Any idiot know the Church believes in Science and religion. That priest would be excommunicated for many things. And those High up church officials would be laughed out of the church if they tried to act like that in the real church.
he never wanted the church to actually be destroyed. He wanted them to find it but too late so that he could save the day through self sacrifice and be promoted to pope despite only being a Priest as well as use the attack from science as a way of setting up the church as the victim instead. It was all manipulation and evil but he never wanted to blow up the vatican for a point.
All my dear fellows.Read Holy quran you will understand the dimenions of science in it.Religion is never been old.God have kept on informing mankind to rectify their faith and at last 1400 years ago this glorious super human being called prophet Muhammed PBUH delived the prophecy and made people understand the real form of knowledge. When Angel Gabrial came to prophet muhammed pbuh the first word he said to him was ''iqra'' an arabic word means read/learn.
@LORDMCHUGH With age comes not only experience and wisdom, but altsheimers, bad sight, loss of memory, conservatism and a mind wich is harder to discuss with than a young mind.
OH ho ho,so evolution is a proved science ? but there are so many questions evolutionist can not answer. let`s take an example of caused and effect universal phenomenon , does this phenomenon hold any ground if we compare this to evolutionist theory, evolutionist says we are creations of an accident if it does make sense we might have cities like new york and London in sub sahara desert as a reult of accident since no creator is needed.
aham...but science proved in front of religion a lot of things...for example evolution and not "the god making people from clay" theory...and others important moments in bible...but oh well...:)
@QueenTytania Speaking as a scientist, MsRavenheart1 is correct in her definition of a theory. A hypothesis is proposed, tested, tested, tested, and tested some more. Eventually it is either disproved or else it becomes a theory, which is the pretty much as close to fact as one can get in science. Dictionary definitions kind of fail to explain this idea.
@str8erthanu i don't think it's either of it, i think people are just too eager in their own opinion, that neither church nor science are able to see the good in each other, which they both certainly have!!
you can't say it's the fault of the church or the one of science, it's always the men!!
It means that science is young and arrogant and religion is old enough to be wise. Religion knows what to and not to mess with in nature. Science is still testing with those waters.
Ah, I see what you mean. The God of science is the same God that all the Abrahamic religions have worshipped. It is fortunate that you understand this. Not many people have. :)
It's good to forget the old days. Those woulds have healed. Catholicsim is no longer the enemy of progress and science. In fact, they are allies now. :)
It has rightly taken over a thousand years for any Church to mature.
This ideal of the Catholic Church being anti-science is one of the most widespread and ignorant ideas. Galileo was condemned (overly, admittedly, but not killed) not for his beliefs--the pope and other church leaders had welcomed and encouraged him before he taught geocentrism as a fact without proving it. The Catholic religion, esp. via the Jesuits led Western science in many fields, esp astronomy, geology, seismology. Read: How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas Woods.
@mojave19 Actually it was believed that they tried to condemn Galileo because the Church would loose its prestige as the bastion of science. The church was in many ways during those days the Central Scientific Organization in history. Once Galileo proved them wrong, they would loose their credibility....It's all politics.
@avatarspirit57 Not all politics, science! Galileo was brilliant, actually hailed by Church leaders long before the conflict, but was hardly infalliable. He argued that the movements of the tides constituted proof of the Earth's motion; wacky by today's standards. Geocentric arguements, dating back to Aristotle, could not refuted by Galileo; thus he was permitted to teach Copernicanism as a theory, not fact, which he refused. I'm not supporting the censorship applied centuries ago, just facts.
Ha! But see how much influence religion still holds. The Pope is still one of the most powerful men in the world. And yet look at how he does not even try to stop science anymore. This Church has learned and matured. Even better, they've become allies of progress. So point for them.
when we entered the movie theatre...i was wondering who this guy was, till i saw the credits, its ewan mc gregor.. i did not recognize him. he is a far cry from his previous characters...say ...like the young obi one.
Many believe that science is a presentation of the truth. This is true. But many also do not believe what science has not yet been able to present. Remember that our knowledge is still very partial and we have not learned everything as a race. The laws of the universe are not the enemies of God. Rather, they are His agents, His tools. No amount of religion can argue against that. But no mont of our current knowledge can argue that God does not exist.
Exactly. There must be balance and open-mindedness. Both science and religion are discipilines of knowlegde. Both have an influence on the way we live. But without each other, they are practically distructive. Well, that is if one went to war with the other.
I say both men are as ignorant. But the ability to define something and appreciate it is far better than either of the two alone.
If you cannot appreciate what you understand, then how can you use its gifts to further the coure of progress? How can you help it reach its full potential?
This is hysterical! The so-called illumunati came about 150 years after Gallileo, who was an ardent Catholic and lived within the walls of the vatican for his 3 yr. probation. Hollywood denizens are so ignorant and full of meritricious persiflage (aka lies and nonsense) that it would be amusing for someone to make a movie of nothing but their incredible bad taste and totally erroneous 'films' (aka garbage) I look forward with anticipation to seeing them exposed for their lies $ hucksterism
here is finally a preacher who knows that science has the answers his name is micheal dowd......watch this video called "universe bieng conscious of itself" i want more churches like this.
Religion is not at all always based on faith. Each religion has different morals and standards based on different historical points in their 'faith', but that is quite irrelevant next to those morals and we have alot to thank many of them for today.
Does; "Thou shall not kill" sound familiar, perhaps?
With that said I should note that I am not religious, I just live by morals that could be called influenced by protestant-christian
No, you would have to suffer from severe mental illnesses to be able to kill without feeling bad (known in popular talk as being a sociopath).
That does not have anything to do with how religious a person is or not.
What is even the logic behind asking such a question? Do you think morals requires a God? Would murder be alright with you, if God does indeed not exist?
Is the fear of hell and the hopes of heaven all that keeps you from murder? That would qualify you as a sociopath, btw
science is also based on faith. you have faith that there is no god, and that your existence is a coincidence, even though there is no proof that there is no god. (and i'm not talking about any specific religion). even if evolution is true, does that mean there is no god? no, it just means religion is not entirely true. the chances of life appearing on a planet is 1 to some astronomical number, even according to scientists. please rebuttal right away, i'm starting to have fun.
Sorry, but you do not need to have faith that there is no god to trust science; That sentence assumes that acknowledging science and understanding science requires an individual to belive that there is no god.
You can fully embrace science without any such convictions.
Also, life by "chance" is indeed possible.
Show me any calculations that primitive cells (the first form of life) is impossible, rather than just claim it.
You do know we got several working models of abiogenesis, right?
Furthermore, science and philosophy should not be enemies. To say that science is the opposite of philosophy is like saying hot is the opposite of tall. Science studies HOW the world works, while philosophy and religion ponder about WHY the world works. Even though religions may have different symbols for their god, they still have the same overall message, which many people do not realize. If science and religion could work together to find truth, the world would be a much better place.
Sir Fred Hoyle, the great mathematician/astronomer of the 20th century, having calculated the odds of life arising by chance, compared it to lining up10 (raised to the 50th power) blind people, giving each one a scrambled rubik's cube, and them all solving their cube at the same moment. The odds are one
in ten raised to the 40,000th power ( an exponent of one with 40,000 zeroes after it) completely burns Darwin's theory of life from primordial
Sorry, Darwin did not raise any theories about life from a primordial soup, and that you think he did goes a long way to show your ignorance of the subject.
Also, I must again tell you that from the components that would be found in primitive earth conditions, lab experiments have shown that through processes of chemistry (which is not entirely random, even if they may appear so) through which life could have started it's earliest and most simple forms.
That you take Sir Fred Hoyle and his mathematical jumples as proof also speaks about the low standard you have for any evidence you are willing to accept to support your pre-conceived ideas.
Chance calculations based on pure random opposed to calculations/tests which account for the actual non-random components can create huge variances to the results.
Again, we got several working models of abiogenesis; We do not yet (and maybe never will) know which is correct, but they all could have worked
Same I can say about your "working models".As you said you will never know which(if any of those) is correct.But you have faith though right? Oh wait,thats too spiritual to say.Faith cant exist in your vocab.
I do have faith in science; I am not afraid of the word, althrough I use it in a quite different sense than you probarly, because I do not do blind faith and I am open minded and thus willing to change my mind if new contradicting evidence should arise, which is why I am asking for your sources.
And we don't know which is right, because we are as of yet unable to find evidence to indicate which (if any of the current models) was the one that actually happened
things that science is too young to understand?! that fool thinks religion can anwser things that science cant just because it's older? how does religion being old prove anything?!what a bunch of nonsence!!religion is old and based on faith in a stupid best-selling fiction book that says god exists. and science is based on rationalism.
Science is based on real facts and evidence. Religion is all about possibilities of what could be beyond us. The reason why science is too young to understand is because it never really focuses on what the religious people percieves and they try to to ignore it and focus on the reality we are in right now. Religious people are the ones who can see beyond reality through thier experience. Arthur Eddington was one of those people and he was a great scientist himself but also a mystic.
Richard Dawkins had a speech on quote mining Eddington. and anything "beyond reality" is not real. so ur saying religion is more experienced than science in dealing with that which is not real.....how is that in surport of religion?!
Max plank the father of quatum physics wrote that there are other realities from our from sense of perception. We live in a 3d world and there could be a 4d or 5d and science can't detect it and they cant see if its real or give us an answer.. Mystics had a glimpse of those other realities. they were born that way and its it mostly in the located religious world like third world. Those people in some point of thier lives has experiecned something extrodinary.
"and science cant detect it" oh really? 4d is space time. it cant be pictured by our brain but it can still be detected and understood and its still within reality. anything thats real is within reality and effects other parts of reality such as the part we live in and we can detect anything thats real. mystics are just a bunch of scary ugly loony lairs who lie to make money. we dont live in a 3d world. we can perceive the wrld up to the 3rd d but that dosent mean we cant detect the other ds
"One consciousness but many forms" think about that. Reality as we see it can differ in millions and billions of ways greater than we could ever imagine. but our perception still remains the same because of our surroundings. mystics or saints or third world religious people have experienced something beyond that. we never know what is out there.
our perception is limited but science helps us to detect things outside of our perception. and mystics experiencs shit. they are ****ing deluded! they smoke weed and experience delusions!! ****** stop talking about thoose ****ing retards!!!! its so ****ing annoying!!if u thing they experienced anything real or useful y dont u try to prove it?! there is so many mystics out there contradicting each other and none of them has any evidence for anything within or outside of our perception!!
They are deluded? thats what the 1st and 2nd world says. but the third world knows about it and the manifesations of it so they can't make that statement. Many religions go though the same thing no matter how much they differ. For example demonic possession means that a person is hypersensitive, he or she can see a seperate reality and born by thier very nature. thats why when they get possessed doctors can't find out whats wrong. Take annilese micheal for example. think of her story.
"he or she can see a seperate reality and born by thier very nature"
*sigh* is that based on evidence?or faith? the only evidence is annilese micheal. and she "is recognized by medical professionals as severe psychiatric disturbances from the age of 16 to her death". look her up on wikapidia.lol she cant even walk on water like cris angel.
when i say that they are seeing seperate reality that proves that the mystics are not deluded after all. like i said about anniese michel she was not deluded or crazy. she died from her case. she seeked help from the mental hosptial and the medcations made it worse and did nothing for her. she stayed there for two years and never recovered. no changes just get worser and worser. doctors couldnt save her. so she died. psychologist tried to save her....nothing. so they turned to the priest.
lol cracy people dont know that they are crazy therefore you cant say that they are crazy....lol...thats hard to argue with..and a dead monkey doesnt know that its dead therefore you cant make the statement that its dead...lol?
hey me as a pantheist myself, i also do not want to believe it either but im not going to make assumptions thinking that they are crazy and go on telling them that they are deluded or stupid i cant say that. i also want evidence too. im just resarching right now. Religion is all about possiblilties and facts leave no room for possibilites. it's like i want to believe it but im not going to jump the gun just yet. stories are pretty convincing but im not going to assume that they are real yet.
oh you want evidence too? thats what science is based one. i thought u think religion can explain things science cant by picking something that sounds comforting to put your faith on and have faith and never change ur mind.
yes religious people die for a lie just like in 9 /11 thinking that they will go to heaven to be with thier god. And im trying NOT to do that. im not going to die for a lie. i want to die for the truth. YOUR DEAD lights out, shows over. science has dispoven everything religion has to offer and everytime i try to believe it science disproves it. so if there was only one pure hardcore tanglible evidence that religion has to offer........i would change my mind. so i changed from thiest to panthiest
Science and religion are not enemies. Physicists are discovering an unexplainable order to the cosmos;
medical researchers are reporting the extraordinary healing powers of prayer and are documenting credible accounts of near-death experiences; psychologists, who once
considered belief in God to be a sign of neurosis, are finding instead that religious faith is a powerful elixir for mental health; and sociologists are now acknowledging the destructive consequences of a value-free society.
umm...the secess of prayer is 0.01%...u have been deeply misinformed and brainwashed...and societies with non-beliving majorities does have very low crime rates..
Show me a single peer-reviewed scientific or medical journey that documents prayer having any significant result on healing in double blind standard testing circumstances with repeatable and retestable models for further testing and verification of their claims.
Also, you claim near-death experiences are a sort of evidence: You do realise that in g-force rotation testing for pilots (forgot the real name, but where they spin around in a cockpit in a simulator to try out the effects of flying at several G's of force) do experience the so called "near death experiences" without any actual chance of dying?
They go unconscience and blood flow is very temporarily cut from their brain, resulting in experiences just like the "near death" phenomenon
Evidently you misunderstood the experiences I reffered to.And that actually does not back you up. You want where I got my info then? Ok.look up Gerald L. Schroeder(scientist of nuclear phsycics),and anony flew for now because id rather keep the others to myself until I see you really are wanting to know my side of the argument.
All in all I think you are a cliche type of person stuart chase speaks of "for those who believe,no explanation is necessary. For those that dont none will suffice".
Gerald L Schroeder; Sure, that is a name of a scientist; So what?
I didn't ask for names, I do not care about authority; i wanted some of the documents and the proof of prayers effectiveness you boosted about earlier, saying others was just big talk and that you actually had facts and references for your claims.
Provide those references.
Making excuses for not providing them only goes to show your lack of actual sources and indicates dishonesty on your behalf
The main reason why I want you to be specific about your claims, is because if I go through the part fo Schroeder that I think you are citing, you will just say that is not the important part.
For instance, I am currently assuming you are in your "math proves abiogenesis is impossible" are refering to the faulty probability estimates given by Schroeder in his probability chapter of the book "Genesis and the Big Bang"
I wont refute that until you tell me that is what you are refering to
That the greatest charity organization on the planet is evil? The Crusades and Inquisition, misguided (well, in the case of the Inquisition) attempts by Popes, not the Church, to fight enemies. Death toll over history: 5 million. Atheism's death toll in the 20th century: 200,000,000. And that's without the 60 million of Nazi Germany, which was essentially atheist, though arguable.
god's death toll pwns all! and hitler was cathlic and so was his soldiers. and atheism doesnt motivate you to kill people. unlike the bible...which tells you exactly who to kill
The Camerlengos message is right. The Church is only wanting to be the voice of compassion in our world, spinning out of control. The Church warns science to think about the moral implications of what they do. They MURDER innocent unborn babies and for what a possible breakthrough? The Church wants to save the world from darkness and the evil it now lies in. Science always critizes religion saying that we are ancient and we must accept what they belive. They cant disprove God. Post your thoughts
you are absolutely right!!!! Science is good but it has to take a big step back sometimes because it surely cannot prove EVERYTHING and doesnt have the right to disprove anything they cannot see or observe. who are they to judge? so what if the bible stories wasnt true at least it has some morals to lead us to a good life. but they dont dare disprove god at ALL.
The Cosmos is the real God lolz. not some guy nudging over us telling us to stuff. but you still have to believe that there has to be some energy fluxuations that is capable of creating an infinite number of universes. but wih different laws of physics. Even though mystics still can see those other universes.
yes there is some energy fluxuations that blah blah blah but is not the stupid good creative sin punishing god. and mystics has low IQs and they cant see shit.
Austrailians aborgines can sense your energy from a mile away and can tell where you are and where you been to without you telling them. When poeple believed to be possessed by forces that means that they levitate, and make sounds and it seems to be no mental ilness that all. doctors dont know what is wrong and cant find the answer therefore they cant do anything. hindus can meditate and experience everything without even doing it. mystics can't see shit? think agian buddy.
yeah. and atheist sence that god doesnt exist when we meditate.......and cris angel can walk on water and turn water into bear and cut himself in half etc.
lol those stuff are just entertianment....but look at the real world cases lke incorruptables bodies and demonic posssesion(seperate reality) not the myths like jesus christ or shiva but use reality as itself even though it can differ. Look at religious mysteries.
there is only one way to distingush facts from myths. evidence. i dont see any evidence for incorruptables bodies and demonic posssesion. i dont know if they are real but im assuming that they are not.
...Oh, yes. It's obvious that religion is better because it's older and science is an inexperienced idea.
We were so foolish, we believers in science! We should be stoning disobedient children, homosexuals, and selling our daughters into slavery. I see the light- it all makes perfect sense now.
I better go throw out all my electrical appliances, now. Darn science.
...
Also, ilikepieinmyshoe, of course all the comments are about the guy's hotness.
I guess the best thing in the book is that the camerlengo was a product of artificial insemination and he still does all that to prevent cooperation of church and science.
Jaaaa, aber im Deutschen hast du nicht diesen geilen schottischen Akzent ; ) Ansosnten ist in der Synchronisation aber wirklich mehr Emotion drin...:)
The speech was way better and WAY different in the book
23681lucky 3 weeks ago
The Church, any church, cannot give lessons to Science.
odalrich 2 months ago
still the best speech in the history of movies and acting
Rpu4 2 months ago
How can you people argue over science/religion in this video?? We should be talking about how HOT Ewan McGregor looks as a priest!!!!
Just kidding, you guys can talk about whatever you want, I'm just gonna keep drooling over the Camerlengo ;-)
Jessy910 3 months ago 3
@Jessy910 totally agree! Ewan McGregor, you're awesome......and you look smokin hot;)
LilyCahill99 2 months ago
Science vs Faith = WWIII
BayAreaOrBust 4 months ago
Any idiot know the Church believes in Science and religion. That priest would be excommunicated for many things. And those High up church officials would be laughed out of the church if they tried to act like that in the real church.
kevinjjfr 4 months ago
I wanna see the whole thing! :((
matpres 9 months ago
only demons deal in absolutes
ItsAMetal 9 months ago 6
I find this scene ironic that the church would be done in by one of their own and would use science to kill everyone to get their point across
akumaten 1 year ago 5
@akumaten did you watch the movie?
SPOILER ALERT
he never wanted the church to actually be destroyed. He wanted them to find it but too late so that he could save the day through self sacrifice and be promoted to pope despite only being a Priest as well as use the attack from science as a way of setting up the church as the victim instead. It was all manipulation and evil but he never wanted to blow up the vatican for a point.
CreatingPulsars 1 year ago 7
this speech is so good.
gavidia1991 1 year ago 2
All my dear fellows.Read Holy quran you will understand the dimenions of science in it.Religion is never been old.God have kept on informing mankind to rectify their faith and at last 1400 years ago this glorious super human being called prophet Muhammed PBUH delived the prophecy and made people understand the real form of knowledge. When Angel Gabrial came to prophet muhammed pbuh the first word he said to him was ''iqra'' an arabic word means read/learn.
dukeofnon 1 year ago
@LORDMCHUGH then dont respond.
bye
str8erthanu 1 year ago
@LORDMCHUGH With age comes not only experience and wisdom, but altsheimers, bad sight, loss of memory, conservatism and a mind wich is harder to discuss with than a young mind.
str8erthanu 1 year ago
This is simply the most epic speech made about religion and science that I have ever heard. Obi Wan's still got it! :)
MsRavenheart1 1 year ago 4
Oh, Ewan McGregor..... *Swoons*
ABookwormAndProud 1 year ago
<== CLCIK MY CHANNAL LINK TO DISCOVER ONE OF THE MOST HORRIBLE TRUTH OF Macdonald F00D
AlbertCaicedo0498 1 year ago
can someone post the full scene? ewan mcgregor beasted this role
randomperson27 1 year ago 4
Religion might be old, but science has become so arrogant that scientists believe that the pursuit of knowledge supersedes morals and ethics.
Council13 1 year ago 8
Who are the illuminati? I does not exist!!!!
CazK88 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lol OO looks really great already! I'm gonna watch this today at Movie Watcherus!
smith5012 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This movie made me cry. after wards i went home and hugged all my old toys. I sawe it at Movie Watcherus.
smith5012 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Movie Watcher is the best place for all the movies !
smith5012 1 year ago
i love to listen to this kind of discussion
Buorin 1 year ago
obi wan kenobi best jedi
CREWDOG289 1 year ago 36
This has been flagged as spam show
It's easy to see the movie here available at UNDE PTED,COM
bertcoolidgewi 1 year ago
mcgregor did a fantastic job
jmn1228 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Miles from Jack Nicholson's broadly funny. I saw this movie T O T A L L Y F R E E @ MovieWatcher(.)US
brantvesselswase 1 year ago
OH ho ho,so evolution is a proved science ? but there are so many questions evolutionist can not answer. let`s take an example of caused and effect universal phenomenon , does this phenomenon hold any ground if we compare this to evolutionist theory, evolutionist says we are creations of an accident if it does make sense we might have cities like new york and London in sub sahara desert as a reult of accident since no creator is needed.
hammad313 1 year ago
@hammad313 Your an idiot, and I don't even want to justify this, monstrosity you consider logic and reason.
Rainbowtardiful 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
secretary, Selina Kyle (Michelle Pfeiffer). I found this film T O T A L L Y F R E E @ Movie Watcher. US
brantvesselswase 1 year ago
aham...but science proved in front of religion a lot of things...for example evolution and not "the god making people from clay" theory...and others important moments in bible...but oh well...:)
WhiVe87 2 years ago
@WhiVe87 actually there is no conclusive proof to support the darwinist theory of evolution. It's precisely that...a THEORY.
QueenTytania 1 year ago
A theory is a hypothesis supported by lots of evidence...
MsRavenheart1 1 year ago
@MsRavenheart1 where did you get that idea from? maybe you should try opening a dictionary...
QueenTytania 1 year ago
@QueenTytania Speaking as a scientist, MsRavenheart1 is correct in her definition of a theory. A hypothesis is proposed, tested, tested, tested, and tested some more. Eventually it is either disproved or else it becomes a theory, which is the pretty much as close to fact as one can get in science. Dictionary definitions kind of fail to explain this idea.
crazylaceashira 1 year ago
actually, science isnt to young to see.
The religion is to old to see.
str8erthanu 2 years ago 32
@str8erthanu lmfao nice, woulda never thought of that
dynastyballer13 1 year ago
@str8erthanu i don't think it's either of it, i think people are just too eager in their own opinion, that neither church nor science are able to see the good in each other, which they both certainly have!!
you can't say it's the fault of the church or the one of science, it's always the men!!
BellaLennon9 1 year ago
It means that science is young and arrogant and religion is old enough to be wise. Religion knows what to and not to mess with in nature. Science is still testing with those waters.
MsRavenheart1 1 year ago
@str8erthanu but my religion is not old.because our holy book the quran can show the scientific knowledge that no one can expose 1400 years ago...
setsuna950109 1 year ago
@str8erthanu
ah immaturity at its finest.
caicouch2 1 week ago
you say demon, i say angel. it is up to the person seeing them to decide.
and did he say awsome?
NoReason4418 2 years ago
Ah, I see what you mean. The God of science is the same God that all the Abrahamic religions have worshipped. It is fortunate that you understand this. Not many people have. :)
NiqueJB 2 years ago
They have forgotten the old days. The Old Days when the church was doing awful things like killing scientists.
Furkeider 2 years ago
It's good to forget the old days. Those woulds have healed. Catholicsim is no longer the enemy of progress and science. In fact, they are allies now. :)
It has rightly taken over a thousand years for any Church to mature.
NiqueJB 2 years ago
This ideal of the Catholic Church being anti-science is one of the most widespread and ignorant ideas. Galileo was condemned (overly, admittedly, but not killed) not for his beliefs--the pope and other church leaders had welcomed and encouraged him before he taught geocentrism as a fact without proving it. The Catholic religion, esp. via the Jesuits led Western science in many fields, esp astronomy, geology, seismology. Read: How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas Woods.
mojave19 2 years ago
@mojave19 Actually it was believed that they tried to condemn Galileo because the Church would loose its prestige as the bastion of science. The church was in many ways during those days the Central Scientific Organization in history. Once Galileo proved them wrong, they would loose their credibility....It's all politics.
avatarspirit57 1 year ago
@avatarspirit57 Not all politics, science! Galileo was brilliant, actually hailed by Church leaders long before the conflict, but was hardly infalliable. He argued that the movements of the tides constituted proof of the Earth's motion; wacky by today's standards. Geocentric arguements, dating back to Aristotle, could not refuted by Galileo; thus he was permitted to teach Copernicanism as a theory, not fact, which he refused. I'm not supporting the censorship applied centuries ago, just facts.
mojave19 1 year ago
"who is more ignorant? The man who cannot define lightning, or the man who does not respect its natural awesome power?"
martinuswalther 2 years ago
science:1 000 000 church:0
Bulka40000 2 years ago
Ha! But see how much influence religion still holds. The Pope is still one of the most powerful men in the world. And yet look at how he does not even try to stop science anymore. This Church has learned and matured. Even better, they've become allies of progress. So point for them.
NiqueJB 2 years ago 4
Omg i love this movie so much!!!!!
peaceluvewan10267 2 years ago
Oh my God. I'm so happy. It finally came out on DVD. I almost had a heart attack. (:
This is my favorite movie&&book.
iBeChey 2 years ago
@SaNBeanz
You´re SOOO right!!!
And I love teh Camerlengo!
He´s to hot to be a priest! <3
PeterFacinelliLove 2 years ago 3
Ewan McGregor = HOT!!! <3
SaNBeanz 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Angels & Demons Released!
Watch it on:
watchmoviestreamtv*com
(Replace * with . )
ShantaeBlanchardcjgd 2 years ago
when we entered the movie theatre...i was wondering who this guy was, till i saw the credits, its ewan mc gregor.. i did not recognize him. he is a far cry from his previous characters...say ...like the young obi one.
HEACHAN07 2 years ago
Many believe that science is a presentation of the truth. This is true. But many also do not believe what science has not yet been able to present. Remember that our knowledge is still very partial and we have not learned everything as a race. The laws of the universe are not the enemies of God. Rather, they are His agents, His tools. No amount of religion can argue against that. But no mont of our current knowledge can argue that God does not exist.
NiqueJB 2 years ago
@NiqueJB do you mean to say that science is a subset of religion or do you mean to say that both are parallel?
anusadus 2 years ago
I mean that both can complement each other. :)
NiqueJB 2 years ago 2
yea they really should. ever notice how when someone leans on one too much & disregards the other they're kinda off?
takeyourbrainchipp 2 years ago
Exactly. There must be balance and open-mindedness. Both science and religion are discipilines of knowlegde. Both have an influence on the way we live. But without each other, they are practically distructive. Well, that is if one went to war with the other.
NiqueJB 2 years ago
@anusadus its both, techniquly they both say the same thing. but they come at different angles.
NoReason4418 2 years ago
I say both men are as ignorant. But the ability to define something and appreciate it is far better than either of the two alone.
If you cannot appreciate what you understand, then how can you use its gifts to further the coure of progress? How can you help it reach its full potential?
NiqueJB 2 years ago
This is hysterical! The so-called illumunati came about 150 years after Gallileo, who was an ardent Catholic and lived within the walls of the vatican for his 3 yr. probation. Hollywood denizens are so ignorant and full of meritricious persiflage (aka lies and nonsense) that it would be amusing for someone to make a movie of nothing but their incredible bad taste and totally erroneous 'films' (aka garbage) I look forward with anticipation to seeing them exposed for their lies $ hucksterism
catholicmaxima 2 years ago
church suks
agent12803 2 years ago
LOVE EWAN :)
OlgaWojciechowska 2 years ago
"Religion can answer the one thing science cannot - How we should live our lives."
The two complete eachother.
ScilusVacilius 2 years ago 2
religion is based on faith. faith is ***********. therefore religion cant answer crap
agent12803 2 years ago
here is finally a preacher who knows that science has the answers his name is micheal dowd......watch this video called "universe bieng conscious of itself" i want more churches like this.
SudanCarib 2 years ago 2
Religion is not at all always based on faith. Each religion has different morals and standards based on different historical points in their 'faith', but that is quite irrelevant next to those morals and we have alot to thank many of them for today.
Does; "Thou shall not kill" sound familiar, perhaps?
With that said I should note that I am not religious, I just live by morals that could be called influenced by protestant-christian
ScilusVacilius 2 years ago
if religion is not based on faith, why do religious people belive in god?!
agent12803 2 years ago
I'd say everyone who goes to church is religious, but that does not necessarily mean they believe in God.
A church is a highly spiritual place (to most), it's a good place to find moral guidance or simply to relax your mind a bit.
And as I said, most of our morals come from religion and wether they are 'words of God' or not, they have shaped our society.
ScilusVacilius 2 years ago
humans decided what gets to be the words of god
agent12803 2 years ago
can an atheist kill a family and not feel bad, simply because he does not believe in god?
Jobbeybob 2 years ago
No, you would have to suffer from severe mental illnesses to be able to kill without feeling bad (known in popular talk as being a sociopath).
That does not have anything to do with how religious a person is or not.
What is even the logic behind asking such a question? Do you think morals requires a God? Would murder be alright with you, if God does indeed not exist?
Is the fear of hell and the hopes of heaven all that keeps you from murder? That would qualify you as a sociopath, btw
mhrby1985 2 years ago
Not all religions have a god, like Budhism for example.
simonO712 2 years ago 3
i wasnt talking about budhism....theyr not even worth metioning..their monks shave their head and sits there and waste our oxygen...
agent12803 2 years ago
this coming from a guy who spends his time on youtube posting demeaning comments based on people's beliefs? you don't even have any videos!
Jobbeybob 2 years ago
i dont have any videos...but i have a life
agent12803 2 years ago
do you have faith that scientists aren't lying to you?
Jobbeybob 2 years ago
some "scientists" do lie..some are honesty mistaken...most have evidence to surpport them.
agent12803 2 years ago
science is also based on faith. you have faith that there is no god, and that your existence is a coincidence, even though there is no proof that there is no god. (and i'm not talking about any specific religion). even if evolution is true, does that mean there is no god? no, it just means religion is not entirely true. the chances of life appearing on a planet is 1 to some astronomical number, even according to scientists. please rebuttal right away, i'm starting to have fun.
Jobbeybob 2 years ago
Life by chance is ruled out by math.
Its mathematically impossible.
everio17 2 years ago
not be chance..by natural selection u uneducated brainwashed misinformed retarded stupid dumb IDiot
agent12803 2 years ago
Sorry, but you do not need to have faith that there is no god to trust science; That sentence assumes that acknowledging science and understanding science requires an individual to belive that there is no god.
You can fully embrace science without any such convictions.
Also, life by "chance" is indeed possible.
Show me any calculations that primitive cells (the first form of life) is impossible, rather than just claim it.
You do know we got several working models of abiogenesis, right?
mhrby1985 2 years ago
science does not prove the nonexistence of god. it just proves the inaccuracy of religion.
Jobbeybob 2 years ago
Great, we do agree then, was excatly what I wanted to point out, must have misunderstood your intention if you did indeed understand that already.
mhrby1985 2 years ago
Furthermore, science and philosophy should not be enemies. To say that science is the opposite of philosophy is like saying hot is the opposite of tall. Science studies HOW the world works, while philosophy and religion ponder about WHY the world works. Even though religions may have different symbols for their god, they still have the same overall message, which many people do not realize. If science and religion could work together to find truth, the world would be a much better place.
Jobbeybob 2 years ago
thats the smartest thing ive read on comment boards anymore.
everio17 2 years ago
Thats mathematically impossible.
Sir Fred Hoyle, the great mathematician/astronomer of the 20th century, having calculated the odds of life arising by chance, compared it to lining up10 (raised to the 50th power) blind people, giving each one a scrambled rubik's cube, and them all solving their cube at the same moment. The odds are one
in ten raised to the 40,000th power ( an exponent of one with 40,000 zeroes after it) completely burns Darwin's theory of life from primordial
soup by chance
everio17 2 years ago
Sorry, Darwin did not raise any theories about life from a primordial soup, and that you think he did goes a long way to show your ignorance of the subject.
Also, I must again tell you that from the components that would be found in primitive earth conditions, lab experiments have shown that through processes of chemistry (which is not entirely random, even if they may appear so) through which life could have started it's earliest and most simple forms.
We know it is possible.
mhrby1985 2 years ago
That you take Sir Fred Hoyle and his mathematical jumples as proof also speaks about the low standard you have for any evidence you are willing to accept to support your pre-conceived ideas.
Chance calculations based on pure random opposed to calculations/tests which account for the actual non-random components can create huge variances to the results.
Again, we got several working models of abiogenesis; We do not yet (and maybe never will) know which is correct, but they all could have worked
mhrby1985 2 years ago
Same I can say about your "working models".As you said you will never know which(if any of those) is correct.But you have faith though right? Oh wait,thats too spiritual to say.Faith cant exist in your vocab.
everio17 2 years ago
I do have faith in science; I am not afraid of the word, althrough I use it in a quite different sense than you probarly, because I do not do blind faith and I am open minded and thus willing to change my mind if new contradicting evidence should arise, which is why I am asking for your sources.
And we don't know which is right, because we are as of yet unable to find evidence to indicate which (if any of the current models) was the one that actually happened
mhrby1985 2 years ago
things that science is too young to understand?! that fool thinks religion can anwser things that science cant just because it's older? how does religion being old prove anything?!what a bunch of nonsence!!religion is old and based on faith in a stupid best-selling fiction book that says god exists. and science is based on rationalism.
agent12803 2 years ago
Science is based on real facts and evidence. Religion is all about possibilities of what could be beyond us. The reason why science is too young to understand is because it never really focuses on what the religious people percieves and they try to to ignore it and focus on the reality we are in right now. Religious people are the ones who can see beyond reality through thier experience. Arthur Eddington was one of those people and he was a great scientist himself but also a mystic.
SudanCarib 2 years ago
Richard Dawkins had a speech on quote mining Eddington. and anything "beyond reality" is not real. so ur saying religion is more experienced than science in dealing with that which is not real.....how is that in surport of religion?!
agent12803 2 years ago
Max plank the father of quatum physics wrote that there are other realities from our from sense of perception. We live in a 3d world and there could be a 4d or 5d and science can't detect it and they cant see if its real or give us an answer.. Mystics had a glimpse of those other realities. they were born that way and its it mostly in the located religious world like third world. Those people in some point of thier lives has experiecned something extrodinary.
SudanCarib 2 years ago
"and science cant detect it" oh really? 4d is space time. it cant be pictured by our brain but it can still be detected and understood and its still within reality. anything thats real is within reality and effects other parts of reality such as the part we live in and we can detect anything thats real. mystics are just a bunch of scary ugly loony lairs who lie to make money. we dont live in a 3d world. we can perceive the wrld up to the 3rd d but that dosent mean we cant detect the other ds
agent12803 2 years ago
"One consciousness but many forms" think about that. Reality as we see it can differ in millions and billions of ways greater than we could ever imagine. but our perception still remains the same because of our surroundings. mystics or saints or third world religious people have experienced something beyond that. we never know what is out there.
SudanCarib 2 years ago
our perception is limited but science helps us to detect things outside of our perception. and mystics experiencs shit. they are ****ing deluded! they smoke weed and experience delusions!! ****** stop talking about thoose ****ing retards!!!! its so ****ing annoying!!if u thing they experienced anything real or useful y dont u try to prove it?! there is so many mystics out there contradicting each other and none of them has any evidence for anything within or outside of our perception!!
agent12803 2 years ago
They are deluded? thats what the 1st and 2nd world says. but the third world knows about it and the manifesations of it so they can't make that statement. Many religions go though the same thing no matter how much they differ. For example demonic possession means that a person is hypersensitive, he or she can see a seperate reality and born by thier very nature. thats why when they get possessed doctors can't find out whats wrong. Take annilese micheal for example. think of her story.
SudanCarib 2 years ago
"he or she can see a seperate reality and born by thier very nature"
*sigh* is that based on evidence?or faith? the only evidence is annilese micheal. and she "is recognized by medical professionals as severe psychiatric disturbances from the age of 16 to her death". look her up on wikapidia.lol she cant even walk on water like cris angel.
agent12803 2 years ago
when i say that they are seeing seperate reality that proves that the mystics are not deluded after all. like i said about anniese michel she was not deluded or crazy. she died from her case. she seeked help from the mental hosptial and the medcations made it worse and did nothing for her. she stayed there for two years and never recovered. no changes just get worser and worser. doctors couldnt save her. so she died. psychologist tried to save her....nothing. so they turned to the priest.
SudanCarib 2 years ago
"blah blah blah blahblah blah blah" they did this and that and she got blah blahb lah. yeah. she is crazy and dead.
agent12803 2 years ago
crazy and dead? in medical terms crazy people dont know that they are crazy. so you cant make that statement HAH! ; )
SudanCarib 2 years ago
lol cracy people dont know that they are crazy therefore you cant say that they are crazy....lol...thats hard to argue with..and a dead monkey doesnt know that its dead therefore you cant make the statement that its dead...lol?
agent12803 2 years ago
hey me as a pantheist myself, i also do not want to believe it either but im not going to make assumptions thinking that they are crazy and go on telling them that they are deluded or stupid i cant say that. i also want evidence too. im just resarching right now. Religion is all about possiblilties and facts leave no room for possibilites. it's like i want to believe it but im not going to jump the gun just yet. stories are pretty convincing but im not going to assume that they are real yet.
SudanCarib 2 years ago 2
oh you want evidence too? thats what science is based one. i thought u think religion can explain things science cant by picking something that sounds comforting to put your faith on and have faith and never change ur mind.
agent12803 2 years ago
yes religious people die for a lie just like in 9 /11 thinking that they will go to heaven to be with thier god. And im trying NOT to do that. im not going to die for a lie. i want to die for the truth. YOUR DEAD lights out, shows over. science has dispoven everything religion has to offer and everytime i try to believe it science disproves it. so if there was only one pure hardcore tanglible evidence that religion has to offer........i would change my mind. so i changed from thiest to panthiest
SudanCarib 2 years ago
cool
agent12803 2 years ago
Science and religion are not enemies. Physicists are discovering an unexplainable order to the cosmos;
medical researchers are reporting the extraordinary healing powers of prayer and are documenting credible accounts of near-death experiences; psychologists, who once
considered belief in God to be a sign of neurosis, are finding instead that religious faith is a powerful elixir for mental health; and sociologists are now acknowledging the destructive consequences of a value-free society.
everio17 2 years ago
umm...the secess of prayer is 0.01%...u have been deeply misinformed and brainwashed...and societies with non-beliving majorities does have very low crime rates..
agent12803 2 years ago
The problem with pulling numbers out of no where is that its usually wrong.
I actually have references and researched.
everio17 2 years ago
u researched from some creationists butt i found my info from books
agent12803 2 years ago
So you assume to know where I got my info from? Arrogance.
No,I got this info from renowed physicists.
everio17 2 years ago
You claim to have references and research.
Show me a single peer-reviewed scientific or medical journey that documents prayer having any significant result on healing in double blind standard testing circumstances with repeatable and retestable models for further testing and verification of their claims.
mhrby1985 2 years ago
Also, you claim near-death experiences are a sort of evidence: You do realise that in g-force rotation testing for pilots (forgot the real name, but where they spin around in a cockpit in a simulator to try out the effects of flying at several G's of force) do experience the so called "near death experiences" without any actual chance of dying?
They go unconscience and blood flow is very temporarily cut from their brain, resulting in experiences just like the "near death" phenomenon
mhrby1985 2 years ago
Evidently you misunderstood the experiences I reffered to.And that actually does not back you up. You want where I got my info then? Ok.look up Gerald L. Schroeder(scientist of nuclear phsycics),and anony flew for now because id rather keep the others to myself until I see you really are wanting to know my side of the argument.
All in all I think you are a cliche type of person stuart chase speaks of "for those who believe,no explanation is necessary. For those that dont none will suffice".
everio17 2 years ago
Gerald L Schroeder; Sure, that is a name of a scientist; So what?
I didn't ask for names, I do not care about authority; i wanted some of the documents and the proof of prayers effectiveness you boosted about earlier, saying others was just big talk and that you actually had facts and references for your claims.
Provide those references.
Making excuses for not providing them only goes to show your lack of actual sources and indicates dishonesty on your behalf
mhrby1985 2 years ago
man fuck that.Look them and and read their work and booksFrom them is where I got my information dolt..Dont be lazy.And I did not make any excuses.
everio17 2 years ago
Again, I am not interested in his books; Books can lie and get away with it quite easily.
I asked for PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS which would provide a reliable source of evidence.
Anyone can write a book making any claim they like and then one has to find rebuttals and study those.
Peer-review simplifies the entire process.
So point me to something specific instead of avoiding having to provide actual evidence by slinging out a name of authority
mhrby1985 2 years ago
The main reason why I want you to be specific about your claims, is because if I go through the part fo Schroeder that I think you are citing, you will just say that is not the important part.
For instance, I am currently assuming you are in your "math proves abiogenesis is impossible" are refering to the faulty probability estimates given by Schroeder in his probability chapter of the book "Genesis and the Big Bang"
I wont refute that until you tell me that is what you are refering to
mhrby1985 2 years ago
"awesome power"
Nice thing there.
Kasukimuki 2 years ago 5
Comment removed
7sda 2 years ago
What do you mean?
That the greatest charity organization on the planet is evil? The Crusades and Inquisition, misguided (well, in the case of the Inquisition) attempts by Popes, not the Church, to fight enemies. Death toll over history: 5 million. Atheism's death toll in the 20th century: 200,000,000. And that's without the 60 million of Nazi Germany, which was essentially atheist, though arguable.
Valenhiem 2 years ago
god's death toll pwns all! and hitler was cathlic and so was his soldiers. and atheism doesnt motivate you to kill people. unlike the bible...which tells you exactly who to kill
agent12803 2 years ago
ewan mcgregor is amazing in this one!!
thearkoftruth 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
check out my video about the Illuminati Rockefeller family!
search: ' Rockefellers Exposed ', or click on my name!
goeleet 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Watch them while they are FRESH @ WATCHFREEONLINEMOVIES123.BLOGSPOT(dot)COM
xxxxWaTcHMexxxx 2 years ago
The Camerlengos message is right. The Church is only wanting to be the voice of compassion in our world, spinning out of control. The Church warns science to think about the moral implications of what they do. They MURDER innocent unborn babies and for what a possible breakthrough? The Church wants to save the world from darkness and the evil it now lies in. Science always critizes religion saying that we are ancient and we must accept what they belive. They cant disprove God. Post your thoughts
williamzylmans 2 years ago 9
you are absolutely right!!!! Science is good but it has to take a big step back sometimes because it surely cannot prove EVERYTHING and doesnt have the right to disprove anything they cannot see or observe. who are they to judge? so what if the bible stories wasnt true at least it has some morals to lead us to a good life. but they dont dare disprove god at ALL.
SudanCarib 2 years ago 4
yet you cannot prove him, science is founded entirely on truths unlike religion which is based on mythologies and enormous historical inaccuracies.
thedecoy99 2 years ago 4
you cant prove god. therefore we assume that there is not god
agent12803 2 years ago
The Cosmos is the real God lolz. not some guy nudging over us telling us to stuff. but you still have to believe that there has to be some energy fluxuations that is capable of creating an infinite number of universes. but wih different laws of physics. Even though mystics still can see those other universes.
SudanCarib 2 years ago
yes there is some energy fluxuations that blah blah blah but is not the stupid good creative sin punishing god. and mystics has low IQs and they cant see shit.
agent12803 2 years ago
Austrailians aborgines can sense your energy from a mile away and can tell where you are and where you been to without you telling them. When poeple believed to be possessed by forces that means that they levitate, and make sounds and it seems to be no mental ilness that all. doctors dont know what is wrong and cant find the answer therefore they cant do anything. hindus can meditate and experience everything without even doing it. mystics can't see shit? think agian buddy.
SudanCarib 2 years ago
yeah. and atheist sence that god doesnt exist when we meditate.......and cris angel can walk on water and turn water into bear and cut himself in half etc.
agent12803 2 years ago
the things you see on tv is for only for entertainment but when it comes to something serious thats when you realy need to think about it.
SudanCarib 2 years ago
walking on water seems serious to me. and on a swimming pool with people swiming around and under him?...thats serious.
agent12803 2 years ago
lol those stuff are just entertianment....but look at the real world cases lke incorruptables bodies and demonic posssesion(seperate reality) not the myths like jesus christ or shiva but use reality as itself even though it can differ. Look at religious mysteries.
SudanCarib 2 years ago
there is only one way to distingush facts from myths. evidence. i dont see any evidence for incorruptables bodies and demonic posssesion. i dont know if they are real but im assuming that they are not.
agent12803 2 years ago
HOW CAN A GUY BE SO AMAZING? LIke is that even possilbe?>??>>?> whoo.
moonstars5678 2 years ago
...Oh, yes. It's obvious that religion is better because it's older and science is an inexperienced idea.
We were so foolish, we believers in science! We should be stoning disobedient children, homosexuals, and selling our daughters into slavery. I see the light- it all makes perfect sense now.
I better go throw out all my electrical appliances, now. Darn science.
...
Also, ilikepieinmyshoe, of course all the comments are about the guy's hotness.
It's nothing shorter than the truth. <3 XD
TheSandBoxGirl 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Watch transformers in HD on Watchnewtransformers . com
New tr@nsformers Watchnewtransformers * com
full transformers movie is on watchnewtransformers(. com
transformes 2 dvd on WatchNewTransformers *-c0m
madonna8758 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
why are all the comments on this page calling the camerlengo hot????????? WTF i didn't know this was a chick movie
ilikepieinmyshoe 2 years ago
so pathetic that ppl can only vote up or down 0 comments ;/
WielkiWarchlak 2 years ago
Ewan McGregor is very attractive... in the movie that's part of his charm etc... it's not a chick flick movie
irishballetdancer 2 years ago 2
OMG ! I love his voice
stellapha 2 years ago 4
omg, i cannot believe how cute Ewan is, his accent is adorable! I love hearing it! He's the reason i saw the movie 3 times! yay Ewan!!! <3
RandomShowsbyMegan 2 years ago 3
"The force will be with you! Always!" ;)
tomanaki 2 years ago 5
this movie is amazing! I love Ewan McGregor! He is so talented and so charming! yay Ewan!
StarWarsNerd123 2 years ago 3
why is he sooooooooo amazing???!!!
moonstars5678 2 years ago 2
his accent is so cute,
love the movie
musicalgirly1 2 years ago 5
The only thing I liked about the movie is the camerlengo. What a sexy preist he turned out to be =)
wybmbf 2 years ago 5
he speaks soooooooooooooo romantically.......i know this sounds soo crazy....but i love his voice and way of speaking...mwaaaaaa
Action11Heroine 2 years ago 11
Yeah I totally argee with some of the comments made, this is randomflims sister speaking here but Ewan is HOT!
Randomfilms23 2 years ago 3
i showed this to my science teacher and he pissed himself when he sed awsome
hungrymattress 2 years ago 3
"Shallow grave"...
trakkaton 2 years ago
I guess the best thing in the book is that the camerlengo was a product of artificial insemination and he still does all that to prevent cooperation of church and science.
Vampiresss8 2 years ago 6
Phoor, tis a shame he's a priest!
MaddieKatz 2 years ago 6
Ewan makes such a hot priest ! I might go to hell for that...but damn he is worth it!
Alinajinx7 2 years ago 23
Hell yea !
cutie44404 2 years ago 3
agreed!
dromeda13 2 years ago 2
ewan quanto sei figo vestito da prete !!!!
lauracatty 2 years ago
Ewan is really awesome he's hot and his voice is amazing the way he spoke in the Movie is awesome
crystalamu 2 years ago 13
ewan is AMAZING actor, not 2 mention, hes hot too lol
descentlover 2 years ago 16
GO OBI WAN KENOBI LOL AKA EWAN
OvechkinFan869 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
watch a Christian thriller about 'Mary Magdaline' in a modern day banquet of THE LAST SUPPER...to watch vid, click on my name Devilnorm
Devilnorm 2 years ago
well done ewan!!!
but the german version is more emotional i think that's better
but he looks handsome ;)
AryaSoneaAuraya 2 years ago 4
Jaaaa, aber im Deutschen hast du nicht diesen geilen schottischen Akzent ; ) Ansosnten ist in der Synchronisation aber wirklich mehr Emotion drin...:)
WelshDragon04 2 years ago