Posted by jeepdave Well, for anything to exist, it HAS to be created. So, even if you don't believe in a God, you should still allow for the existence of a creator of some sort. Matter did not spawn into existence like a video game, it had to be made. But from what, and by who/what is a big question.

That's a great point, and one that has been a sticking point for decades. It begs the question, though, which creator? Every religious tradition has a creation myth, and they can't all be true (but they could all be false). One could also raise the question how did the "creator" get here? Neither of these questions is answerable, in my opinion.

Stephen Hawking tackles this thorny issue in his latest book. I have a PDF of it, but I haven't read it yet.

You are correct, in the fact that organized religions have such fallacies. The catholic church is the main one to blame for turning people away from science because of their own special interests of wanting people to blindly follow the church (so the church can gain money and power) instead of following God.

Kind of like socialism/communism and the Soviet Union, with socialism as Christianity (in a broad, philosophical sense), the Soviets as the Catholic church, and Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto as the Bible. I wonder if the Soviets discouraged people from reading Marx, like the church opposed literacy and forbade reading the Bible for fear people would actually understand Christianity.

Posted by Samurai no no no silly... i don't hate god, because god doesn't exist. His fucking minions on the other hand, that is another enchilada entirely... they do bring out the best in me.

I love your Christ but can't stand his Christians. - Ghandi

(not an exact quote but the message is the same.)

Posted by Mr_Fiend The catholic church is the main one to blame for turning people away from science because of their own special interests of wanting people to blindly follow the church (so the church can gain money and power) instead of following God.

Just a few Jesuit priests who would likely disagree with your assessment...

* José de Acosta (1540–1600), one of the first naturalists and anthropologists of the Americas.
* François d'Aguilon-Belgian mathematician and physicist who worked on optics.
* Giuseppe Asclepi-Italian astronomer.
* Joseph Bayma-He did work relating to stereochemistry.
* Giuseppe Biancani-Astronomer and selenographer who wrote Sphaera mundi, seu cosmographia demonstrativa, ac facili methodo tradita
* Bonaventure Berloty-first director of the Ksara Observatory in Lebanon.
* Michel Benoist-Missionary to China and scientist.
* Mario Bettinus-Mathematician and astronomer.
* Jacques de Billy-He wrote on number theory and astronomy.
* Michał Boym-Missionary to China known for botanical and zoological works.
* Roger Joseph Boscovich-Polymath (1711–1787) (17 famous for his atomic theory in part. Also for devising perhaps the first geometric procedure for determining the equator of a rotating planet from three observations of a surface feature and for computing the orbit of a planet from three observations of its position.
* Paolo Casati-Meteorology and speculation on Vacuums.
* Tommaso Ceva-Mathematician and poet who wrote a work on geometry.
* Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955), French Palaeontologist and philosopher involved in the discovery of the so-called Peking Man.
* Christopher Clavius (1538–1612), most noted in connection with the Gregorian calendar, but also his arithmetic books were used by many mathematicians including Leibniz and Descartes.
* Guy Consolmagno (1952-), an astronomer at the Vatican Observatory who has primarily devoted himself to planetary science.
* George V. Coyne (1933-), astronomer whose research interests have been in polarimetric studies of various subjects including Seyfert galaxies.
* Albert Curtz-German astronomer.
* James Cullen (mathematician)-Known for the Cullen numbers.
* Johann Baptist Cysat-He did important research on comets and the Orion nebula.
* Jean-Charles de la Faille-Belgian mathematician.
* Josef Dobrovský-philologist, linguist, slavist and historian. One of most prominent persons in Czech national revival.
* Gyula Fényi-Hungarian astronomer noted for his observations of the Sun.
* José Gabriel Funes-Argentine who currently heads the Vatican Observatory, succeeding George Coyne.
* Christoph Grienberger-Astronomer and mathematician.
* Francesco Maria Grimaldi-He coined the word 'diffraction' and used instruments to measure geological features on the Moon.
* Maximilian Hell-A director of the Vienna Observatory who wrote astronomy tables and observed the Transit of Venus.
* Pierre Marie Heude-French missionary and zoologist.
* Georg Joseph Kamel-Missionary and botanist, the genus Camellia is named for him.
* Athanasius Kircher-In his Scrutinium Pestis of 1658 he noted the presence of "little worms" or "animalcules" in the blood, and concluded that the disease was caused by microorganisms. This is antecedent to germ theory.
* Wenceslas Pantaleon Kirwitzer-Astronomer and missionary to China.
* Franz Xaver Kugler-Most known for his study of cuneiform tablets he was also a chemist.
* Antoine de Laloubère-Mathematician who studied the properties of the helix.
* Eugene Lafont- Founder of the Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science
* Manuel Magri (1851–1907) - Maltese folklorist and archaeologist.
* Charles Malapert-Known for observing the stars of the southern sky and being against Copernicus.
* Paul McNally-American astronomer who was a director of the Georgetown Observatory.
* Christian Mayer-Czech astronomer known for pioneering study of binary stars.
* Juan Ignacio Molina-Chilean ornithologist and a botanist with a Author citation (botany).
* Alexius Sylvius Polonus-Polish astronomer.
* Franz Reinzer-He wrote about comets, meteors, lightning, winds, fossils, metals, etc.
* Vincenzo Riccati-Jesuit mathematician and physicist.
* Matteo Ricci (1552–1610), mathematician, math translator, and noted for importance to the Jesuit China missions.
* Giovanni Battista Riccioli-He wrote several works on astronomy and was the first to note that Mizar was a "double star."
* Giovanni Girolamo Saccheri-A mathematician who was perhaps the first European to write about Non-Euclidean geometry.
* Christoph Scheiner-Astronomer noted for a dispute with Galileo Galilei over the discovery of Sunspots.
* Gaspar Schott-He wrote on various mechanical and scientific topics, example gear, but little original research.
* Angelo Secchi-He discovered the existence of solar spicules and drew an early map of Mars
* Gerolamo Sersale-Selenographer, the crater Sirsalis (crater) is named for him.
* Ignacije Szentmartony-"obtained the title of royal mathematician and astronomer" and used his astronomical knowledge in mapping parts of Brazil
* André Tacquet-His work prepared ground for the eventual discovery of calculus.
* Franz de Paula Triesnecker-Austrian astronomer.
* Theodor Wulf-Among the first experimenters to detect excess atmospheric radiation.
* Niccolo Zucchi-Italian astronomer known for his study of Jupiter and work on telescope design.
* Giovanni Battista Zupi-Italian astronomer who discovered that Mercury had orbital phases.
* Valentin Stansel (1621 – 1705)- Czech astronomer in Brazil, discovered a comet that after accurate positions were made via F. de Gottignies in Goa, became known as Estancel-Gottignies comet.

I'm gonna have to break it out again, aren't I...

**sigh**

221781.jpg (40 kb, 800x600)

Posted by Trixi Just a few Jesuit priests who would likely disagree with your assessment... * José de Acosta (1540–1600), one of the first naturalists and anthropologists of the Americas. * François d'Aguilon-Belgian mathematician and physicist who worked on optics ...

That's all well and good, but it seems like none of them really did anything revolutionary like Galileo or Copernicus. That's just the impression I get. It's not like calculus causes us to re-think our position in the universe like Copernicus.

Did you know the Vatican has its own observatory?

Posted by splumer That's all well and good, but it seems like none of them really did anything revolutionary like Galileo or Copernicus. That's just the impression I get. It's not like calculus causes us to re-think our position in the universe like Copernicus.

The point of the priest-scientist list was to refute what Mr_Fiend stated that the Church "turns people away from science" not to compare their work with that of Copernicus or Galileo.

Did you know the Vatican has its own observatory?

Sure!

Posted by Trixi The point of the priest-scientist list was to refute what Mr_Fiend stated that the Church "turns people away from science" not to compare their work with that of Copernicus or Galileo.

If you think the catholic church has never had alterior motives in keeping their follower in the dark on such matters, then you are severely misinformed.

Even the most secular history books have a lot of history regarding how the catholic church tried to control its followers, or customers as I like to call them.

The catholic church is a corporation, the largest on the planet. Has been for a LONG time. That should tell you what their real intentions are. Hell, they still use priests, of which are totally unbiblical after the resurrection of Christ. But they kept priests anyways because it was a way to keep a hold on people and their money. And they worship that worthless Marry like she was a god, and they somehow believe she and priests can absolve sin. Ha!

Posted by Mr_Fiend If you think the catholic church has never had alterior motives in keeping their follower in the dark on such matters, then you are severely misinformed. Even the most secular history books have a lot of history regarding how the catholic church tried to control its followers, or customers as I like to call them. The catholic church is a corporation, the largest on the planet. Has been for a LONG time. That should tell you what their real intentions are. Hell, they still use priests, of which are totally unbiblical after the resurrection of Christ. But they kept priests anyways because it was a way to keep a hold on people and their money. And they worship that worthless Marry like she was a god, and they somehow believe she and priests can absolve sin. Ha!

My family catholic and you are so completely wrong, that it is laughable. Catholics worship Mary like Jews worship Jesus.

Posted by MonkeyPunchBaby My family catholic and you are so completely wrong,

On which part? The part where catholics must hail Marry after confession, or the part where they must repent to priests to forgive them of sin instead of Jesus?

Posted by Mr_Fiend On which part? The part where catholics must hail Marry after confession, or the part where they must repent to priests to forgive them of sin instead of Jesus?

Mary.

here is an article for you to read


Praying the Hail Mary Like Never Before
EDWARD P. SRI
Catholics sometimes come across slightly defensive, almost embarrassed, about Mary.


When asked by our protestant friends why Catholics worship Mary, we may quickly reply, "We don't worship her; we honor her." When asked why we pray to Mary, we might respond, "We don't pray to her; we ask her to pray for us."

Such "Apologetics 101" moves may express certain truths about Marian devotion and can be very helpful in initial conversations with our non-Catholic brethren. However, if we stop there, we may fail to communicate the full splendor of God's revelation about our Blessed Mother and the beautiful role she plays in our lives.

That was precisely my experience with the Hail Mary.

For many years, whenever I was asked about why Catholics pray the Hail Mary, I explained that it was a prayer in which we ask the mother of Jesus to pray for us. Since Mary is so close to her Son in heaven, she serves as an ideal intercessor whose prayers bring us closer to Jesus. And we seek Mary's intercession just like we ask each other here on earth for prayers, so it should be okay for a Christian to pray the Hail Mary, asking her to "pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death."

While all this is true, it's not the approach pope John Paul II took when explaining the Hail Mary in his apostolic letter Rosarium Virginis Mariae (RVM). For John Paul II, the Hail Mary is not just an intercessory prayer that is permissible for Christians to recite; it's actually a Christ-centered prayer that gives Jesus great praise. If we truly love Jesus, we as Christians should want to pray this prayer!

In this short article, we will consider John Paul II's reflections on the Hail Mary and how they can transform the way we pray this prayer and lead us to deeper intimacy with Jesus each time we recite it.



Put Yourself in Gabriel's Shoes


Do you realize that every time you recite the Hail Mary, you are repeating these famous words of Gabriel and Elizabeth? And in doing so, you enter into the ecstatic joy of "heaven and earth" over the mystery of Christ: heaven, represented by Gabriel, and earth, represented by Elizabeth.


First, John Paul II explains that although the Hail Mary is addressed to Our Lady, "it is to Jesus that the act of love is ultimately directed" (RVM, no. 26). When expounding on this prayer, he divides the Hail Mary into two halves. In an amazing statement, John Paul II notes how the words from the first half of the Hail Mary express "the wonder of heaven and earth" over the mystery of Christ in the womb of the Virgin Mary (RVM, no. 33).

Let's consider what he means about "the wonder of heaven and earth" in the Hail Mary. The first line -- "Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee" -- is drawn right from the angel Gabriel's words to Our Lady in the Annunciation scene (Lk. 1:28). to more fully appreciate the meaning of this opening line in the Hail Mary, imagine what these words originally meant to the Archangel Gabriel. Gabriel is an angel who existed long before Mary did. Gabriel has been around a lot longer than the nation of Israel or the entire human family. In fact, Gabriel was there when God first created the world. From the beginning of his existence, Gabriel has been worshipping, adoring, and loving the infinite, almighty God, the Creator: the Blessed Trinity.

And now, this great angel is sent to a little planet in the universe called earth . . . to a small, insignificant village called Nazareth . . . to a tiny little creature, a woman named Mary -- in order to announce to her that the all-holy, all-powerful God he has been worshipping from the beginning of his existence is about to become a little baby in her womb. In awe over that profound mystery of his eternal God becoming a little embryo in Mary's womb, Gabriel greets Mary saying, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Lk. 1:28). Indeed, the Lord has not been with anyone like He is about to be with Mary. In joyful wonder, Gabriel recognizes this, and his words give praise to God for becoming man in her.



Joining Heaven and Earth

Similarly, Elizabeth greets Mary with great honor. The biblical account of the Visitation tells us that Elizabeth was "filled with the Holy Spirit" (Lk. 1:41), which indicates that she was given prophetic insight. Before Mary has a chance to say anything about her own pregnancy, Elizabeth already knows. And she knows Mary is pregnant not with any ordinary child, but with the Lord Himself. In wonder over this mystery of God becoming man in Mary, Elizabeth exclaims, "blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!" like Gabriel, Elizabeth's words give praise to God for the Incarnation.

Do you realize that every time you recite the Hail Mary, you are repeating these famous words of Gabriel and Elizabeth? And in doing so, you enter into the ecstatic joy of "heaven and earth" over the mystery of Christ: heaven, represented by Gabriel, and earth, represented by Elizabeth. Both come together to praise God for becoming man in Jesus Christ, the child conceived in Mary's womb. And we join in that praise of God every time we pray the Hail Mary. Indeed, the Hail Mary is truly a Christ-centered prayer!



God's Own Wonderment

Furthermore, since these words of Gabriel and Elizabeth are from the inspired Word of God in Scripture, they also represent God's own response to the mystery of the Christ. Hence, whenever we repeat these words in the Hail Mary, we participate in God's joy over the Incarnation. As John Paul II explains, "These words . . . could be said to give us a glimpse of God's own wonderment as he contemplates his ‘masterpiece' -- the Incarnation of the Son in the womb of the Virgin Mary. . . . The repetition of the Hail Mary . . . gives us a share in God's own wonder and pleasure: In jubilant amazement we acknowledge the greatest miracle of history" (RVM, no. 33).

The second half of the Hail Mary also is focused on Jesus. Here, we entrust our lives to Mary's intercession, asking her to "pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death."

As a model disciple of Christ, who said "yes" to God's will all throughout her life -- from the time when Gabriel first appeared to her all the way to the Cross -- Mary is the ideal person to be interceding for us through the many trials and struggles we face in our lives. We ask her to pray for us, so that we may follow God faithfully like she did. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, "She prays for us as she prayed for herself: ‘let it be to me according to your word.' by entrusting ourselves to her prayer, we abandon ourselves to the will of God together with her: ‘Thy will be done'" (no. 2677).



The Language of Love


A friend of mine says we should treat the name of Jesus in the Hail Mary like a speed bump -- something for which we slow down and pay extra attention when we come to it.


Finally, we see just how Christ-centered the Hail Mary is when we come to what John Paul II calls "the hinge" of this prayer: the holy name of Jesus. Not only is the name of Jesus the hinge that binds the two halves together, but it is truly meant to be the "center of gravity" of the entire Hail Mary.

This should encourage us to examine how we pray the Hail Mary: Is Jesus' name truly "the center of gravity" of our prayer? Do we treat the name of Jesus with extra care and speak His name with love when we recite the Hail Mary?

John Paul II notes how emphasis should be given to the name of Jesus in this prayer. However, if we pray the Hail Mary too quickly, we may not give the proper reverence and loving attention to Jesus' name that we should. "Sometimes, in hurried recitation, this centre of gravity can be overlooked" (RVM, no. 33). A friend of mine says we should treat the name of Jesus in the Hail Mary like a speed bump -- something for which we slow down and pay extra attention when we come to it.

Another analogy might be taken from the language of love. Lke a lover tenderly speaking the name of one's beloved, we should speak the name of Jesus in this prayer. Indeed, with each Hail Mary, we should affectionately repeat the name of our bridegroom -- "blessed is the fruit of thy womb . . . Jesus" -- so that the holy name of Jesus, spoken with tender love, truly becomes the heartbeat of every Hail Mary we pray.

Posted by MonkeyPunchBaby Since Mary is so close to her Son in heaven, she serves as an ideal intercessor whose prayers bring us closer to Jesus.

Wow, thats the most defense of religious propaganda I've read in a long time. Marry was just a person, thats ALL. She was just a vessel for Jesus, Marry cant help you now, shes DEAD! Her prayers are no different than anyone else. Thats also where catholics are wrong, prayers wont get you to heaven, only your acceptance of Jesus will. Salvation by works, thats the catholic way...

Joseph was a fucking trooper... "Oh and while you were gone on a business trip, god came here, immaculately fuckeroo'd me and gave me a kid. Isn't that nice?"

Um, what?
sssssuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...

Posted by Mr_Fiend Wow, thats the most defense of religious propaganda I've read in a long time. Marry was just a person, thats ALL. She was just a vessel for Jesus, Marry cant help you now, shes DEAD! Her prayers are no different than anyone else. Thats also where catholics are wrong, prayers wont get you to heaven, only your acceptance of Jesus will. Salvation by works, thats the catholic way...

I find it more and more difficult to believe that you are not joking.

Posted by MutantMandias I find it more and more difficult to believe that you are not joking.

You know me, always shootin the shit just to ruffle feathers for my own sick amusement

Posted by Mr_Fiend On which part? The part where catholics must hail Marry after confession, or the part where they must repent to priests to forgive them of sin instead of Jesus?

Both. Where do you get the idea that Catholics must say the "Hail, Mary" prayer after confession?

More on the priests role in confession here:
http://www.catholi...veness_of_Sins.asp

Excerpt:

"For sins committed after baptism, a different sacrament is needed. It has been called penance, confession, and reconciliation, each word emphasizing one of its.aspects. During his life, Christ forgave sins, as in the case of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1–11) and the woman who anointed his feet (Luke 7:48). He exercised this power in his human capacity as the Messiah or Son of man, telling us, "the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Matt. 9:6), which is why the Gospel writer himself explains that God "had given such authority to men" (Matt. 9:8).

Since he would not always be with the Church visibly, Christ gave this power to other men so the Church, which is the continuation of his presence throughout time (Matt. 28:20), would be able to offer forgiveness to future generations. He gave his power to the apostles, and it was a power that could be passed on to their successors and agents, since the apostles wouldn’t always be on earth either, but people would still be sinning.

God had sent Jesus to forgive sins, but after his resurrection Jesus told the apostles, "‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’" (John 20:21–23). (This is one of only two times we are told that God breathed on man, the other being in Genesis 2:7, when he made man a living soul. It emphasizes how important the establishment of the sacrament of penance was.)"

Posted by Mr_Fiend Thats also where catholics are wrong, prayers wont get you to heaven, only your acceptance of Jesus will. Salvation by works, thats the catholic way...

Prayers will not get you into heaven and no Catholic would tell you otherwise, nor will good works alone:

James 2:18-24:
18 Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.
19 You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.
20 Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.
23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God."
24 See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Damn. I guess it's over.

Scientific American Magazine » April 2005
http://www.scienti...id=okay-we-give-up

Okay, We Give Up
We feel so ashamed
By The Editors | April 1, 2005 | 40


There's no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there's no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.

In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of so-called evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it. Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.

Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.

Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions.

Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of how science should inform policy. If the government commits blindly to building an anti-ICBM defense system that can't work as promised, that will waste tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars and imperil national security, you won't hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the administration's antipollution measures would actually increase the dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two decades, that's not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect science either-so what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed? This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools' Day.