in god, doesn't make you a better person.

[rdiofreeurope]

Again, I am talking about your second paragraph, not your first. This is not semantics, there is a difference between writing you believe something in a propaganda book, and actually practicing your beliefs. You should have written 'Hitler is a counterexample to the argument that theism makes you a better person'. Theism and religion are two different words.

I don't want to argue any more because it doesn't really matter what you meant

And a few non-random samples doesn't prove very much.

[DarkAngel182]

OK, so the point I was making was "a beleif in god AND/OR practising a religion" does not necessarily make you a better person. The point is the people who were arguing with me (though it was really more of an attack than an argument) were saying it did.

By the way, what do you mean by 'non-random'? If something is non-random then it is 'specific' surely?

[rdiofreeurope]

"By the way, what do you mean by 'non-random'? If something is non-random then it is 'specific' surely?"

Sorry, I didn't have much room left, so I had to write in a choppy way. I am pointing out that Hitler, bad as he was, was only one person, who we are looking at specifically because he is bad, not because he was randomly chosen, so he is not very statistically significant as far as the entire population of theists go.

Yao Ming is a Chinese NBA player. That doesn't mean Chin. play in the NBA

[DarkAngel182]

I see, however the point I was making was in response to some of the earlier comments which cited a number of atheist dictators as proof that all athiests were bad. I was pointing out that their athiesm was not the cause of their behaviour and cited Hitler (and Castro) as examples of a theist/religious person who's behaviour was similarly not motivated by beleifs, but rather a political ideology.

[rdiofreeurope]

I understand.  Dictators are bad, whether religious, anti-religious or in between.

[flockofseagulls87]

One objection here. Hitler believed in a God of vengeance. He believed that God created all species and races to fight one another in a "survival of the fittest" world. He was very much influenced by the work Charles Darwin, (whom he admired), and who had racial ideas and a "weltenschung" not too dissimilar from Hitler's. His God was not unlike that of the old testament, but the vast majority of the members of the abrahamic faiths reject such an archaic notion of God.

[xtrashed]

Also read the history of the revolution in Mexico, which attempted to suppress or eliminate not only the Church, but all opposition. Many ordinary people died because they refused to go along.

Atheism has not shown itself to be a benevolent ideology.

[DarkAngel182]

Right well you have obviously not read anything that has been said in this argument otherwise you wouldn't continue to spew this unsubstantiated rhetoric.

For the last time, atheism is NOT an ideology, a philosophy or a guide for how to live you life. Its just a name given to describe a lack of beleif. Why is that so hard to understand?

[RussianPeace1]

Its definitely apart of communism's foundation!

[DarkAngel182]

Atheism is incidental to it, it is not the driving force behind it.

[RussianPeace1]

Learn to spell "criticizing" and "Catholic". Pope allowed Richard Williamson in but not because of Holocaust Denial. He even said for him to recant his views and Jews welcomed this.

[DarkAngel182]

I see, so being unable to refute any of my rebuttals you now stoop to critisising my grammer and spelling?

Again, I think you need to learn how to put forward a cohesive argument.

Perhaps you would like to take this to private message? At least there, we are not confined to character limits and would spare other people having to trawl through all this?

[RussianPeace1]

Xtrashed is a hell of a lot smarter then you. I did tell things like about the euthanasia program, how priests were killed by nazis, and about communism.

[DarkAngel182]

You mean he just spouts the same rhetoric from the same hate filled websites you visit?

Just because you make the same unsubstantiated claims does not make them facts!

[RussianPeace1]

hitchens is a staunch atheist you moron.

[DarkAngel182]

I never said he wasn't, what's your point?

[Aristosek]

'Theory of Everything', 'Theory of Field' etc. - isn't reflections of final, universal order ?. Call it GOD if you want. Rev. Heller have great, open mind, and if for him that Order=God, then no prob for me. Google for top scientists faith relations - most was pretty religious. Coincidence ?

[enlighteningtheworld]

This is a very black and white orthodox belief system preventing us from living longer, more abundant lives. An immaculate conception is impossible, and the great pyramid is tens of thousands or even hundreds of years old. Both of these truths debunk science evolution theory and religious belief about God, which is preventing people from living longer, more abundant lives.

[Mangledlikesj00ce]

The Templeton Prize is a farce. Theist assholes desperately trying to justify God in this new era of science and failing miserably at it. The scientists who participate only do it for the money which is adjusted every year to be higher than the Nobel Prize. Money doesn't make God real.

[ltmashka]

Atheist ninnies... Whining JUST BECAUSE he is mentioneing his religious affiliation. "Oh, that's dumb." What the hell is your reasoning behind that claim? Have you read any of his papers? Obviously you haven't; you couldn't get past the first paragraph! Moreover, how do you even dare to attack this guy's beliefs, when he's INFINITELY more educated and cultured than all of you? RIDICULOUS.

[AdrenalineAndLove]

You're very presumptouos to assume that this guy is infinitely more educated and cultured than all of 'us'. Personally, I'm not scientists or doctor, I'm just a simple college student - but what if there were someone more intelligent and educated than this fella? Then your pointless argument falls apart.

[JimmyChiffels]

People.. stop bashing this guy..

After all he won a prize.

He's smarter,wiser AND older. So shut the hell up you ignorant pests.

[Iyse]

WTF? He won a prize therefore everything he says must be true?! Look up argument from authority you ass.

I can't believe this douche said "Religion gives us meaning..."

If it's not the true meaning, then it isn't the real meaning. Jesus fucking christ, what a moron.

[JimmyChiffels]

Remember man.. everyone has different views.

This man is highly respected. He put his balls on the lines to say something so brave like this. Even if you are a non-believer you should atleast give him some respect.

[nycistanbul]

Science is a must. Religion is a choice.

[AdrenalineAndLove]

Science > Religion

Logic > Blind faith

[ltmashka]

Nice punchline, but I see no reasoning behind it. Just a catchy slogan a la Richard Dawkins. Lame.

[AdrenalineAndLove]

I've never read any material from Richard Dawkings.

[chukmaty]

Also there has not been a good theory to replace theism and creation of the universe ex nihilo.

Everything throughout the universe rejects the idea of the big bang as it violates the law of conservation of angular momentum.

No force could change the angular mommentum of an object without destroying its orbit as well as a significant portion of the heavenly body itself. Venus is spinning the wrong way yet is has no sign of being struck by an object.

[themilitantatheist]

Oh please conservation of momentum is violated by the universe starting as a superhot/dense point...

Honestly where do you get this crap from?

Nothing significant refutes the idea of the big bang - and MANY observations support it.

Are you really bringing up Venus and its retrograde rotation? Seriously? There are many theories that adequately explain this phenomenon - just look it up. There is no need to throw out all of physics to explain it...

[chukmaty]

Actually the breaking of the conseration of angular mommentum is fairly significant.

And the only explanations for it being broken are because of colliding planet sized objects which to me has been a fairly silly proposition.

[themilitantatheist]

Rubbish.

There is not enough space here to outline the other theories - look them up.

Oh and your lack of imagination to see colliding bodies as an explaination is not a fault of science. Look closer to home for that failing...

[chukmaty]

Why, you think dark matter somehow micro manages the inner workings of the solar system? Tidal friction of an escaped Jupiter moon reversed direction of an entire planet and then conveniently got captured by the sun?

The idea that the earth survived a devestating hit that split it in two forming the moon and managed to establish an orbit around the sun which was just right for life is pretty freakin hilarious.

[themilitantatheist]

Yet more ignorant rubbish.

Dark matter's role in the evolution of the structure of the universe is poorly understood.

As with Venus - there are multiple theories how the Earth came to have a moon. Impact is just one of them (though probably the most likely). Note we are not talking an impact like I think you imagine - we are talking an impact in the VERY EARLY stages of solar development. Such impacts would not have been all that improbable during these times.

[themilitantatheist]

In no sense did the earth "survive" the impact. To suggest so demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of the science you are trying to debunk.

[szkakalaka]

Pooooolska ! łejoooo ! :)

uczcie się polskiego to zrozumiecie :)

[Slotzan]

too bad the templeton is a joke

[themilitantatheist]

Unfortunately he is wrong about religion. Or should I say modern religion. It is increasingly obvious that modern religion has nothing to do with spirituality and everything to do with politics, power and money.

If it was about personal spirituality why are they so hell bent on teaching other children their values in schools? What could they possibly gain? Future donations? Future votes?

Think about it.

[jarail]

There was a time when it wasn't about politics, power, and money?

[themilitantatheist]

True there probably wasn't... my bad!

Crooked since inception.

[radiofed]

...stop generalizing please.

[themilitantatheist]

Sorry, no can do.

Religion will always be a polar opposite to science. Anyone who think otherwise are deluding themselves. Simple.

[radiofed]

Science is the annoying son of Religion that wishes to prove it wrong.

You probably won't understand that, but it has something to do with my way of viewing science with religion and still being a Christian. Though I know all that theres is with evolution, and physics and all that jazz. Funny thing is, it makes me believe in a higher power more than not believe in one.

...for you, if that makes me irrational and delusional. Then so be it, I'm happy were I am.

[themilitantatheist]

I do not see science as "wishing" to do anything. It simply uncovers the nature of things. If science shows a god is not required then that is not because anyone pressured it in this direction.

I honestly do not see how you have reconiled a belief in god and science in such a way as to allow scientific understanding to bolster your belief.

How can you be happy in this state? Ignorance is not bliss despite the phrase.

[radiofed]

There was a point where I was searching for answers about my religion and whether or not i should believe it. I read Dawkins and looked into evolution and science to understand why they did not believe in a God. What it boiled down to wasn't the discoveries in the scientific world (because frankly, I think of God as being outside our universe looking in, how else could he observe and create things...cont)

[DanielEndy2]

It's easy to believe in science and faith. Not the fundamentalist, literal, type of faith, but a simple faith in the Divine and in a greater spiritual reality. 

I believe in evolution AND in the Creator. The more science discovers about the nature of the universe, physics, biology, cosmology, etc., the more amazing it is, the easier it is to believe in something greater.

It seems very odd for a scientist to see new discoveries and then decide to believe in a more limited view of reality.

[chozenbygod101]

Just wondering, how can you believe in both a Creator and evolution? A Creator means there is creation; evolution means it just happened. How does that work?

[Mytuber84]

Have you ever thought about an idea that evolution is just one of the elements of creation? It 'just happened' coz it was planned to happen, this or other way. Creationism is not about Adam and Eve and seven hard days of work (or six actually). It's something more.

[DanielEndy2]

Your thoughts are too limited for good science. If we only believe what we know, what new things will we ever discover?

The best science is done by being open-minded.

Nothing about science eliminates the possibility of a creator. For you to decide, in advance, that science disproves the possibility of the divine is not valid.

Atheism, the disbelief in God, is a 'belief'. There is no proof. The only scientific (proof-based) stance is to be Agnostic.

Atheism is a faith/belief.

[themilitantatheist]

Sorry but you are incorrect. The scientific method simply does not work in the way you think.

As for open-mindedness - yes science is done best with this outlook. ALL the supernatural claims have been looked into with no bias - they all come back lacking a shred of evidence. Science does not keep re-visiting these "phenomenon" because there is nothing to revisit.

You are working with antquated definitions. Of course as a scientist I can't say with certainty ther is no god (cont...)

[chukmaty]

Supernatural would imply not being able to be tested, as they are beyond natural. They are not scientifically understandable as the "super" cannot be tested.

This is not just from a religious perspective that I say this but a metaphysical one.

If for example who observe and test proof that the earth could not have supported life 1 billion years ago, we have a serious problem of figuring out how life established itself without the time to do so.

Also there are the problems of singularity.

[themilitantatheist]

And your point? If I were to prove god is an impossibility in a rational universe all religions would have a serious problem how to reconcile their delusional belief.

[chukmaty]

However, not only has the supernatural not been proven impossible (in fact you should know that you cannot prove a negative), I would argue that it is metaphysically required. So even if science cannot understand it, there should still be theological and philosphical inquiry into what it means for humanity.

[themilitantatheist]

Of course the existence of supernatural phenomenon have not been disproved (you can't prove or disprove anything in science in the way you suggest - you should know that).

On what grounds is wasting time entertaining beliefs with no basis in evidence "required".

It is not that science can't understand the supernatural - it is that there is NO evidence for science to work with. If evidence existed it would cease to be supernatural. Get it?

[chukmaty]

You ignore the metaphysical insufficiencies of this economy to generate its own laws. It can possibly explain from its own possession of energy, but not how energy, time and mass are organized into persievable; allbeit relative; states to our self aware consciousness.

And the super natural has a basis for belief set in years of human tradition, it simply cannot be demonstrated through testing and recreating result via scientific processes.

[imigrant00]

Say I told you there is an intelligent civilization on Jupiter. Would you take me seriously? There's no way for us to test and see if there is, we only have pictures of the outside of the actual planet, so for the present time that theory is untestable. Would you take that seriously? If not, then you might understand why the theory of "god" isn't taken seriously.

[themilitantatheist]

but I sure can assign a probability to one being there given the evidence. There is no evidence god is real or for that matter necessary.

In that regard agnosticism is not a "scientific stance" - no theory can be verified in an absolute way.

Just to be clear I am not talking specifically about a "creator" that kicked the universe off and stops meddling after that event. I am talking about your imaginary friend type belief, that can affect change for you through prayer/devotion.

[Tubewyn]

"I sure can assign a probability [...] There is no evidence god is real or for that matter necessary." What would be evidence for god?

[themilitantatheist]

It is a good question. I am not at all sure what would count as evidence of god. Nothing "so far" hints that a god is necessary for any of the natural world and I dont expect that to change.

Of course the "best friend" god can be easily tested. Prayer has shown to have no effect in double blind trials on healing rates and death rates.

It is unknown if a god started the universe, but its almost certain that if it did it no longer has any interaction with the universe, and especially us.

[chukmaty]

Prayer is not supposed to affect either, it is supposed to establish one self in God's will in spite of a universe that is broken.

I think you are referring to the testing of charismatic claims of healing, their beliefs are broken however even from a theological perspective as Christianity is dispensation oriented and even by the end of Paul's ministry healing was no longer supposedly a spiritual gift.

[themilitantatheist]

Fine, prayer is not supposed to "do anything" physical. In that case what is wrong with keeping it to yourself?

Why do you need all the man made garbage alongside a spiritual belief?

[chukmaty]

The problem of not just singularity, but the source of laws which shape energy and space into a perceivable continuum gives us pause as to what the source could be in a purely naturalistic world view.

Also seemingly random lucky roles of the dice for humanity, such as evolving just when the yearly, monthly, and day calendars were in good sync for a agrarian culture to develop is truly one in a million.

[themilitantatheist]

What total rubbish. There was nothing "lucky" in our evolution co-inciding with favourable conditions. Such a statement demonstrates a poor understanding of how evolution operates.

Furthermore it is not even clear what you mean by "in a good sync" - what would you consider a bad sync for agriculture? Considering that plant forms were already well established well before primates and such...

[chukmaty]

Good sync in that it allowed for humans to develope an agrarian society with which they could keep track of when it was in the year via observing the moon.

And evolution works pretty well in that it re arranges data and usually loses some in the process. These re arrangments occur in hot zones while cool zones remain relatively unchanged.

And apparently those early plants could handle tsunami like tides as well, or do I simply not know how evolution works?

[themilitantatheist]

So you think a good sync is merely the fact that the moon has stable phases? Ok, if thats all it takes for you to be convinced...

I suggest you read how evolution works my friend. There is no bias based on temperature. Information can certainly be lost and CREATED through many well understood genetic processes.

What of plants being able to survive "tsunami like conditions"? - are you implying there are no plants that today can survive limited submurged environments?

[chukmaty]

It has stable phases now, it will not in a billion years because of tidle friction. Logically one can deduce that tidal friction is nothing new and that there would not have been stable moon phases in sync with the yearly calandar millions of years ago.

And yes, genes reorgainize in hot zones more than cool zones, has nothing to do with the climate ;)

The moon is distancing itself, though not has fast as in the past. Millions and billions of years ago tides were more intense.

[themilitantatheist]

The moon is slowly distancing itself, you are correct. This is due to the conservation of momentum - the tidal forces slow the earths rotation (yes days are getting longer) and so the moons angular momentum increases. There will be no cycles in a billion years. As there is a point where they balance and the moon stops moving further out. At this point the moon will be in static orbit around the earth - so no more tides.

[themilitantatheist]

Or rather no cycles in many billions of years... I dont have time to do the calculation - but having just checked rate at which the moon is "flying off" it will probably take a very long time indeed. Even by galactic timescales...

[hradek]

Sorry, they are not polar opposites and can perfectly co-exist.

[themilitantatheist]

Really?

Do elaborate on why you think that...

[bammbamm12]

You're the simpleton. Galileo, Kepler, Newton and Lemaitre would all tell you you're ignorant.

[EvilSchizoGenius]

He is like our new George Lemaitre who was a Belgian Roman Catholic Priest, honorary prelate, professor of physics and astronomer and proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe.