Total Posts:234|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Pope admits big bang theory is true

beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 10:02:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
By doing so he effectively disproves the religion he supposedly heads. It's highly surprising the head of a religion admits it's core teachings are likely to be wrong. In my view religion cannot simply change its mind about something. It shows how illogical religion is. The head of Christianity admitted his religion is no more than a mythical cult movement.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 10:06:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 10:02:58 PM, beng100 wrote:
By doing so he effectively disproves the religion he supposedly heads. It's highly surprising the head of a religion admits it's core teachings are likely to be wrong. In my view religion cannot simply change its mind about something. It shows how illogical religion is. The head of Christianity admitted his religion is no more than a mythical cult movement.

Lol. You apparently know nothing of Catholicism.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 10:11:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 10:06:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/7/2015 10:02:58 PM, beng100 wrote:
By doing so he effectively disproves the religion he supposedly heads. It's highly surprising the head of a religion admits it's core teachings are likely to be wrong. In my view religion cannot simply change its mind about something. It shows how illogical religion is. The head of Christianity admitted his religion is no more than a mythical cult movement.

Lol. You apparently know nothing of Catholicism.

Your point is?
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 10:32:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 10:11:57 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 10/7/2015 10:06:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/7/2015 10:02:58 PM, beng100 wrote:
By doing so he effectively disproves the religion he supposedly heads. It's highly surprising the head of a religion admits it's core teachings are likely to be wrong. In my view religion cannot simply change its mind about something. It shows how illogical religion is. The head of Christianity admitted his religion is no more than a mythical cult movement.

Lol. You apparently know nothing of Catholicism.

Your point is?

It means your winning argument isn't one at all. In fact it was a Catholic Priest who first proposed the Big Bang. The term Big Bang was a term of derision to the theory by an atheist.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 10:38:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 10:02:58 PM, beng100 wrote:
By doing so he effectively disproves the religion he supposedly heads. It's highly surprising the head of a religion admits it's core teachings are likely to be wrong. In my view religion cannot simply change its mind about something. It shows how illogical religion is. The head of Christianity admitted his religion is no more than a mythical cult movement.

A link: http://www.independent.co.uk...

The theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real and God is not "a magician with a magic wand", Pope Francis has declared.

"When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so," Francis said. He added: "He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfilment.

So first he endorses Evolution and the Big Bang. Then he immediately proceeds to demonstrate that he hasn't got a clue what the theories entail. So funny.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 10:49:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 10:38:42 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/7/2015 10:02:58 PM, beng100 wrote:
By doing so he effectively disproves the religion he supposedly heads. It's highly surprising the head of a religion admits it's core teachings are likely to be wrong. In my view religion cannot simply change its mind about something. It shows how illogical religion is. The head of Christianity admitted his religion is no more than a mythical cult movement.

A link: http://www.independent.co.uk...

The theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real and God is not "a magician with a magic wand", Pope Francis has declared.

"When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so," Francis said. He added: "He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfilment.

So first he endorses Evolution and the Big Bang. Then he immediately proceeds to demonstrate that he hasn't got a clue what the theories entail. So funny.

Yes exactly. It shows how out of touch with reality the Catholic church is.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 11:24:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 10:32:31 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/7/2015 10:11:57 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 10/7/2015 10:06:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/7/2015 10:02:58 PM, beng100 wrote:
By doing so he effectively disproves the religion he supposedly heads. It's highly surprising the head of a religion admits it's core teachings are likely to be wrong. In my view religion cannot simply change its mind about something. It shows how illogical religion is. The head of Christianity admitted his religion is no more than a mythical cult movement.

Lol. You apparently know nothing of Catholicism.

Your point is?

It means your winning argument isn't one at all. In fact it was a Catholic Priest who first proposed the Big Bang. The term Big Bang was a term of derision to the theory by an atheist.

How is this in any way relevant to what beng100 wrote? Georges Lemaitre was a priest, astronomer and professor of physics. Fred Hoyle was an atheist (with ID leanings). So what?
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 11:41:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 10:02:58 PM, beng100 wrote:
By doing so he effectively disproves the religion he supposedly heads. It's highly surprising the head of a religion admits it's core teachings are likely to be wrong. In my view religion cannot simply change its mind about something. It shows how illogical religion is. The head of Christianity admitted his religion is no more than a mythical cult movement.

*ahem*
Head of CATHOLICISM. Not Christianity. According to the Bible, Christ is the head of the Christian church. And this is nothing new. The Papas have swept the Bible under the rug and undermined it's values for millenia. Why do you think the Gutenburg printing press was such a big deal in Protestant Germany? Why do you think they hated the Reformation, which provided Bibles in the common languages of the people? They aren't Christian, they deny many key doctrines. It's no surprise they deny or get wrong just one more part of scripture.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 11:45:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 10:02:58 PM, beng100 wrote:
I am not a Catholic, but the big bang theory is not in conflict with Biblical creationism.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 12:27:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 11:45:07 PM, tstor wrote:
At 10/7/2015 10:02:58 PM, beng100 wrote:
I am not a Catholic, but the big bang theory is not in conflict with Biblical creationism.

How Genesis would read if it was not in conflict with the Big Bang:

1In the beginning God created the cosmic egg, smaller than a grain of sand and hotter than a thousand, million suns. There was only heat and no substance.

2And God said "Let there be order and laws to this chaotic inferno". And there was order and the laws of nature.

3And God then inflated the cosmic egg and caused it to expand and cool, obeying His laws.

4And God then rested and admired his handiwork as the universe unfolded. And God saw that it was good.

5A long, long time passed and generations of stars were born and died in their constellations. Eventually there was enough stardust to produce worlds around the stars.

6Thus the heavens evolved in their vast array. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

7The end.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 12:33:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Genesis 2:

1And God then realized that he had forgotten to turn off expansion.

2And God said "I'll worry about that later when all the lights go out and my creation has gone cold and dark".

3The end.
IntellectVsSpirit5000
Posts: 1,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 12:33:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 10:02:58 PM, beng100 wrote:
By doing so he effectively disproves the religion he supposedly heads. It's highly surprising the head of a religion admits it's core teachings are likely to be wrong. In my view religion cannot simply change its mind about something. It shows how illogical religion is. The head of Christianity admitted his religion is no more than a mythical cult movement.

So when God created reality there couldn't have been a bang and it most certainly could not have been big. I never thought about that. Conversion time. Or not.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,002
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 12:45:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 10:02:58 PM, beng100 wrote:
By doing so he effectively disproves the religion he supposedly heads. It's highly surprising the head of a religion admits it's core teachings are likely to be wrong. In my view religion cannot simply change its mind about something. It shows how illogical religion is. The head of Christianity admitted his religion is no more than a mythical cult movement.

Absolutely false. The Catholic Church has never had a doctrine that denied the big bang.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,002
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 12:48:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 11:41:52 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 10/7/2015 10:02:58 PM, beng100 wrote:
By doing so he effectively disproves the religion he supposedly heads. It's highly surprising the head of a religion admits it's core teachings are likely to be wrong. In my view religion cannot simply change its mind about something. It shows how illogical religion is. The head of Christianity admitted his religion is no more than a mythical cult movement.

*ahem*
Head of CATHOLICISM. Not Christianity. According to the Bible, Christ is the head of the Christian church. And this is nothing new. The Papas have swept the Bible under the rug and undermined it's values for millenia.

False.

Why do you think the Gutenburg printing press was such a big deal in Protestant Germany?

Gutenberg was a Catholic.

Why do you think they hated the Reformation, which provided Bibles in the common languages of the people?

Not because bibles were printed in local language. The Catholic Church was the first to do so.

They aren't Christian, they deny many key doctrines

False.

. It's no surprise they deny or get wrong just one more part of scripture.

False
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 1:06:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 12:27:49 AM, dee-em wrote:
Kind of silly to only reference one of the creation accounts, much less to ignore all other singular verses that describe the creation. I cannot really anticipate you providing a good conversation if you are already acting so narrow minded.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 1:16:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 1:06:06 AM, tstor wrote:
At 10/8/2015 12:27:49 AM, dee-em wrote:
Kind of silly to only reference one of the creation accounts, much less to ignore all other singular verses that describe the creation. I cannot really anticipate you providing a good conversation if you are already acting so narrow minded.

I don't directly reference any other creation accounts (any account really) because they are in wild conflict with the Big Bang Theory. I assumed that would be obvious.
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 1:18:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 1:16:59 AM, dee-em wrote:

I don't directly reference any other creation accounts (any account really) because they are in wild conflict with the Big Bang Theory. I assumed that would be obvious.
I would imagine that it would be convenient for you to assume things rather than research them.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 1:22:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 12:45:20 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 10/7/2015 10:02:58 PM, beng100 wrote:
By doing so he effectively disproves the religion he supposedly heads. It's highly surprising the head of a religion admits it's core teachings are likely to be wrong. In my view religion cannot simply change its mind about something. It shows how illogical religion is. The head of Christianity admitted his religion is no more than a mythical cult movement.

Absolutely false. The Catholic Church has never had a doctrine that denied the big bang.

Not a Papal edict, no, but the holy book on which the religion is founded is in serious contradiction with the BBT. Otherwise this announcement by Pope Francis would not be news.
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 1:23:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 12:27:49 AM, dee-em wrote:

1In the beginning God created the cosmic egg, smaller than a grain of sand and hotter than a thousand, million suns. There was only heat and no substance.
Pointing out lack of specific details is not a strong argument. That would be the equivalent of saying that a middle school astronomy textbook is false because it lacks great detail.

2And God said "Let there be order and laws to this chaotic inferno". And there was order and the laws of nature.
According to the big bang, at the creation event all the physics are instantly created, designed, and finished in order to guarantee an ongoing, continual expansion of the universe. This sounds strikingly similar to the Biblical account.

3And God then inflated the cosmic egg and caused it to expand and cool, obeying His laws.
Romans 8 describes entropy (Rom. 8:21) and Isaiah describes the expansion of the universe (Isa. 51:13). There are eleven verses in the Bible that mention the stretching of the heavens.

4And God then rested and admired his handiwork as the universe unfolded. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 2:2

5A long, long time passed and generations of stars were born and died in their constellations. Eventually there was enough stardust to produce worlds around the stars.
See #1

6Thus the heavens evolved in their vast array. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.
See #3

7The end.
I am glad we agree.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 1:25:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 1:18:35 AM, tstor wrote:
At 10/8/2015 1:16:59 AM, dee-em wrote:

I don't directly reference any other creation accounts (any account really) because they are in wild conflict with the Big Bang Theory. I assumed that would be obvious.

I would imagine that it would be convenient for you to assume things rather than research them.

Sure, sure. You can keep asserting truth all you like. Since you have nothing to contribute other than a bit of sniping, you are dismissed.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 1:32:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 1:23:18 AM, tstor wrote:
At 10/8/2015 12:27:49 AM, dee-em wrote:

1In the beginning God created the cosmic egg, smaller than a grain of sand and hotter than a thousand, million suns. There was only heat and no substance.
Pointing out lack of specific details is not a strong argument. That would be the equivalent of saying that a middle school astronomy textbook is false because it lacks great detail.

2And God said "Let there be order and laws to this chaotic inferno". And there was order and the laws of nature.
According to the big bang, at the creation event all the physics are instantly created, designed, and finished in order to guarantee an ongoing, continual expansion of the universe. This sounds strikingly similar to the Biblical account.

3And God then inflated the cosmic egg and caused it to expand and cool, obeying His laws.
Romans 8 describes entropy (Rom. 8:21) and Isaiah describes the expansion of the universe (Isa. 51:13). There are eleven verses in the Bible that mention the stretching of the heavens.

4And God then rested and admired his handiwork as the universe unfolded. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 2:2

5A long, long time passed and generations of stars were born and died in their constellations. Eventually there was enough stardust to produce worlds around the stars.
See #1

6Thus the heavens evolved in their vast array. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.
See #3

7The end.
I am glad we agree.

Is this a joke? Nobody could be that indoctrinated, surely?
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 1:33:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 1:32:01 AM, dee-em wrote:

Is this a joke? Nobody could be that indoctrinated, surely?
"Since you have nothing to contribute other than a bit of sniping, you are dismissed."
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,002
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 1:43:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 1:22:20 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/8/2015 12:45:20 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 10/7/2015 10:02:58 PM, beng100 wrote:
By doing so he effectively disproves the religion he supposedly heads. It's highly surprising the head of a religion admits it's core teachings are likely to be wrong. In my view religion cannot simply change its mind about something. It shows how illogical religion is. The head of Christianity admitted his religion is no more than a mythical cult movement.

Absolutely false. The Catholic Church has never had a doctrine that denied the big bang.

Not a Papal edict, no, but the holy book on which the religion is founded is in serious contradiction with the BBT. Otherwise this announcement by Pope Francis would not be news.

Not when properly interpreted. And it's only news because the press is willfully ignorant. Pope Benedict said the same thing.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 1:56:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 1:33:28 AM, tstor wrote:
At 10/8/2015 1:32:01 AM, dee-em wrote:

Is this a joke? Nobody could be that indoctrinated, surely?
"Since you have nothing to contribute other than a bit of sniping, you are dismissed."

No conversation can be had with someone who cherry-picks words and phrases from all over the Bible and insists that they refer to full-blown scientific theories on entropy and the run-away expansion of the universe. Do you really expect me to have a rational discussion with someone as blinkered as you about the context of such words and phrases? It's comical that you would even think that such an approach would be fruitful.

Let me issue you a challenge instead. You have mastered the art of taking scientific theories and laws and finding some vague, far-fetched piece of biblical text which you can pretend relates in some way. Any fool can do that. How about making yourself useful and doing the reverse. Since the Bible is, according to you, the fountain of all scientific knowledge then it should be a simple matter for you to solve some unresolved scientific problem. Let's take Dark Matter. What is it? Here is your chance for fame and maybe a Nobel Prize in physics. Where in the Bible does it tell us exactly what Dark Matter is? Please don't disappoint us.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 2:01:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 1:43:29 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 10/8/2015 1:22:20 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/8/2015 12:45:20 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 10/7/2015 10:02:58 PM, beng100 wrote:
By doing so he effectively disproves the religion he supposedly heads. It's highly surprising the head of a religion admits it's core teachings are likely to be wrong. In my view religion cannot simply change its mind about something. It shows how illogical religion is. The head of Christianity admitted his religion is no more than a mythical cult movement.

Absolutely false. The Catholic Church has never had a doctrine that denied the big bang.

Not a Papal edict, no, but the holy book on which the religion is founded is in serious contradiction with the BBT. Otherwise this announcement by Pope Francis would not be news.

Not when properly interpreted.

Properly interpreted. I love that phrase. So useful in so many ways. What you mean is "for god's sake, don't take it literally!".

And it's only news because the press is willfully ignorant.

Yep. Blame the press. It's all their fault.

Pope Benedict said the same thing.

And it was news then too, for much the same reasons.
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 2:12:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 1:56:38 AM, dee-em wrote:

No conversation can be had with someone who cherry-picks words and phrases from all over the Bible and insists that they refer to full-blown scientific theories on entropy and the run-away expansion of the universe. Do you really expect me to have a rational discussion with someone as blinkered as you about the context of such words and phrases? It's comical that you would even think that such an approach would be fruitful.
It is not cherry-picking by any means. Please excuse me for not providing the full context for each and every verse. This contextual input would not only require me covering the entire chapter for you, but would also require me to get my hands dirty in Hebrew. If you recall, I mentioned to you that your list was rather, well, awful. It still is, do not take my response to it as me accepting it as anything other than an awful list. I will restate that you should not only look at one creation account, but all of them. As well, the Biblical authors dropped pieces of information about creation throughout the Bible. Do not challenge me on the contextual basis for the verses I provided unless you are really willing to provide some strong evidence of me cherry-picking.

Let me issue you a challenge instead. You have mastered the art of taking scientific theories and laws and finding some vague, far-fetched piece of biblical text which you can pretend relates in some way. Any fool can do that. How about making yourself useful and doing the reverse. Since the Bible is, according to you, the fountain of all scientific knowledge then it should be a simple matter for you to solve some unresolved scientific problem. Let's take Dark Matter. What is it? Here is your chance for fame and maybe a Nobel Prize in physics. Where in the Bible does it tell us exactly what Dark Matter is? Please don't disappoint us.
Not really that difficult. The Bible and the big bang quite clearly complement each other. I anticipate that as we continue to expand our knowledge of the universe that we will see more complimenting between the Bible and science. As for these verses being "vague" or "far-fetched", I would have to disagree. They are quite clear and easy to understand if someone is familiar with the Bible and science.

How about you make yourself useful and stop putting words in my mouth. Quote me anywhere in any of my 687 (now 688) posts where I say: "the Bible is the fountain of all scientific knowledge". (pro tip: I never said it) Since you are presenting this challenge off of a false assumption, I have no legitimate reason to respond to it. The Bible lays out information, science clarifies it. It is really that simple. Also I am a bit confused as to why you used the word "us". Who is "us"? Specifically I am referring to "Please don't disappoint us." I am picturing you and a bunch of other atheists sitting around a computer scrutinizing every word I type.

As for what is known about dark matter, you and your buddies can self educate:
https://en.wikipedia.org...

PS: I will always refer to you with plural nouns from here on out.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 2:13:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 10:38:42 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/7/2015 10:02:58 PM, beng100 wrote:
By doing so he effectively disproves the religion he supposedly heads. It's highly surprising the head of a religion admits it's core teachings are likely to be wrong. In my view religion cannot simply change its mind about something. It shows how illogical religion is. The head of Christianity admitted his religion is no more than a mythical cult movement.

A link: http://www.independent.co.uk...

The theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real and God is not "a magician with a magic wand", Pope Francis has declared.

"When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,"

Thanks to Beng for the article and to Dee-Em for the link.

It'd be just a tad more honest had the current Pontiff admitted that for centuries, the clergy had encouraged the faithful to imagine God was able to do everything -- nay, insisted that adherents believed it, punished adherents if they contested it, and profited from their own self-professed monopolist role as sole intercessors between man and God on all matters material and spiritual.

And it'd be a bit more honest still had he acknowledged that this position also denounces miracles, blessings, baptisms, the intervention of angels, saintly intercession, and the operation of demons -- all in one hit; and simultaneously confesses to Papal ignorance and error, intellectual dishonesty, clerical conceit, the long-term corruption of the church -- and the perpetration of countless theologically unjustified crimes against humanity by an institution claiming to hold the sole insights to human salvation.

But... perhaps that was too much to expect.

Nice that science got a nod, though.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,002
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 2:19:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 2:01:31 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/8/2015 1:43:29 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 10/8/2015 1:22:20 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/8/2015 12:45:20 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 10/7/2015 10:02:58 PM, beng100 wrote:
By doing so he effectively disproves the religion he supposedly heads. It's highly surprising the head of a religion admits it's core teachings are likely to be wrong. In my view religion cannot simply change its mind about something. It shows how illogical religion is. The head of Christianity admitted his religion is no more than a mythical cult movement.

Absolutely false. The Catholic Church has never had a doctrine that denied the big bang.

Not a Papal edict, no, but the holy book on which the religion is founded is in serious contradiction with the BBT. Otherwise this announcement by Pope Francis would not be news.

Not when properly interpreted.

Properly interpreted. I love that phrase. So useful in so many ways. What you mean is "for god's sake, don't take it literally!".

The existence of two creation accounts in Genesis is proof it was never meant to be read as literal history.

And it's only news because the press is willfully ignorant.

Yep. Blame the press. It's all their fault.


It shouldn't be news if it's not new.

Pope Benedict said the same thing.

And it was news then too, for much the same reasons.

It should only be news once. A pope reiterating another one is not news. It's like if the press announced that we still believe in the resurrection. Nothing new.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 2:48:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 11:24:28 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/7/2015 10:32:31 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/7/2015 10:11:57 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 10/7/2015 10:06:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/7/2015 10:02:58 PM, beng100 wrote:
By doing so he effectively disproves the religion he supposedly heads. It's highly surprising the head of a religion admits it's core teachings are likely to be wrong. In my view religion cannot simply change its mind about something. It shows how illogical religion is. The head of Christianity admitted his religion is no more than a mythical cult movement.

Lol. You apparently know nothing of Catholicism.

Your point is?

It means your winning argument isn't one at all. In fact it was a Catholic Priest who first proposed the Big Bang. The term Big Bang was a term of derision to the theory by an atheist.

How is this in any way relevant to what beng100 wrote? Georges Lemaitre was a priest, astronomer and professor of physics. Fred Hoyle was an atheist (with ID leanings). So what?

He is claiming that the Big Bang nullifies Catholicism and thus by extension Christianity. The Big Bang is in no way contrary to Catholicism, in fact atheists realized how dangerous this was for atheism and how in line with Christianity it was.

beng100 didn't actually make any point. He simply contended that the Big Bang contradicted Catholicism and that the Pope, being the head of Christianity (he got that much right), being in agreement with the theory somehow states that the core teachings of Christianity have been undermined.

beng100 made unsupported assertions and I corrected him on it.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 3:04:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 2:48:46 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/7/2015 11:24:28 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/7/2015 10:32:31 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/7/2015 10:11:57 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 10/7/2015 10:06:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/7/2015 10:02:58 PM, beng100 wrote:
By doing so he effectively disproves the religion he supposedly heads. It's highly surprising the head of a religion admits it's core teachings are likely to be wrong. In my view religion cannot simply change its mind about something. It shows how illogical religion is. The head of Christianity admitted his religion is no more than a mythical cult movement.

Lol. You apparently know nothing of Catholicism.

Your point is?

It means your winning argument isn't one at all. In fact it was a Catholic Priest who first proposed the Big Bang. The term Big Bang was a term of derision to the theory by an atheist.

How is this in any way relevant to what beng100 wrote? Georges Lemaitre was a priest, astronomer and professor of physics. Fred Hoyle was an atheist (with ID leanings). So what?

He is claiming that the Big Bang nullifies Catholicism and thus by extension Christianity.

And it does if any credence is placed on the Bible version of creation. If not, you would have to ask what its purpose was. To mislead?

The Big Bang is in no way contrary to Catholicism, in fact atheists realized how dangerous this was for atheism and how in line with Christianity it was.

Evidence for this assertion?

beng100 didn't actually make any point. He simply contended that the Big Bang contradicted Catholicism and that the Pope, being the head of Christianity (he got that much right), being in agreement with the theory somehow states that the core teachings of Christianity have been undermined.

It's a reasonable point if Genesis has any purpose other than obfuscation.

beng100 made unsupported assertions and I corrected him on it.

I still fail to see how Lemaitre being a Catholic priest and Hoyle being an atheist (kinda) was relevant in any way, shape or form. And you still haven't enlightened us.