23 of 26
23
Is Atheism doomed to extinction?
Posted: 20 November 2012 05:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 331 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
George - 19 November 2012 09:06 AM

I like ariel. He clearly demonstrates how overrated education is. Except for a few mistakes here and there (e.g., “1800’s” is wrong, as it should have no apostrophe: i.e., “1800s”) his writing is very good. So even though you can teach a person how to read and write, you can’t teach him how to remain sane. Maybe we are making a mistake insisting that everybody should know how to read and write.

“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”
- Prof. Stephen W. Hawking

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 November 2012 07:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 332 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  71
Joined  2012-11-13
Write4U - 20 November 2012 05:30 AM
George - 19 November 2012 09:06 AM

I like ariel. He clearly demonstrates how overrated education is. Except for a few mistakes here and there (e.g., “1800’s” is wrong, as it should have no apostrophe: i.e., “1800s”) his writing is very good. So even though you can teach a person how to read and write, you can’t teach him how to remain sane. Maybe we are making a mistake insisting that everybody should know how to read and write.

“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”
- Prof. Stephen W. Hawking

The great stupidity of atheists is making judgments about spiritual reality without having any spiritual experience.
-Prof. Steve

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 November 2012 07:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 333 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  123
Joined  2012-11-15

Why is the Star Trek universe full of spiritual humanoid species? And many of them even developed warp drive. If the predictions of the 21st-century Earth atheists were correct, there should be no more religion and spirituality after stardate 46379.1, right? Yet strangely enough Worf keeps talking about Kortar and QI’tu, and joining Kahless. And both atheists and theists enjoy the show, some even take the effort to learn Klingon. Amazing.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 November 2012 08:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 334 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4376
Joined  2007-08-31
arielmessenger - 20 November 2012 07:36 AM

The great stupidity of atheists is making judgments about spiritual reality without having any spiritual experience.

That is not true for everybody…

The great stupidity of anybody is to make sweeping generalisations about people who think otherwise, be it theists or atheists.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 November 2012 08:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 335 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9284
Joined  2006-08-29
arielmessenger - 20 November 2012 07:36 AM
Write4U - 20 November 2012 05:30 AM
George - 19 November 2012 09:06 AM

I like ariel. He clearly demonstrates how overrated education is. Except for a few mistakes here and there (e.g., “1800’s” is wrong, as it should have no apostrophe: i.e., “1800s”) his writing is very good. So even though you can teach a person how to read and write, you can’t teach him how to remain sane. Maybe we are making a mistake insisting that everybody should know how to read and write.

“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”
- Prof. Stephen W. Hawking

The great stupidity of atheists is making judgments about spiritual reality without having any spiritual experience.
-Prof. Steve

A psychiatrist treating a mental disorder doesn’t need to be mentally ill himself.
—Prof. George, PhD

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 November 2012 08:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 336 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  15
Joined  2012-09-13

Is Atheism doomed to extinction?
Though it may be a fact that it is the fastest growing religion (referred to in the media - I would call it a belief system), most atheists I know have few or no children, while religious people are having them by the dozens.  Added to this is my personal belief that science is at a point where faith and belief are playing a much larger role.  300 years ago there were laws, 100 years ago they became theories, currently most of it is hypothesis with the future looking more and more like wide held beliefs and then faith.

I don’t think it’s doomed at all. I certainly wouldn’t call it a religion or a belief system. I’m assuming that you are not an Atheist, but I’m not quite sure of what creed you are. I would be very interested to know as this will help hone my discussion with you. Atheism is not a belief system. It is simply a way of life whereby there is no God: no use, no need; no evidence for. We live mostly morally sound lives like everyone else - we simply don’t need the prime “benevolent” dictator in order to allow us to live such lives.
I have to completely disagree with this notion of faith and belief as roles, at all, in science. You seem to be making a case for the reversal of science. It started with hypotheses, which progressed into theories, which then were turned into laws. When ‘law’ is said in science, by the way, it doesn’t mean to say “there is no challenging and this is the way it is for certain, forever.” That’s the kind of thing religions say. Science starts out with ideas and builds evidence for those ideas. All you seem to be concerned with are these new hypotheses coming out about the universe and how it is made and out of what and so on (actually not all that new at all). These are hypotheses and theories because scientists are still accumulating evidences for them. A scientific law is simply a far more complex, structurally sound, by way of vast quantities of evidence, theory. And we still have scientific laws today that haven’t changed for some time, and we will continue to find new evidence to back up or refute these laws. I’m no scientist or even a student of science and I grasp this quite easily. Science is based on evidence. Religion is based on faith and belief.

Furthermore, I also see science facing what seems to be several impassable walls
1)We have now seen as far as we ever will see in the universe and every question seems to just lead to more questions which can never be answered (I think it’s called the hubble bubble) Which cannot yet be answered. There is no certainty to our ability to be able to answer or not answer any one thing.

2) We have also seen as small as we will ever see - we will likely never build a larger Hadron collider - leading only to guesses and speculation (yes I know they’re using the entire universe as a LHC but how could you ever have controlled results?) And perhaps that is as small as there is. We’re not sure. We may never know, but I’m unsure how this discredits science by any means.

3) The credibility in science is in jeopardy as any one can check out youtube and see Stephen Hawkings get his intellectual butt kicked by Leo Susskind, or have just about any current theory presented by a Phd and challenged by another Phd.  How can there be a concensus? I have not yet, but will endeavour to find the video you’ve mentioned here, but I can’t yet comment on it.

4) Science is getting crazier and crazier
- Notions of singularities condencing a billion times the matter of the entire universe into an electron sized particle, annialating 99.9999999 of it in a trillionth of a second sound crazier then a bible story
- quintillions upon quintillions of other, unprovable universes existing just to explain the extreme fine tuning of ours.  Lame - this does a huge discredit to science I invite you to look up old (now exploded) scientific theories such as the Phlogiston Theory. And even look up theories that were considered cray when they began and are now rooted in a deep foundation of evidence. There are plenty on both sides and that is the joy of science. You can claim anything, but it will only progress if you have the evidence to back it up. This is why the scientific method is so important to us and also the reason why religions have sought to dissuade and, at times, destroy the notion of the scientific method.
Besides these plights which science has to contend with is my belief that sceptism is becoming sciences worst enemy. Skepticism can never be sciences worst enemy. It has always been and will always be its closest friend for, I think, obvious reasons. Skepticism is part of what allows the scientific method to work. It is also what allows us to debunk ridiculous notions like astrology, from which we now have astronomy – thanks to skepticism.
While I would like to say I believe in evolution I find some fundamental flaws in it due to sceptism.

1)  Why advocate the theory of evolution, but not promote the completely logical notion of higher evolved beings?  By not promoting it evolutionists appear to be hiding something, they seem to be defensive or just plain ignorant.  Why say that we could create a monkey cage in six days but hide from the idea that a higher evolved being could create our cage in six days?  I’m not saying it did - just saying why couldn’t it?  And why spend so much energy trying to dismiss it?? Here is a colossal error. Science doesn’t spend its time ignoring highly evolved beings. In fact, you could easily youtube Richard Dawkins giving a case for the creation of the Earth, basically saying that: if we were created, it is possible we were seeded here by higher evolved beings from elsewhere. But this does not, in any way, argue for a god, which Dawkins goes on to say. Because a god is not an evolved being: a god just is. There is no evolution there. Perhaps a higher evolved being did create our cage in six days, but if so, this being is not a god. There’s nothing hidden in that, I’m pretty sure.

2) While I completely understand the notion of survival of the fitest, I can’t see why a molicule would want survive -let alone 6.4 billion of them want to line up extremely specifically in 60 trillion different cells in our body.  Call me stupid - but you can’t get a million Phds to line up specifically, let alone trillions of non-intellegent specks – You sort of answer your own question here by comparing a million Phds and trillions of “non-intelligent” specks. Phds function on more than just a simple series of biological commands. They still do function on those commands, but they also contemplate social issues, religion, science and so on. A trillion, non-intelligent, specks simply function on basic biological commands. Think of these specs as MS Dos (actually an even earlier OS…not even an OS, think of them as binary – a simple computation language), and think of homo-sapiens as the latest Windows OS. 

3) If you believe in evolution you need to believe we will evolve out of the concept of it.  Just as our brain evolved out of an protazoa - future intellegence -(if there is such a thing) will have no use for our primordial concepts I’m not sure I get what you mean here. Evolution is the process by which we grow and adapt and progress. If we could evolve past the needing the theory of evolution we would have evolved to that point and would continue to evolve so we would still be evolving so in what way have we evolved past evolving?

4) There are 60 trillion cells in the human body. Each cell has billions if not trillions of parts and functions.  No reasonable person would say that paris or new york just happen without design.  How can a reasonable person say 60 trillion paris’s just happen?  Yes I know fractals - another lame answer that will do more harm than good to science. Well, I mean, here’s the thing: cells don’t just happen. They come from other cells, they divide and multiply and no, we don’t know how exactly everything came to be, and we may never know, but what we have now and what we continue to search for, simply based on the evidence alone, is far superior to the notion that some being that always existed simply created everything in six days and here we are. That is preposterous in a most sincere way. It is also incredibly defeatist. As DarronS posted: Ah yes, the usual theist screed. “Science is too hard and makes my brain hurt, therefore God.”

So let me know what you think - I like most atheist as you seem to be pretty smart people, with a desire to know and a good sence of fairness.
Thanks
Patrick

I hope this message wasn’t to picky about anything. I’m always interested in discussing with people of faith.

 Signature 

Question every angle, Study every angle, Research every angle

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 November 2012 12:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 337 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2799
Joined  2011-11-04
George - 20 November 2012 08:04 AM
arielmessenger - 20 November 2012 07:36 AM
Write4U - 20 November 2012 05:30 AM
George - 19 November 2012 09:06 AM

I like ariel. He clearly demonstrates how overrated education is. Except for a few mistakes here and there (e.g., “1800’s” is wrong, as it should have no apostrophe: i.e., “1800s”) his writing is very good. So even though you can teach a person how to read and write, you can’t teach him how to remain sane. Maybe we are making a mistake insisting that everybody should know how to read and write.

“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”
- Prof. Stephen W. Hawking

The great stupidity of atheists is making judgments about spiritual reality without having any spiritual experience.
-Prof. Steve

A psychiatrist treating a mental disorder doesn’t need to be mentally ill himself.
—Prof. George, PhD

True, but it might be helpful to have experienced temporary insanity as part of their training, so as to be better able to empathise with their patients.  I think that budding psychiatrists (who are not prone to mental illness themselves, if there are such creatures) should be required to have supervised LSD trips as part of their training.)

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 November 2012 06:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 338 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  101
Joined  2010-12-02
GeneralHeresy - 20 November 2012 08:37 AM

Is Atheism doomed to extinction?
Though it may be a fact that it is the fastest growing religion (referred to in the media - I would call it a belief system), most atheists I know have few or no children, while religious people are having them by the dozens.  Added to this is my personal belief that science is at a point where faith and belief are playing a much larger role.  300 years ago there were laws, 100 years ago they became theories, currently most of it is hypothesis with the future looking more and more like wide held beliefs and then faith.

I don’t think it’s doomed at all. I certainly wouldn’t call it a religion or a belief system. I’m assuming that you are not an Atheist, but I’m not quite sure of what creed you are. I would be very interested to know as this will help hone my discussion with you. Atheism is not a belief system. It is simply a way of life whereby there is no God: no use, no need; no evidence for. We live mostly morally sound lives like everyone else - we simply don’t need the prime “benevolent” dictator in order to allow us to live such lives.
I have to completely disagree with this notion of faith and belief as roles, at all, in science. You seem to be making a case for the reversal of science. It started with hypotheses, which progressed into theories, which then were turned into laws. When ‘law’ is said in science, by the way, it doesn’t mean to say “there is no challenging and this is the way it is for certain, forever.” That’s the kind of thing religions say. Science starts out with ideas and builds evidence for those ideas. All you seem to be concerned with are these new hypotheses coming out about the universe and how it is made and out of what and so on (actually not all that new at all). These are hypotheses and theories because scientists are still accumulating evidences for them. A scientific law is simply a far more complex, structurally sound, by way of vast quantities of evidence, theory. And we still have scientific laws today that haven’t changed for some time, and we will continue to find new evidence to back up or refute these laws. I’m no scientist or even a student of science and I grasp this quite easily. Science is based on evidence. Religion is based on faith and belief.

Furthermore, I also see science facing what seems to be several impassable walls
1)We have now seen as far as we ever will see in the universe and every question seems to just lead to more questions which can never be answered (I think it’s called the hubble bubble) Which cannot yet be answered. There is no certainty to our ability to be able to answer or not answer any one thing.

2) We have also seen as small as we will ever see - we will likely never build a larger Hadron collider - leading only to guesses and speculation (yes I know they’re using the entire universe as a LHC but how could you ever have controlled results?) And perhaps that is as small as there is. We’re not sure. We may never know, but I’m unsure how this discredits science by any means.

3) The credibility in science is in jeopardy as any one can check out youtube and see Stephen Hawkings get his intellectual butt kicked by Leo Susskind, or have just about any current theory presented by a Phd and challenged by another Phd.  How can there be a concensus? I have not yet, but will endeavour to find the video you’ve mentioned here, but I can’t yet comment on it.

4) Science is getting crazier and crazier
- Notions of singularities condencing a billion times the matter of the entire universe into an electron sized particle, annialating 99.9999999 of it in a trillionth of a second sound crazier then a bible story
- quintillions upon quintillions of other, unprovable universes existing just to explain the extreme fine tuning of ours.  Lame - this does a huge discredit to science I invite you to look up old (now exploded) scientific theories such as the Phlogiston Theory. And even look up theories that were considered cray when they began and are now rooted in a deep foundation of evidence. There are plenty on both sides and that is the joy of science. You can claim anything, but it will only progress if you have the evidence to back it up. This is why the scientific method is so important to us and also the reason why religions have sought to dissuade and, at times, destroy the notion of the scientific method.
Besides these plights which science has to contend with is my belief that sceptism is becoming sciences worst enemy. Skepticism can never be sciences worst enemy. It has always been and will always be its closest friend for, I think, obvious reasons. Skepticism is part of what allows the scientific method to work. It is also what allows us to debunk ridiculous notions like astrology, from which we now have astronomy – thanks to skepticism.
While I would like to say I believe in evolution I find some fundamental flaws in it due to sceptism.

1)  Why advocate the theory of evolution, but not promote the completely logical notion of higher evolved beings?  By not promoting it evolutionists appear to be hiding something, they seem to be defensive or just plain ignorant.  Why say that we could create a monkey cage in six days but hide from the idea that a higher evolved being could create our cage in six days?  I’m not saying it did - just saying why couldn’t it?  And why spend so much energy trying to dismiss it?? Here is a colossal error. Science doesn’t spend its time ignoring highly evolved beings. In fact, you could easily youtube Richard Dawkins giving a case for the creation of the Earth, basically saying that: if we were created, it is possible we were seeded here by higher evolved beings from elsewhere. But this does not, in any way, argue for a god, which Dawkins goes on to say. Because a god is not an evolved being: a god just is. There is no evolution there. Perhaps a higher evolved being did create our cage in six days, but if so, this being is not a god. There’s nothing hidden in that, I’m pretty sure.

2) While I completely understand the notion of survival of the fitest, I can’t see why a molicule would want survive -let alone 6.4 billion of them want to line up extremely specifically in 60 trillion different cells in our body.  Call me stupid - but you can’t get a million Phds to line up specifically, let alone trillions of non-intellegent specks – You sort of answer your own question here by comparing a million Phds and trillions of “non-intelligent” specks. Phds function on more than just a simple series of biological commands. They still do function on those commands, but they also contemplate social issues, religion, science and so on. A trillion, non-intelligent, specks simply function on basic biological commands. Think of these specs as MS Dos (actually an even earlier OS…not even an OS, think of them as binary – a simple computation language), and think of homo-sapiens as the latest Windows OS. 

3) If you believe in evolution you need to believe we will evolve out of the concept of it.  Just as our brain evolved out of an protazoa - future intellegence -(if there is such a thing) will have no use for our primordial concepts I’m not sure I get what you mean here. Evolution is the process by which we grow and adapt and progress. If we could evolve past the needing the theory of evolution we would have evolved to that point and would continue to evolve so we would still be evolving so in what way have we evolved past evolving?

4) There are 60 trillion cells in the human body. Each cell has billions if not trillions of parts and functions.  No reasonable person would say that paris or new york just happen without design.  How can a reasonable person say 60 trillion paris’s just happen?  Yes I know fractals - another lame answer that will do more harm than good to science. Well, I mean, here’s the thing: cells don’t just happen. They come from other cells, they divide and multiply and no, we don’t know how exactly everything came to be, and we may never know, but what we have now and what we continue to search for, simply based on the evidence alone, is far superior to the notion that some being that always existed simply created everything in six days and here we are. That is preposterous in a most sincere way. It is also incredibly defeatist. As DarronS posted: Ah yes, the usual theist screed. “Science is too hard and makes my brain hurt, therefore God.”

So let me know what you think - I like most atheist as you seem to be pretty smart people, with a desire to know and a good sence of fairness.
Thanks
Patrick

I hope this message wasn’t to picky about anything. I’m always interested in discussing with people of faith.

Even though I might be described as a person of faith, I feel I have no faith, I see every particle as evidence of a creator - there’s simply too much we give to chance- for it to be - just chance.  I’m also a father of small children who usually pull at my arms while I’m on the computer.  I will try and give a proper response when time allows.  Incidently, I like your signature - I question absolutely everything including the notion of questioning

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 November 2012 06:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 339 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  101
Joined  2010-12-02
dansmith62 - 18 November 2012 06:12 AM
sobpatrick - 15 November 2012 02:09 PM

Personally I hope atheism doesn’t go away (I know it wont) but I do wish each atheist was lucky enough to experience at least one supernatural occurrence in their life.  Having experienced two (one with another witness) I can say first hand that it changes everything.

I also hope atheism doesn’t go away. Without atheism, Christianity would have remained stuck in a 13th century mindset full of evil witches and an angry God. One reason why modern mainstream Islam is so backward is that it cannot handle atheism. If a Muslim wants to become an atheist this might get him or her killed. If a 21st-century Christian wants to become an atheist, this might result in a few disappointed Christians. I know that atheists don’t want to hear this, but the Age of Enlightenment, humanism, atheism and the formation of secular states are all offspring of the Judeo-Christian tradition. And even though it had taken many centuries and a lot of suffering, the Catholic Church finally embraced the heliocentric model and the science of evolution. It was in fact a Catholic priest who first suggested a big bang universe. So much for one good schoolmaster being more use than 100 priests. I’d say one excellent priest is more use than 100 good schoolmasters. Mendel is another good example.

Now not all Christians think and feel the same. To me the experience of a supernatural occurrence in one’s life is symbolic description of an unusual event probably involving the vast powers of the unconscious mind.

I think many forget that the major contibutors to the sceintific revolution were mainly educated by priests and for the most part, very religious.  Anyhow - not that I have much time to add fuel to the fire but ask yourself the question - if china had steel, gunpower and printing centuries before europe why didn’t they experience the scientific and/or industrial revolution?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 November 2012 06:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 340 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  15
Joined  2012-09-13

Even though I might be described as a person of faith, I feel I have no faith, I see every particle as evidence of a creator - there’s simply too much we give to chance- for it to be - just chance.  I’m also a father of small children who usually pull at my arms while I’m on the computer.  I will try and give a proper response when time allows.  Incidently, I like your signature - I question absolutely everything including the notion of questioning

I understand what you mean, but I don’t believe those working in the field of science would call it chance. They admit there is plenty they don’t know about a lot of things, but what they do know is discovered by accumulated evidence, not chance.

Please take all the time you need. Family comes first.

Thank you very much. I think it’s very important, even to question the notion of questioning, which can tend to be rather difficult very often.

 Signature 

Question every angle, Study every angle, Research every angle

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 November 2012 06:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 341 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2799
Joined  2011-11-04
sobpatrick - 20 November 2012 06:23 PM
dansmith62 - 18 November 2012 06:12 AM
sobpatrick - 15 November 2012 02:09 PM

Personally I hope atheism doesn’t go away (I know it wont) but I do wish each atheist was lucky enough to experience at least one supernatural occurrence in their life.  Having experienced two (one with another witness) I can say first hand that it changes everything.

I also hope atheism doesn’t go away. Without atheism, Christianity would have remained stuck in a 13th century mindset full of evil witches and an angry God. One reason why modern mainstream Islam is so backward is that it cannot handle atheism. If a Muslim wants to become an atheist this might get him or her killed. If a 21st-century Christian wants to become an atheist, this might result in a few disappointed Christians. I know that atheists don’t want to hear this, but the Age of Enlightenment, humanism, atheism and the formation of secular states are all offspring of the Judeo-Christian tradition. And even though it had taken many centuries and a lot of suffering, the Catholic Church finally embraced the heliocentric model and the science of evolution. It was in fact a Catholic priest who first suggested a big bang universe. So much for one good schoolmaster being more use than 100 priests. I’d say one excellent priest is more use than 100 good schoolmasters. Mendel is another good example.

Now not all Christians think and feel the same. To me the experience of a supernatural occurrence in one’s life is symbolic description of an unusual event probably involving the vast powers of the unconscious mind.

I think many forget that the major contibutors to the sceintific revolution were mainly educated by priests and for the most part, very religious.  Anyhow - not that I have much time to add fuel to the fire but ask yourself the question - if china had steel, gunpower and printing centuries before europe why didn’t they experience the scientific and/or industrial revolution?

The scientific revolution could have come earlier in Europe (EXCEPT FOR THE CHURCH).  Copernicus got his ideas from elsewhere, long before he published that the universe does not revolve around the Earth.  It was only at his death that the publication came out, as he was in fear of the Church branding him as a heretic.

And mercantilism pressed forward the field of astronomy, not religion.

[ Edited: 20 November 2012 06:50 PM by TimB ]
 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 November 2012 06:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 342 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4622
Joined  2007-10-05
TimB - 20 November 2012 06:47 PM

The scientific revolution could have come earlier in Europe (EXCEPT FOR THE CHURCH).  Copernicus got his ideas from elsewhere, long before he published that the universe does not revolve around the Earth.  It was only at his death that the publication came out, as he was in fear of the Church branding him as a heretic.

Like what the Catholic Church did to Giordano Bruno?

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 November 2012 07:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 343 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2799
Joined  2011-11-04
DarronS - 20 November 2012 06:50 PM
TimB - 20 November 2012 06:47 PM

The scientific revolution could have come earlier in Europe (EXCEPT FOR THE CHURCH).  Copernicus got his ideas from elsewhere, long before he published that the universe does not revolve around the Earth.  It was only at his death that the publication came out, as he was in fear of the Church branding him as a heretic.

Like what the Catholic Church did to Giordano Bruno?

Right.  Relgion, spirtuality, and other sorts of superstitious hogwash did not create the scientific revolution in Europe.  It was a strong opponent and impediment.  The religious, Godly-inspired folks of the time, murdered Bruno for suggesting that the sun is a star.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 November 2012 07:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 344 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2799
Joined  2011-11-04

“He who desires to philosophise must first of all doubt all things. He must not assume a position in a debate before he has listened to the various opinions, and considered and compared the reasons for and against. He must never judge or take up a position on the evidence of what he has heard, on the opinion of the majority, the age, merits, or prestige of the speaker concerned, but he must proceed according to the persuasion of an organic doctrine which adheres to real things, and to a truth that can be understood by the light of reason.”  Giordano Bruni, 1591

Apparently, such ideas are a threat to what the Catholic Church, even today, believes was “the freedom and common good” of the people of Bruno’s time.

In the year 2000, 400 years after the Catholic Church murdered Giordano Bruni, Cardinal Angelo Sodano declared Bruno’s death to be a “sad episode” but, despite his regret, he defended Bruno’s prosecutors, maintaining that the Inquisitors “had the desire to serve freedom and promote the common good and did everything possible to save his life.” (edited quote from Wikipedia)

[ Edited: 20 November 2012 07:35 PM by TimB ]
 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 November 2012 11:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 345 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4376
Joined  2007-08-31

Giordano Bruno was burned because of his theological ideas.

The numerous charges against Bruno, based on some of his books as well as on witness accounts, included blasphemy, immoral conduct, and heresy in matters of dogmatic theology, and involved some of the basic doctrines of his philosophy and cosmology. Luigi Firpo lists these charges made against Bruno by the Roman Inquisition:

  holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith and speaking against it and its ministers;
  holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about the Trinity, divinity of Christ, and Incarnation;
  holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith pertaining to Jesus as Christ;
  holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith regarding the virginity of Mary, mother of Jesus;
  holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about both Transubstantiation and Mass;
  claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity;
  believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes, and;
  dealing in magics and divination.

And:

Yates writes that while “nineteenth century liberals” were thrown “into ecstasies” over Bruno’s Copernicanism, “Bruno pushes Copernicus’ scientific work back into a prescientific stage, back into Hermetism, interpreting the Copernican diagram as a hieroglyph of divine mysteries.

From Wikipedia.

Even science needs martyrs…

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
   
23 of 26
23