@kubrox91 Protestants seem to have ironically become the Catholics of the 1600's: scientifically backward and embracing of 'fire and brimstone', 'faith triumphs morality' nonsense. It's sad that this has made it seem that all Christians believe in creationism, which just isn't true
@kubrox91 Although I absolutely agree with what he's saying, I can't entirely believe that he believes it. He works for the Vatican, the representative body of the Catholic religion. To keep its head above water, political moves must be made, and that includes addressing the modern battle between science and religious fundamentalism and conforming to the new & improved interpretation of scripture. It's like what Father Reginald said in that other clip, "That's the old Catholic thing."
I really really admire george coyne. in fact he's the only priest i have ever liked. Any more honesty and there would be no religion at all. He's an asset to any religious person who has a tendency to use his brain. Don't understand how he can still believe in the virgin birth and that god sent his son to die for the "sins" of a bunch of mammals in a little corner of the milky way, but he is obviously a great man.
@lunadogwoof Lol, now there's a back handed compliment! Father Coyne is not bound to a literalist interpretation of the scriptures because that has never been a part of Catholic doctrine. That is a fundamentalist protestant view. Maher conflates the two views, which is why he considers the term "Vatican astronomer" at best paradoxical. The fact is, the Church has always been deeply invested in the sciences.
@PhoenixLament87 And this deep investment was shown by threatening Galileo and banning "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium". Church was only interested in sciensce which reinforced it's theories or could benefit the institution.
@IAmClockwork See, this is the problem: reducing hundreds of years of intellectual history to the Galileo case. The fact is, the Church has been invested in the sciences from its inception, since Christ is the Logos--the Word, the Logic--that ground the universe. In other words, the universe is intelligible; it is knowable. Ergo, Christians study the world, while pagans merely worshiped it.
@IAmClockwork Point being, these two incidents are hardly representative of history. They merely feed the popular mythology of the "anti-intellectual, anti-science Church" that would drag civilization back into the Dark Ages. Nothing could be further from the truth! For heaven's sake, our own priests gave the world heliocentric theory (Copernicus), genetics (Mendel) and the Big Bang (Lemaitre)! Most of these men taught and studied in the universities founded and financed by the Church.
@PhoenixLament87 "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium"was banned by the clergy and yet you insist on making it an argument that the church sought advancement in all sciences!Let me than explain my point to you,since you clearly fail to comprehend.The church had monopoly in teaching.They supported innovation to an extent where it could be used. If it threatend to disprove their doctrine though,they fought it without remorse.The prosecution stopped of course after the chhurch lost it's influence.
@IAmClockwork I comprehend quite well, friend. Indeed, "De revolutionibus" was placed on the Index because it appeared to contradict scripture. But clergy in the Copernican camp knew that scripture is not a scientific treatise, and publicly defended heliocentrism. Eventually, the book was taken off the Index and heliocentrism became the accepted view. That's a pretty tame "persecution". And my previous point stands: Copernicus and Galileo weren't the only Catholic scientists who ever lived!
@PhoenixLament87 Of course not. As I said church controlled the education in Europe during the dark ages. Only with the dawn of the age of reason it was taken from them. And the prosecutions, though sometimes tame, still proved to be a hindrance to the advancement of science. Of course with continued loss of power, the church had less and less to say about it, yet they still try sometimes. A good example of putting doctrine before facts nowadays would be speaking against contraception.
@IAmClockwork History is not neatly divided between the "Dark Ages" and the "Age of Reason". This is the problem: the misrepresentation of history in order to fit the popular myth of the anti-intellectual, anti-science Church. The Church's failures are highlighted, while it's longstanding patronage of the arts and sciences is all but obscured. And the whole business viewed through the wrong end of Galileo's telescope!
@PhoenixLament87 Thank you for your reaction Phoenix. Nobody is bound to a literal interpretation and I bet you not many people really believe God wrote or inspired every single syllable; at least not in the privacy of their own mind. The idea that the Catholic doctrine (dogma?) is a "fundamentalist" protestant view is new to me. Where do you get that from? What are you defending? Someone who is honest enough to say god is not necessary should be honest enough to say god-is-not. Lie-detector?
@lunadogwoof To be clear: Fr. Coyne is not bound by his religion to a literal reading of scripture. The Church has consistently taught the multivalent quality of scripture, including the literal (in the sense of "literary"), allegorical, anagogical and moral senses. Different texts require different interpretations according to authorship, audience, literary form, etc. I object to Maher's naive attempt to co-opt the good Father into his casual, back-of-the hand atheism.
@PhoenixLament87 Thanks again. Of course Maher is very blunt and he is not as sophisticated as Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. My comments are based on the interview Father Coyne had with Dawkins. He is obviously a grand person. Somehow I feel a pain for Father Coyne. My remarks were not intended as a compliment, definitely not a back handed one. It was admiration for how beautifully a human mind can evolve, even under the influence of religious tradition.
@lunadogwoof Yes, the Dawkins-Coyne interview was excellent. My only quibble (and it is no small one) would be that Coyne, as a Catholic, has excelled in science precisely because of our Catholic tradition, not despite it!
Topics: Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, The Secrets Of Human Essence And Happiness, The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Debated issues, and many others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc2.yolasite.com
He is a joy , especially in a world that has Benny Hinn and Ted Haggard tainting it. I part company with him philosophically when he claims that the existence of the supernatural has evidence that " exists beyond the realm of science". That seems to allow Unicorns into plausibility.
@ilikezappa There is plenty of 'evidence' which exists beyond the realms of empirical testability. Studies of ancient history for example regularly rely upon material which it is impossible to verify outside of historical criticism. String theory is a product of scientific thinking which is very probably totally untestable, and yet those scientists who do relevant research would argue there is evidence from inferrence or similar. Again untestable, not empirical, more philosophy than science.
@MrWildbill20056 Thankyou for your reply , but unfortunately I seem to have drunk seven pints of Guinness which means I can only reply , " I love you man........"
@MrWildbill20056 Ok , brain has come back now. String theory has mathematical inference. Testable ? Watch this space. The evidence for an invisible spirit realm that controls everything ? Very paltry I suggest.
@ilikezappa The ultimate problem with string theory from an empirical POV is that all the proposed 'tests' even if they ever become, and they may not, possible are insufficient. They can all fail and untestable 'versions' of the theory persist. Multiverse theory is an even better example of something which is very possibly totally untestable. At best observations may allow the statement 'it is possible' which is no different from the postulation of a 'God' based universe.
@MrWildbill20056 Yes , I have to agree . I am not immune to the possibility of an unknown first cause for our universe. I am more opposed to the fundamentalist viewpoint which insists that the Bible ,which makes claims that ARE testable and can be shown to be wrong, is somehow the inerrant word of God.
@ilikezappa Well the Hebrew Bible does do so, limitedly, if you take a wholistically literalist approach, rather than considering each text separately, and in context. I would agree with you that 'young earthers' tend to be on very very dodgy ground scientifically speaking at this point. However creation story as analogy has been a popular theological/philosophical position for a very very very long period of time, and thus avoids this problem. The Christian Bible makes no such claims.
Fr. Coyne is very smart. I think his point is lost on Maher. I think Maher moves from, "there is no science in scripture" to "therefore, it's ridiculous." There are legitimate pursuits outside science.
@Dgoodsify I agree. Out of religious people, I think Catholics generally tend to make the most sense and have the most progressive attitude toward science and acknowledging the dignity of other faiths.
@Dewkeeper oh so archimedes creating new methods of calculating the mass of gold and tin by putting each in a pool full of water. Then taking the water which has overflown from the pool knowing which has more mass is not science? Apparently the definition of science is: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. If thats not science then I don't know what is...
Well you did ask if literature was science, which it isn't. Science as a method revolves around producing initial hypotheses, doing carefully controlled experiments and then either reformulating the hypothesis based on the new evidence or develop that hypothesis into a set of comprehensive predictive tools for the behaviour of the world around us. I was under the impression the weighing story was a myth. Archimedes was clever and talented, but not a scientist in the modern sense.
I wish all religious people are more like Father Coyne and religious intellectuals, because then I would give religion all the respect it deserves depend on the teaching and the people who practice those teachings.
Those who believe in a God, whatever that may be, should put that belief in themselves. Then the world will start to see change. We could be the saviors of ourselves.
1. Science has existed since the time of cavemen. The idea of empirically measuring matter and then consequently testing your own hypotheses.
2. He tried to separate the two categories to give validity to the bible, while the fact remains that Christians used to kill and ostracize those who practiced pre-modern science. * This includes everyone from Galileo to those who came before and were silenced by the church.
To the first part o the comment; he was talking about modern science in terms of methodology, not in terms of its goal.
To the second: I don't know where you're getting the impression that he separated the two categories for any reason other than to correct a mistake made by fundamentalists: IE; that the bible contains science. He never talked about the validity of the bible and he never argued for its validity.
1. Conservatives train you up with the notion of eternally rewards.
2. Science isn't treated in scripture. Though science existed in those times, those was condemned by religious idealists.
3. I responded to the wrong video because I was running a playlist so my bad.
4. Finally, Coyne tries to support the validity of the bible by seperating the bible into another category all the time. For instance, go cannot be proved or disproved by science on the grounds that science..
measure the observable. But that's not the case. Think of the atom. We theorized about it's existence for several generation without an atom being visible.
This guy really is a logical manipulator. There's a reason the church uses him constantly to defend their own position in the sciences. All talk, not one ounce of substance.
He's never said that; the only thing he's ever said about religion in general is that you can't test its practical usefulness, and that's true.
To your point about atoms, That is the same thing that leads us to infer the existence of black holes; not by directly observing the Phenomenon, but the behavior of the bodies around it. (This, btw, is also how the Aristotelian's infered the necessity of God). But.
Finally, the church has never "used him:" for anything of the kind (con)
@standinstann The church, in its self promotion as "The true faith" or "The fullness of the faith" is Apologetic; Coyne is not an apologist. Google, Mother Angelica, Father Benedict Groeschel, Fulton John Sheen, those are the people that the church uses to promote its self. They don't give two craps about Coyne because he isn't out there telling people how wonderful and blameless the church is. I WISH Coyne were their guy, believe me.
1. Methodology of science has existed since the time that matter could be measured. From the time of ancient cave men experiment with fuel for fire to ancient Alchemy. What we have today is a far more advanced form of that expression and/or discipline. The notion of observational study of the surrounding universe by the gathering and analysis of viable data.
2. Conservatives are raised on notion of conversion. And a common trick they use is the slippery slope created in Metaphysics by the "non" observable argument.
3. Yeah.....Lol
4. The only point I was trying to make here is that he separates the bible into two parts to make it appeal more prcatical when in all reality the bible was intended to be taken as a whole. Which it, itself as the word of god says. You can't simply take the parts of the book that seem practical and apply it.
2. I don't think that's a slippery slope, materialism is an assumption and the assumption may be true, making it is not wrong, stating it as a dogmatically established truth is an error to be avoided.
4. The bible was never meant to be taken as a whole, and neither was it literally anthropomorphic. the Bible is an anthology written over thousands of years. What's more, the bible is not the Christian faith, the Nicene creed is.
@standinstann (con't) that is to say; the church doesn't give a crap about the continuity of scripture, only the primacy of their authority. In any case, the point I'm making is that Coyne distinguishes between science and religion because he believes in that distinction, not because he's trying to promote the church. (again, their apologists do that for them),
Yes. The slippery slope is created by the creation a metaphysical realm in which nothing can truly be known. It's a fundamental implication caused by the metaphysical assumption.
And what do you think the Nicene creed was based on? The bible is Christian. That being the inclusion of the OT and NT. That is probably on of the most absurd statements I've ever heard anyone ever make.
Oh yeah, and the only time the bible claims that you shouldn't take the bible as
@bkroberts89 Non-materialism is usually an attempt to avoid begging the question, but putting that aside, coyne didn't say anything about that here.
the bible was not canonized 325 AD; during that time, Apostolic tradition (IE: what later became the creed) was (and still is) the crux of the faith. Even today, nobody pickes up the bible, reads it, and then converts to Christianity, it's usually the other way around.
People have been participating in what is the tradition of the bible since early Abraham. And those stories where passed down orally for generations. Albiet via the Jewish tradition, but most of Christianity's roots exist there as well. I will admit that he didn't say anything about that here. Like I said before I accidentally commented on the wrong video. Now as far as the creed goes; from a post conservative history, you read the bible first or what pastors direct to you read
Then you accept the views of Christianity. The whole creed thing is almost as much of a redundant argument as Christianity and druid origins. I can respect you opinion as I really have nothing to prove my point here and no one does, but keep in mind that many creeds have existed towards the bible and any religious texts. And just because a creed comes to be doesn't necessarily mean that all beliefs are ex tempore.
And were both on the same page with materialism in this respect.
The law (of moses) was never said to have been rewritten by anyone, what's more the bible doesn't say anything about "its self", the bible is an anthology.
Lastly, people do not base their beliefs on the bible; usually they have an experience that causes them to accept the divinity of Christ and THEN read the bible under the guidance of a religious leader. It's never a stand alone "manual" for Christianity,.
@bkroberts89 I think what Coyne is saying is that while the Bible contains many different genres (epistle, gospel, myth, etc.) all these genres were describing the universe in a fundamentally different way that Stephen Hawking and Gregor Mendel and Galileo describe it.
@Patorochimaru32 If you are unable to keep a decent, intelligent discussion, please stop writing comments like this. I don't care if maybe you and I share the same views about god, you are clearly a douchebag.
@maru14able might be because they're older than other Christian branches. Although I have a serious bone to pick against the Catholic church because of their crimes against humanity, I have noticed how they are less hung up on anti-science rhetoric the way a lot of Protestant groups are.
Somebody tell these guys and father Coyne about the library of Alexandria. Science and the scientific method were around pre-scripture...till christians destroyed it.
@katsavidiz Look at David Bentley Hart's book, "Atheist Delusions." The library was not destroyed by Christians, but the troops of Julius Caesar 40 years before Jesus was born.
Well this was refreshing. Now it that preach could just throw away the bible all together and wake up in reality without imaginary friend, he would be ok.
I think its funny that so many people think that they can prove or disprove the existence of God. Can't we just accept the fact that we don't know everything? Both extremes are equally ridiculous; everyone gets so damn touchy because they are so scared of the possibility that their beliefs could be challenged. Get over it. It's okay to not know everything. I don't accept any religion but I cannot deny the possibility of something bigger. I just don't know.
to think about it, it's very obvious that these are two different periods of work. we shouldn't approach the matter by comparing scripture to math, that would be inappropriate. we should approach the matter by respecting each one's character.
Which part of the bible teaches that our existence has a natural explanation, which part of science teaches that our existence has a supernatural explanation? The two are mutually exclusive. If Fr. Coyne is really a scientist then from the Church's viewpoint he must be considered a fraud. Jesuits use the Church as a meal-ticket while persuing their own agenda.
@dawky01 The Vatican has adjusted their teachings to make it compatible with science, so he's not a fraud. The frauds are those who claim they're catholic, but still stick with the dogmatic interpretation of the bible.
All the rest of the bible bashers are just little ministries with preachers who didn't had a proper education. Everyone can start a church in the US apparently, it's a business like any other.
If the vatican has adjusted its teachings to make it compatible with science then it has to remove all references to the supernatural. This includes Gods, devils, angels, saints, heaven, hell, prayer, holy water, communion rituals, baptism rituals, mass, veneration of sacred relics, power of priests to forgive sin, papal infallibility.. and the list goes on. Religions cannot exist without their imaginary gods.
@dawky01 And then what? Prohibit every movie where something supernatural happens, all fantasy books full of history that never happened and every science fiction novel? Oh, and then we should stop teaching people about Newton... he didn't know anything about thermodynamics, relativity or particle physics, so his books are full of lies and string theory can't be proved so we shouldn't teach that as well...
Because, if you take something away from someone else, they'll take something from you.
Adjusted its teachings is a inaccurate term, because there has been debate of how much of the bible is historical and how much is allegorical since the beginning of the Catholic Church, even among the early church fathers. See Saint Clement and the School of Alexandria for example. It is for that reason that books like "The Origin of Species" never ended up on the banned books list. Also important that these issues were not part of Catholic tradition (e.g., the catechism and so on)
@wood9670 Imagine if the whole movie had been populated with guys like that instead of Bill Maher just knocking down strawmen and prancing around like Homer Simpson singing, "I am so smart!!!"
@JRserver He had to interview a range of people with a range of different beliefs because not everyone is as reasonable as this guy. He was showing that there are indeed reasonable as well as unreasonable religious people out there.
@s5b678 You might have a point, were it not for the fact that the ratio of "reasonable" to "unreasonable" believers interviewed in the movie is demonstrably stacked in favor of the latter.
@wood9670 There is a reason almost all of the worlds greatest thinkers and scientists are Atheist. These type of people see reality for what it is and not how some fool told them to view it. Think for yourself and leave god in the past where it belongs along with all the other dead gods.
@wood9670 Just because it has been a year does not nagate the fact that you are a deluded fool. Crazy thing time. You and other deluded fools are a curse to all of mankind. Just because you believe in god does not make it real anymore than I can believe I will win the lottery. Wishful thinking will not make it happen. Why would you allow others to dupe you in this way. Do you enjoy being stupid and full of fear?
Maybe the Bible doesn't need to tell us about Science. Maybe the Bible was given to show us we need a Savior. God gave us minds to explore His creation and this world and others, He gave us His Word to explore and find salvation and relationship with Him. I dare anyone to prove me wrong.
@chameleonz85 smart, there is no way to prove you wrong just as there is no way to prove unicorns don´t exist. On the other hand, I turn the table on you and I dare you to prove what you´re saying is right. You are the one making claims so unfortunately, you´re the one who has to carry the burden of proof. Thanks for commenting and I hope to read your reply; I´m always open for debate.
thats why this dawkins made up spaghetti theory is ridiculous in comparsion.
find any person who believes in spaghetti monster who is "SERIOUS" and you can debate it. you wont. so its pointless.
now back to the question, if I believe in aliens and can't prove them, just in theory, does that mean I shouldnt be looking for them anymore? should we say, they havnt shown themselves for 1000's of years, clearly they dont exist!
@quezcatol How can you be so sure that nobody believes in unicorns? It's true I don't believe in them and just used them as an example to prove a point but I'm pretty sure there may be some people who actually believe in their existence. I wouldn't say it's more ridiculous than believing that the molecules of water can be turned into wine or that a cracker is the literal body of some guy who died 2000 years ago.
@quezcatol (part 1) I think that the whole alien thing can be seen through another perspective. Do they exist? At least to my knowledge there is no strong evidence that they do. Should we believe they exist? If believing in their existence makes me change my conduct and attitude towards others; makes me discriminate other people just because they don't believe in them and basically makes me act as a douchebag then I would say we shouldn't believe in them.
@quezcatol If, on the other hand, you're just open to the possibility that they exist, and this "openness" doesn't make you act like an irrational being, I'd say you're free to believe in it (possibility of existence). The Hubble Telescope estimates the number of galaxies in the universe to be over 500 billion (that is a biiiiiiiiiig fucking number); to deny the possibility that there may be some form of life outside the earth (when looking at this number) seems to me to be the zenith
@quezcatol of human arrogance and is one of the main problems I see in religion. We have been taught to believe that we are UNIQUE, that we are the center of everything (please watch Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot)
I truly believe that we can be good and better human beings without the need for religion because it can easily poison and corrupt our thoughts. I think it all comes down to this: if your beliefs bring out the worst in you, maybe there's something a little bit wrong about them. PEACE!!
Maybe the bible is the product of a host of schizophrenics who heard voices and had visions. The type of thing still happens today. But back then there was no psychiatrist to diagnose them. I dare anyone to prove me wrong.
"Maybe the Bible was given us to show us we need a Saviour"
Well, maybe the KORAN was given us for that purpose. Maybe the Upanishads were given us for the purpose of showing us how to reincarnate into better beings. Maybe the Book of Mormon is the true way to Jesus. Maybe the truth lies with Scientology.
Maybe, maybe, maybe.
20 of humans are Christians, 80% are not. Do you have any evidence for the notion that you are right and the overwhelming majority of the human race is wrong?
@chameleonz85 That is not proof, that is only your biased interpretation of the situation. Something needs to be done about all those people dying but the only way we will stop all that killing is if we do it ourselves, we can't sit around waiting for some divine being (that doesn't exist) to do it for us while we just sit around complaining about all these people dying and letting die without lifting a finger. That's your approach, not mine. I am not ignorant, you are. I know god doesn't exist.
Jesuit kicking ass
jmir1992 1 week ago
When Jesus returns science and religion will be one and the same.
RaptorWizard 4 weeks ago
Did ya'll know that the Big Bang Theory was first proposed by a Catholic priest named Georges Lemaitre?
fez1964 1 month ago
Why didn't Maher just keep talking to this priest? He was the best part of the whole film! The only piece that made sense!
mattbart08 1 month ago
So Maher cant talk with him more then a minute?
LCHC1 1 month ago
I found in this movie that the only logical responses came from Catholics, who embrace science and other things. I'm proud to be a catholic.
kubrox91 2 months ago 11
@kubrox91 We learned the hard way.
IoEstasCedonta 2 months ago
@kubrox91 Protestants seem to have ironically become the Catholics of the 1600's: scientifically backward and embracing of 'fire and brimstone', 'faith triumphs morality' nonsense. It's sad that this has made it seem that all Christians believe in creationism, which just isn't true
DiomedesStrosMkai 1 month ago
@kubrox91 Although I absolutely agree with what he's saying, I can't entirely believe that he believes it. He works for the Vatican, the representative body of the Catholic religion. To keep its head above water, political moves must be made, and that includes addressing the modern battle between science and religious fundamentalism and conforming to the new & improved interpretation of scripture. It's like what Father Reginald said in that other clip, "That's the old Catholic thing."
SirSirRobin 1 week ago
Damn. I was raised in a family of Catholics who were Creationist "You'll burn in Hell Forever" types.
WHERE THE HELL WAS THIS GUY WHEN I NEEDED HIM?!?!?!?!?
MajickDemoniack 2 months ago 2
Why aren't more christians like him!?
MetalBru01 2 months ago 5
@MetalBru01 I'm one, so there's a start.
kubrox91 2 months ago
@MetalBru01 I'm two
playbak 1 week ago
I really really admire george coyne. in fact he's the only priest i have ever liked. Any more honesty and there would be no religion at all. He's an asset to any religious person who has a tendency to use his brain. Don't understand how he can still believe in the virgin birth and that god sent his son to die for the "sins" of a bunch of mammals in a little corner of the milky way, but he is obviously a great man.
lunadogwoof 4 months ago
@lunadogwoof Lol, now there's a back handed compliment! Father Coyne is not bound to a literalist interpretation of the scriptures because that has never been a part of Catholic doctrine. That is a fundamentalist protestant view. Maher conflates the two views, which is why he considers the term "Vatican astronomer" at best paradoxical. The fact is, the Church has always been deeply invested in the sciences.
PhoenixLament87 3 months ago
@PhoenixLament87 And this deep investment was shown by threatening Galileo and banning "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium". Church was only interested in sciensce which reinforced it's theories or could benefit the institution.
IAmClockwork 3 months ago
@IAmClockwork See, this is the problem: reducing hundreds of years of intellectual history to the Galileo case. The fact is, the Church has been invested in the sciences from its inception, since Christ is the Logos--the Word, the Logic--that ground the universe. In other words, the universe is intelligible; it is knowable. Ergo, Christians study the world, while pagans merely worshiped it.
PhoenixLament87 3 months ago
@PhoenixLament87 I am not reducing it. I merely gave two examples of how the church treated discoveries contradicting it's teachings.
IAmClockwork 3 months ago
@IAmClockwork Point being, these two incidents are hardly representative of history. They merely feed the popular mythology of the "anti-intellectual, anti-science Church" that would drag civilization back into the Dark Ages. Nothing could be further from the truth! For heaven's sake, our own priests gave the world heliocentric theory (Copernicus), genetics (Mendel) and the Big Bang (Lemaitre)! Most of these men taught and studied in the universities founded and financed by the Church.
PhoenixLament87 3 months ago
@PhoenixLament87 "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium"was banned by the clergy and yet you insist on making it an argument that the church sought advancement in all sciences!Let me than explain my point to you,since you clearly fail to comprehend.The church had monopoly in teaching.They supported innovation to an extent where it could be used. If it threatend to disprove their doctrine though,they fought it without remorse.The prosecution stopped of course after the chhurch lost it's influence.
IAmClockwork 3 months ago
@IAmClockwork I comprehend quite well, friend. Indeed, "De revolutionibus" was placed on the Index because it appeared to contradict scripture. But clergy in the Copernican camp knew that scripture is not a scientific treatise, and publicly defended heliocentrism. Eventually, the book was taken off the Index and heliocentrism became the accepted view. That's a pretty tame "persecution". And my previous point stands: Copernicus and Galileo weren't the only Catholic scientists who ever lived!
PhoenixLament87 3 months ago
@PhoenixLament87 Of course not. As I said church controlled the education in Europe during the dark ages. Only with the dawn of the age of reason it was taken from them. And the prosecutions, though sometimes tame, still proved to be a hindrance to the advancement of science. Of course with continued loss of power, the church had less and less to say about it, yet they still try sometimes. A good example of putting doctrine before facts nowadays would be speaking against contraception.
IAmClockwork 3 months ago
@IAmClockwork History is not neatly divided between the "Dark Ages" and the "Age of Reason". This is the problem: the misrepresentation of history in order to fit the popular myth of the anti-intellectual, anti-science Church. The Church's failures are highlighted, while it's longstanding patronage of the arts and sciences is all but obscured. And the whole business viewed through the wrong end of Galileo's telescope!
PhoenixLament87 3 months ago
@PhoenixLament87 Thank you for your reaction Phoenix. Nobody is bound to a literal interpretation and I bet you not many people really believe God wrote or inspired every single syllable; at least not in the privacy of their own mind. The idea that the Catholic doctrine (dogma?) is a "fundamentalist" protestant view is new to me. Where do you get that from? What are you defending? Someone who is honest enough to say god is not necessary should be honest enough to say god-is-not. Lie-detector?
lunadogwoof 3 months ago
@lunadogwoof To be clear: Fr. Coyne is not bound by his religion to a literal reading of scripture. The Church has consistently taught the multivalent quality of scripture, including the literal (in the sense of "literary"), allegorical, anagogical and moral senses. Different texts require different interpretations according to authorship, audience, literary form, etc. I object to Maher's naive attempt to co-opt the good Father into his casual, back-of-the hand atheism.
PhoenixLament87 3 months ago
@PhoenixLament87 Thanks again. Of course Maher is very blunt and he is not as sophisticated as Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. My comments are based on the interview Father Coyne had with Dawkins. He is obviously a grand person. Somehow I feel a pain for Father Coyne. My remarks were not intended as a compliment, definitely not a back handed one. It was admiration for how beautifully a human mind can evolve, even under the influence of religious tradition.
lunadogwoof 3 months ago
@lunadogwoof Yes, the Dawkins-Coyne interview was excellent. My only quibble (and it is no small one) would be that Coyne, as a Catholic, has excelled in science precisely because of our Catholic tradition, not despite it!
PhoenixLament87 3 months ago 6
i can imagine a video montage of father coyne solving a complex equation on a big blackboard to the song losing my religion by rem lol
randomer1432 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, The Secrets Of Human Essence And Happiness, The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Debated issues, and many others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc2.yolasite.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 7 months ago
Comment removed
TheServiceWeb 7 months ago
He is a joy , especially in a world that has Benny Hinn and Ted Haggard tainting it. I part company with him philosophically when he claims that the existence of the supernatural has evidence that " exists beyond the realm of science". That seems to allow Unicorns into plausibility.
ilikezappa 7 months ago
@ilikezappa There is plenty of 'evidence' which exists beyond the realms of empirical testability. Studies of ancient history for example regularly rely upon material which it is impossible to verify outside of historical criticism. String theory is a product of scientific thinking which is very probably totally untestable, and yet those scientists who do relevant research would argue there is evidence from inferrence or similar. Again untestable, not empirical, more philosophy than science.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Thankyou for your reply , but unfortunately I seem to have drunk seven pints of Guinness which means I can only reply , " I love you man........"
ilikezappa 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Ok , brain has come back now. String theory has mathematical inference. Testable ? Watch this space. The evidence for an invisible spirit realm that controls everything ? Very paltry I suggest.
ilikezappa 7 months ago
@ilikezappa The ultimate problem with string theory from an empirical POV is that all the proposed 'tests' even if they ever become, and they may not, possible are insufficient. They can all fail and untestable 'versions' of the theory persist. Multiverse theory is an even better example of something which is very possibly totally untestable. At best observations may allow the statement 'it is possible' which is no different from the postulation of a 'God' based universe.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Yes , I have to agree . I am not immune to the possibility of an unknown first cause for our universe. I am more opposed to the fundamentalist viewpoint which insists that the Bible ,which makes claims that ARE testable and can be shown to be wrong, is somehow the inerrant word of God.
ilikezappa 7 months ago
@ilikezappa Well the Hebrew Bible does do so, limitedly, if you take a wholistically literalist approach, rather than considering each text separately, and in context. I would agree with you that 'young earthers' tend to be on very very dodgy ground scientifically speaking at this point. However creation story as analogy has been a popular theological/philosophical position for a very very very long period of time, and thus avoids this problem. The Christian Bible makes no such claims.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
Fr. Coyne is very smart. I think his point is lost on Maher. I think Maher moves from, "there is no science in scripture" to "therefore, it's ridiculous." There are legitimate pursuits outside science.
Mystagogia87 8 months ago
if all religious people were this logical there would be no problem, in a perfect world
Dgoodsify 8 months ago
@Dgoodsify I agree. Out of religious people, I think Catholics generally tend to make the most sense and have the most progressive attitude toward science and acknowledging the dignity of other faiths.
Mystagogia87 8 months ago
what? Archimedes's creations weren't science? The person who cured small pox wasn't science? Isn't literature science too?
pyromaanisi 8 months ago
@pyromaanisi
The greeks were not particularly keen on empirical evidence. Science is a method, not a result, you know.
Dewkeeper 8 months ago
@Dewkeeper oh so archimedes creating new methods of calculating the mass of gold and tin by putting each in a pool full of water. Then taking the water which has overflown from the pool knowing which has more mass is not science? Apparently the definition of science is: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. If thats not science then I don't know what is...
pyromaanisi 8 months ago
@pyromaanisi
Well you did ask if literature was science, which it isn't. Science as a method revolves around producing initial hypotheses, doing carefully controlled experiments and then either reformulating the hypothesis based on the new evidence or develop that hypothesis into a set of comprehensive predictive tools for the behaviour of the world around us. I was under the impression the weighing story was a myth. Archimedes was clever and talented, but not a scientist in the modern sense.
Dewkeeper 8 months ago
I wish all religious people are more like Father Coyne and religious intellectuals, because then I would give religion all the respect it deserves depend on the teaching and the people who practice those teachings.
Neosaigo 9 months ago
This guy is the only miracle I believe in. One of the only sensible ones out of the bunch.
iimbamii 9 months ago
"... before the mormons get at them." LMAO
youngonewun 9 months ago
Those who believe in a God, whatever that may be, should put that belief in themselves. Then the world will start to see change. We could be the saviors of ourselves.
WeAreGreatAreWeNot 11 months ago
Thank you father Coyne!!!! Its people like you who can save the world with HONEST TRUTH!!!
missheath000 11 months ago
Rock on Father Coyne.
GoldeneyePwner 11 months ago
1. Science has existed since the time of cavemen. The idea of empirically measuring matter and then consequently testing your own hypotheses.
2. He tried to separate the two categories to give validity to the bible, while the fact remains that Christians used to kill and ostracize those who practiced pre-modern science. * This includes everyone from Galileo to those who came before and were silenced by the church.
bkroberts89 11 months ago
@bkroberts89
To the first part o the comment; he was talking about modern science in terms of methodology, not in terms of its goal.
To the second: I don't know where you're getting the impression that he separated the two categories for any reason other than to correct a mistake made by fundamentalists: IE; that the bible contains science. He never talked about the validity of the bible and he never argued for its validity.
standinstann 11 months ago
@standinstann
1. Conservatives train you up with the notion of eternally rewards.
2. Science isn't treated in scripture. Though science existed in those times, those was condemned by religious idealists.
3. I responded to the wrong video because I was running a playlist so my bad.
4. Finally, Coyne tries to support the validity of the bible by seperating the bible into another category all the time. For instance, go cannot be proved or disproved by science on the grounds that science..
bkroberts89 9 months ago
@bkroberts89
1: Me personally? I don't get the comment.
2: The methodology of science did not exist in those days.
3: oooooh.
4 (continued in next comment)
standinstann 9 months ago
@standinstann
(2)
measure the observable. But that's not the case. Think of the atom. We theorized about it's existence for several generation without an atom being visible.
This guy really is a logical manipulator. There's a reason the church uses him constantly to defend their own position in the sciences. All talk, not one ounce of substance.
bkroberts89 9 months ago
@bkroberts89
He's never said that; the only thing he's ever said about religion in general is that you can't test its practical usefulness, and that's true.
To your point about atoms, That is the same thing that leads us to infer the existence of black holes; not by directly observing the Phenomenon, but the behavior of the bodies around it. (This, btw, is also how the Aristotelian's infered the necessity of God). But.
Finally, the church has never "used him:" for anything of the kind (con)
standinstann 9 months ago
@standinstann The church, in its self promotion as "The true faith" or "The fullness of the faith" is Apologetic; Coyne is not an apologist. Google, Mother Angelica, Father Benedict Groeschel, Fulton John Sheen, those are the people that the church uses to promote its self. They don't give two craps about Coyne because he isn't out there telling people how wonderful and blameless the church is. I WISH Coyne were their guy, believe me.
standinstann 9 months ago
1. Methodology of science has existed since the time that matter could be measured. From the time of ancient cave men experiment with fuel for fire to ancient Alchemy. What we have today is a far more advanced form of that expression and/or discipline. The notion of observational study of the surrounding universe by the gathering and analysis of viable data.
bkroberts89 9 months ago
2. Conservatives are raised on notion of conversion. And a common trick they use is the slippery slope created in Metaphysics by the "non" observable argument.
3. Yeah.....Lol
4. The only point I was trying to make here is that he separates the bible into two parts to make it appeal more prcatical when in all reality the bible was intended to be taken as a whole. Which it, itself as the word of god says. You can't simply take the parts of the book that seem practical and apply it.
bkroberts89 9 months ago
@bkroberts89
2. I don't think that's a slippery slope, materialism is an assumption and the assumption may be true, making it is not wrong, stating it as a dogmatically established truth is an error to be avoided.
4. The bible was never meant to be taken as a whole, and neither was it literally anthropomorphic. the Bible is an anthology written over thousands of years. What's more, the bible is not the Christian faith, the Nicene creed is.
standinstann 9 months ago
@standinstann (con't) that is to say; the church doesn't give a crap about the continuity of scripture, only the primacy of their authority. In any case, the point I'm making is that Coyne distinguishes between science and religion because he believes in that distinction, not because he's trying to promote the church. (again, their apologists do that for them),
standinstann 9 months ago
@standinstann
Yes. The slippery slope is created by the creation a metaphysical realm in which nothing can truly be known. It's a fundamental implication caused by the metaphysical assumption.
And what do you think the Nicene creed was based on? The bible is Christian. That being the inclusion of the OT and NT. That is probably on of the most absurd statements I've ever heard anyone ever make.
Oh yeah, and the only time the bible claims that you shouldn't take the bible as
bkroberts89 9 months ago
@bkroberts89 Non-materialism is usually an attempt to avoid begging the question, but putting that aside, coyne didn't say anything about that here.
the bible was not canonized 325 AD; during that time, Apostolic tradition (IE: what later became the creed) was (and still is) the crux of the faith. Even today, nobody pickes up the bible, reads it, and then converts to Christianity, it's usually the other way around.
standinstann 9 months ago
@standinstann
People have been participating in what is the tradition of the bible since early Abraham. And those stories where passed down orally for generations. Albiet via the Jewish tradition, but most of Christianity's roots exist there as well. I will admit that he didn't say anything about that here. Like I said before I accidentally commented on the wrong video. Now as far as the creed goes; from a post conservative history, you read the bible first or what pastors direct to you read
bkroberts89 9 months ago
Then you accept the views of Christianity. The whole creed thing is almost as much of a redundant argument as Christianity and druid origins. I can respect you opinion as I really have nothing to prove my point here and no one does, but keep in mind that many creeds have existed towards the bible and any religious texts. And just because a creed comes to be doesn't necessarily mean that all beliefs are ex tempore.
And were both on the same page with materialism in this respect.
bkroberts89 9 months ago
@bkroberts89 My point here wasn't to defend Christianity but, in the first place to define it; and in the second, to clarify Coyne's sincerity.
standinstann 9 months ago
@standinstann
a whole is when the law is apparently rewritten by Jesus.
Oh yeah, and just to clarify, people base their Christian beliefs on the Bible rather than the Nicaen creed. Wow... I'm done with this conversation.
bkroberts89 9 months ago
@bkroberts89
The law (of moses) was never said to have been rewritten by anyone, what's more the bible doesn't say anything about "its self", the bible is an anthology.
Lastly, people do not base their beliefs on the bible; usually they have an experience that causes them to accept the divinity of Christ and THEN read the bible under the guidance of a religious leader. It's never a stand alone "manual" for Christianity,.
standinstann 9 months ago
@bkroberts89 I think what Coyne is saying is that while the Bible contains many different genres (epistle, gospel, myth, etc.) all these genres were describing the universe in a fundamentally different way that Stephen Hawking and Gregor Mendel and Galileo describe it.
Mystagogia87 8 months ago
@Patorochimaru32 Wow your are very rude.
chameleonz85 1 year ago
@Patorochimaru32 If you are unable to keep a decent, intelligent discussion, please stop writing comments like this. I don't care if maybe you and I share the same views about god, you are clearly a douchebag.
superale777 1 year ago
Thumbs up if you think debating with a religious person who doesn't understand the world of science and lacks common sense is...
FAIL
platozzz 1 year ago
It seems that Catholics are usually more negotiable than other christians about this stuff
maru14able 1 year ago 5
@maru14able might be because they're older than other Christian branches. Although I have a serious bone to pick against the Catholic church because of their crimes against humanity, I have noticed how they are less hung up on anti-science rhetoric the way a lot of Protestant groups are.
TheGreaterGood80 1 year ago
On the closeups of Fr. Coyne the photo behind him makes it look like he has halo...lol.
BJ219 1 year ago
Father Coyne.....scriptures are all about science. Many modern day scientific doctrines are faith-based without any 'science' behind them.
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 Last time I checked, I didn't need any "faith" or "prayer" to boot my computer.
ScientificBob 11 months ago
Does anyone know where the whole uncut interview of this is?
MrLlurati 1 year ago
Somebody tell these guys and father Coyne about the library of Alexandria. Science and the scientific method were around pre-scripture...till christians destroyed it.
katsavidiz 1 year ago
@katsavidiz Look at David Bentley Hart's book, "Atheist Delusions." The library was not destroyed by Christians, but the troops of Julius Caesar 40 years before Jesus was born.
Mystagogia87 8 months ago
Well this was refreshing. Now it that preach could just throw away the bible all together and wake up in reality without imaginary friend, he would be ok.
bary1234 1 year ago
I think its funny that so many people think that they can prove or disprove the existence of God. Can't we just accept the fact that we don't know everything? Both extremes are equally ridiculous; everyone gets so damn touchy because they are so scared of the possibility that their beliefs could be challenged. Get over it. It's okay to not know everything. I don't accept any religion but I cannot deny the possibility of something bigger. I just don't know.
sshabache 1 year ago
Everything this scientist said is so far over Maher's head.
Jugglable 1 year ago
@Jugglable and why do you say that?
s5b678 1 year ago
Comment removed
Jugglable 1 year ago
this clip is very striking to me.
to think about it, it's very obvious that these are two different periods of work. we shouldn't approach the matter by comparing scripture to math, that would be inappropriate. we should approach the matter by respecting each one's character.
rainzoro 1 year ago
I think that's the first clergyman I've ever seen that I like.
myteethareshiny 1 year ago
Which part of the bible teaches that our existence has a natural explanation, which part of science teaches that our existence has a supernatural explanation? The two are mutually exclusive. If Fr. Coyne is really a scientist then from the Church's viewpoint he must be considered a fraud. Jesuits use the Church as a meal-ticket while persuing their own agenda.
dawky01 1 year ago
@dawky01 The Vatican has adjusted their teachings to make it compatible with science, so he's not a fraud. The frauds are those who claim they're catholic, but still stick with the dogmatic interpretation of the bible.
All the rest of the bible bashers are just little ministries with preachers who didn't had a proper education. Everyone can start a church in the US apparently, it's a business like any other.
noxure 1 year ago
@noxure
If the vatican has adjusted its teachings to make it compatible with science then it has to remove all references to the supernatural. This includes Gods, devils, angels, saints, heaven, hell, prayer, holy water, communion rituals, baptism rituals, mass, veneration of sacred relics, power of priests to forgive sin, papal infallibility.. and the list goes on. Religions cannot exist without their imaginary gods.
dawky01 1 year ago
@dawky01 And then what? Prohibit every movie where something supernatural happens, all fantasy books full of history that never happened and every science fiction novel? Oh, and then we should stop teaching people about Newton... he didn't know anything about thermodynamics, relativity or particle physics, so his books are full of lies and string theory can't be proved so we shouldn't teach that as well...
Because, if you take something away from someone else, they'll take something from you.
noxure 1 year ago
@noxure
Fantasy books and science fiction novels make no claim to be true or real,
the bible does. If you want to put the bible in the same class as fantasy books you'll get no arguement from me.
dawky01 1 year ago
@dawky01 - are you Richard Dawkins?
wasagoodkid 1 year ago
@dawky01 so if a science fiction novel claimed to be real, you'd believe that too?
SaltyPenguin7 1 year ago
@dawky01
Adjusted its teachings is a inaccurate term, because there has been debate of how much of the bible is historical and how much is allegorical since the beginning of the Catholic Church, even among the early church fathers. See Saint Clement and the School of Alexandria for example. It is for that reason that books like "The Origin of Species" never ended up on the banned books list. Also important that these issues were not part of Catholic tradition (e.g., the catechism and so on)
ihaveadesk1 1 year ago
Bill Maher needed to talk to more intelligent people like this in his documentary. I think he carciatured faith as all fundamentalist and literalist.
Jugglable 1 year ago
The jab at Mormons was golden.
savagesteve13 1 year ago
As a religious science minor and a Roman Catholic I agree with everything Father Coyne just said.
wood9670 1 year ago 31
@wood9670 Imagine if the whole movie had been populated with guys like that instead of Bill Maher just knocking down strawmen and prancing around like Homer Simpson singing, "I am so smart!!!"
JRserver 1 year ago
@JRserver He had to interview a range of people with a range of different beliefs because not everyone is as reasonable as this guy. He was showing that there are indeed reasonable as well as unreasonable religious people out there.
s5b678 1 year ago
@s5b678 You might have a point, were it not for the fact that the ratio of "reasonable" to "unreasonable" believers interviewed in the movie is demonstrably stacked in favor of the latter.
JRserver 1 year ago
@wood9670 Do some research on the library of Alexandria!
katsavidiz 1 year ago
@wood9670 There is a reason almost all of the worlds greatest thinkers and scientists are Atheist. These type of people see reality for what it is and not how some fool told them to view it. Think for yourself and leave god in the past where it belongs along with all the other dead gods.
scotttebben 8 months ago
@scotttebben, stop trolling on a year old post.
wood9670 8 months ago
@wood9670 Just because it has been a year does not nagate the fact that you are a deluded fool. Crazy thing time. You and other deluded fools are a curse to all of mankind. Just because you believe in god does not make it real anymore than I can believe I will win the lottery. Wishful thinking will not make it happen. Why would you allow others to dupe you in this way. Do you enjoy being stupid and full of fear?
scotttebben 8 months ago
@scotttebben,
I'm a little teapot, short and stout
Here is my handle [one hand on hip], here is my spout [other arm out straight]
When I get all steamed up, hear me shout
Just tip me over and pour me out!
[as song ends, lean over and tip arm out like a spout]
I'm a clever teapot, yes it's true
Here's an example of what I can do
I can change my handle to my spout [switch arm positions and repeat tipping motion]
Just tip me over and pour me out
wood9670 8 months ago
Maybe the Bible doesn't need to tell us about Science. Maybe the Bible was given to show us we need a Savior. God gave us minds to explore His creation and this world and others, He gave us His Word to explore and find salvation and relationship with Him. I dare anyone to prove me wrong.
chameleonz85 2 years ago
@chameleonz85 smart, there is no way to prove you wrong just as there is no way to prove unicorns don´t exist. On the other hand, I turn the table on you and I dare you to prove what you´re saying is right. You are the one making claims so unfortunately, you´re the one who has to carry the burden of proof. Thanks for commenting and I hope to read your reply; I´m always open for debate.
superale777 2 years ago 20
@superale777 nobody believes in unicorn.
thats why this dawkins made up spaghetti theory is ridiculous in comparsion.
find any person who believes in spaghetti monster who is "SERIOUS" and you can debate it. you wont. so its pointless.
now back to the question, if I believe in aliens and can't prove them, just in theory, does that mean I shouldnt be looking for them anymore? should we say, they havnt shown themselves for 1000's of years, clearly they dont exist!
quezcatol 1 year ago
@quezcatol How can you be so sure that nobody believes in unicorns? It's true I don't believe in them and just used them as an example to prove a point but I'm pretty sure there may be some people who actually believe in their existence. I wouldn't say it's more ridiculous than believing that the molecules of water can be turned into wine or that a cracker is the literal body of some guy who died 2000 years ago.
superale777 1 year ago
@quezcatol (part 1) I think that the whole alien thing can be seen through another perspective. Do they exist? At least to my knowledge there is no strong evidence that they do. Should we believe they exist? If believing in their existence makes me change my conduct and attitude towards others; makes me discriminate other people just because they don't believe in them and basically makes me act as a douchebag then I would say we shouldn't believe in them.
superale777 1 year ago
@quezcatol If, on the other hand, you're just open to the possibility that they exist, and this "openness" doesn't make you act like an irrational being, I'd say you're free to believe in it (possibility of existence). The Hubble Telescope estimates the number of galaxies in the universe to be over 500 billion (that is a biiiiiiiiiig fucking number); to deny the possibility that there may be some form of life outside the earth (when looking at this number) seems to me to be the zenith
superale777 1 year ago
@quezcatol of human arrogance and is one of the main problems I see in religion. We have been taught to believe that we are UNIQUE, that we are the center of everything (please watch Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot)
I truly believe that we can be good and better human beings without the need for religion because it can easily poison and corrupt our thoughts. I think it all comes down to this: if your beliefs bring out the worst in you, maybe there's something a little bit wrong about them. PEACE!!
superale777 1 year ago
@quezcatol
God himself never decided to show himself for 2000 years +, clearly [God] doesn't exist! lol
Blaqic3 1 year ago
@chameleonz85 Maybe, maybe, maybe.
Maybe the bible is the product of a host of schizophrenics who heard voices and had visions. The type of thing still happens today. But back then there was no psychiatrist to diagnose them. I dare anyone to prove me wrong.
kadene2 1 year ago
"Maybe the Bible was given us to show us we need a Saviour"
Well, maybe the KORAN was given us for that purpose. Maybe the Upanishads were given us for the purpose of showing us how to reincarnate into better beings. Maybe the Book of Mormon is the true way to Jesus. Maybe the truth lies with Scientology.
Maybe, maybe, maybe.
20 of humans are Christians, 80% are not. Do you have any evidence for the notion that you are right and the overwhelming majority of the human race is wrong?
UseYerEFFINBrain 1 year ago
@chameleonz85 lol prove yourself right first
AstarealRomance 1 year ago
@chameleonz85 I dare you to prove to me that we need a savior. Which, clearly we don't. :-)
kingmarck1 1 year ago
@kingmarck1 People are dieing and suffering everyday, we need a savior, dont be ignorant
chameleonz85 1 year ago
@chameleonz85 That is not proof, that is only your biased interpretation of the situation. Something needs to be done about all those people dying but the only way we will stop all that killing is if we do it ourselves, we can't sit around waiting for some divine being (that doesn't exist) to do it for us while we just sit around complaining about all these people dying and letting die without lifting a finger. That's your approach, not mine. I am not ignorant, you are. I know god doesn't exist.
kingmarck1 1 year ago