What I mean is this: how much do you actually know about the science most atheists parrot? Most atheists know as little science as most Christians know as little theology. Just as a Christian trusts his priest to tell him what he believes, an atheist trusts scientists with a Ph.D. tacked to their name to tell them what they believe. But how many times have the scientists turned out to be wrong? I only ask this because it seems this is central to the problem that most atheists have. They are repulsed by the phrase “believe” – they are addicted instead to the phrase “know”. But honestly, do you really know, or are you just believing what you’re told? I would like to remind you that in the 1970′s the scientists of the day were seriously concerned that we were about to enter an ice age, and less than 30 years later they are now convinced Earth is about to turn into a desert.
Unless you’ve observed something yourself, or observed and interpreted the evidence yourself and drew your own conclusions, you are just as guilty as faith as any religious person.
I have my trust in science based on science with knowing a basic understanding of the science to see how it works/happens. Belief relies on faith, that is accepting something is true without question.
There is so much myth going on about climate change, to assist the excuse for the big fossil fuel industries to carry on as normal, while they choke the planet with atmospheric pollutants. I like using the term "climate change" because the planet's weather pasterns work in balance, and when there is an unbalance, such as a an extreme warming, you are likely to get an extreme cooling, following another extreme warming, with increasing weather variations as more pollution disrupts the weather and climate, until one day it may topple over, and would lean towards desertification with the decline of vegetation such as the amazon forest and other rain forests which acts as a climate buffer.
@Bob - Question: Do you think they should have been retained - Well, of course, Bob, why not, it was a given in your church, to move priests around from diocese to diocese, from country to country, where they could keep sodomizing children, as freely as they wished. So, what went wrong for these dregs to actually be fired. Too much evidence maybe, couldn't get them moved quick enough, or somebody actually listening to the children for a change?
Paul Shandley - just one of thousands of priests with the same arrogance and protection.
Every bit of this should be excised - so, what are you, as a practicing Roman Catholic, doing about it.
Did you sign the petition I sent you, or are you going to set your own petition in motion, and include your local church in your local area, that would be a good start, and send it on to the vatican.
First, Ratzinger resigned, and now, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Secretary of the Vatican State, has also scuttled off. Sign of things to come, Bob. The Vatican is crumbling - and now, can you believe it, there is the arrest of Nunzio Scarano, a bishop from Salerno, near Naples, charged with money laundering, through the Vatican Bank to the tune of $26 million.
Gay priests I am not worried about, hypocritical yes, but not concerned, Only the abusers who rape children and have gotten away with it for decades.
Grass roots Bob, grass roots.
Third time asked - do you think contraception should be encouraged, in direct opposition to the catholic church, or not.
Matthew 19:14 - Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven - Bit of a shame Jesus wasn't watching over the children, as they were being raped, hey.
Sicut in die honeste ambulemus - Yes, it is appalling that the church and its disciples don't follow this.
@Suzanne, side question...
Do you really think petitions are effective? If so, why? Particularly online petitions.
Gay priests I am not worried about
Except that Paul Shanley was a gay priest. Let's be honest, monogamous and caring gay men leading happy and productive lives are not priests. One of the challenges is that for a time at least the priesthood was a bit of a refuge for sexually repressed and deviant characters like Shanley.
So, what went wrong for these dregs to actually be fired.
That is a question many of us ask ourselves. Some of it is version of unresponsive bystander effect in psychology; when circumstances are ambiguous, as they often are, people tend not to respond or to equivocate. Administrators worry more about legal/PR concerns than they should, because that's what their daily life is like most days. Their job is typically to worry about such things. Friendships and loyalty come into play in a big way.
Believe me, many of us at universities asked ourselves the same questions after the Jerry Sandusky affair at Penn State.
Personally, I think it's that most of the time, people in political positions (including bishops, most CEOs, etc.) got there because they were selected for certain skills and personality traits. Those political skills suit them well for most of their job, but they are dysfunctional when it comes to situations which require decisiveness and real leadership. That's why a 29-year-old computer geek shows more courage than the dozens of our congressmen who had a real oversight role; why a young floor trader can show more courage than an investment bank CEO, etc.
now, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Secretary of the Vatican State, has also scuttled off. Sign of things to come, Bob.
Hopefully! That's all pretty normal, as a new pope selects his own staff. What's been heartening thus far has been that His Holiness has brought in commissions of Vatican outsiders to clean house, both at the Vatican Bank and within the administrative structure. I think that's healthy.
Have to hand it to Bishop Scarano. Only a churchman could bungle money laundering for such a paltry sum. That amounts to what? The amount of money laundered in a typical American city in a week or two of the drug trade? Talk about amateur hour.
Haha, don't tell me... I think I get it, but I won't spoil it here for others. (Poor Robert... ah the extent to which others will put him on the spot.)
Oh, Bob is just fine with it. Have to have a sense of humor to hang out here. At least those are briefs! @Gallup needs the Looonggg pants version. ;-)
Oh, Bob is just fine with it.
Folks without a conscience would be just fine with it too
Have to have a sense of humor to hang out here.
To a lack of conscience, add humor. These are two of the characteristics of psychopathy. Google <Robert Hare> and see the results of decades of research.
(Your middle name isn't Richard, right?)
I'm not sure it's OK for you to have a sense of humour. Your deity doesn't have one, and the bible doesn't have anyone in it who laughs, tells a joke, or even exhibits a sense of irony. All those pages, and not one smirk.
Well, that's not entirely true, the writer/writers of the Yahwist source used to like to do an almost Shakespearean play on words, as in:
Polonius: "It seems (etc.)"
Hamlet: "M'lord, methinks I know not seams."
Sorry I don't have any biblical examples at my fingertips and don't have time to look them up, as I have to go work in my yard, and by that, I mean take a nap.
Surely you're joking! We generally think God has quite a sense of humor, and the Bible is full of wit and irony. Some gets lost in translation, I'll grant, and over centuries of expensive hand-copying the jokes tend to get left out, but it's really not at all as drab as you make out.
@Professor Robert - Fantastic! I had no idea! You're quite right, I'm no biblical expert. Please give me a couple of biblical jokes, or examples of god's humour (not that I don't believe you, I just like evidence where possible). A few would be cool - I may not get the odd one, so a short sampling of biblical humour would be wonderful!