While religion has been misused as an excuse by some to justify their behavior, this does not necessarily fault the religion. It's ironic that you disparage the very thing whose principles afford you free speech.
While we may not be in agreement on this issue, to fault a religion because of the actions of a few of its followers is a logical fallacy (ad hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem). At the very least we should refrain from being derogatory and voice our disagreements politely.
Religion helped bring about science. It was belief in God that drove man to find order in the universe, and early science was funded by the Church (Newton, Galileo, etc). Not to mention the Church founded scientific institutions.
Also, from religion you get the concepts of the equality of men before the law and such things as the Emancipation Proclamation, etc. Don't fault the message for the messenger. That's an ad hominem.
If the case against religion were so clear cut, there wouldn't be over a billion Catholics. Take the time to research Catholicism from both sides of the issue. Secular Slashdot and the news media aren't going to give you a balanced view.
was in a emotional or financial situation where bringing a baby to term would cause her undue stress,... she could put the child up for adoption. there are millions of families out there who would do anything to adopt a new born child and help the woman in this situation.
because before 3 months, what i was inside my mother was not me, and was not alive in any human sense it's interesting to see how the pro-choice side can't make up their minds as to when an unborn child is indeed a child. look at some of the legislature going through unopposed by the pro-choice crowd and you'll see some pretty bad stuff.
it all comes down to whether you believe in the soul or not (taboo for Slashdot I know, but you started it). if you believe in the soul, the question becomes one of when the soul is imparted to the body http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp
destroying an unborn child is another form of homicide.
Bruno's crimes were more profound than teaching an alternative cosmology. He taught a humanist, materialistic pantheism, which was rather incoherent. He was a defiant critic of many ecclesiastical doctrines. After rejecting Catholicism, he joined Calvinism, but was excommunicated by them and ejected from Geneva, appearantly because of his outspoken defiance of Church authority in Geneva too.
He was a humanist who published what he considered humorous works but others found them to be obscene. In 1584 he published "The Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast", which was not about cosmology, but an attack on the Catholic Church.
In 1587, he was excommunicated by the Lutherans in Germany. Seems this guy couldn't get along with anybody.
In 1591, he went to Venice (not too bright, either), and was tried before the Inquisition (not for his Copernican views, however). He was inprisoned for 6 years. After haven been given several terms in which to retract his heretical teachings, he was handed over to the secular authorities. They executed him.
Yeah, it's called warm behinds sitting in catholic church pews, people flocking (pun intended) to see him, etc This has nothing to do with your original premise that they consult the Pope on scientific matters.
Instead of offering proof of your original assertion, you instead continue to make derogatory statements about a man who has done you no
wrong.
You are free to disagree with anyone, but there is no need to be unkind.
It's not as simple as that. The pope wanted to come, make a speech and leave. No questions allowed, no debate. The physicists wanted to be able to respond and have a proper debate on his stance on scientific issues in general if he was to come at all. is that really why? do you have a source?
This has cause a big stir because, in general, the Italian political system is completely captive to the Vatican. Every day the media reports any move of word of the pope no matter how minor. Any talk show always has at least a priest as a guest. The church has huge properties and pays no taxes.
Every day the media is going to follow something. In Italy it's the Vatican, in the US it's some pop star. I'd argue you're better off.
Why should the Vatican pay taxes on land that it owns? They're sovereign.
An appeal to emotion and an ad hominem. Atheism has rendered the worst forms of injustice and the most killing throughout history (Communism, Hitler, etc). You fault the message for the messenger.
the amount of damage (direct and indirect) that has been perpetrated on humanity in the name of vague ethereal omnipotent beings is so stunning that very few people even realize it An ad hominem. Atheism has wrought the most terrible destruction the world has ever known (lest we forget Communism, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc., etc.).
You see, the vast majority of catholics in the world are poor, uneducated people for whom religion is a refuge from the usually harsh reality of existence. Rubbish. Some of the greatest minds the world has ever known were not only religious, but Catholic, Leonardo Da Vinci, Newton, Kepler, not to mention Socrates, Plato and Einstein (the last three were not Catholic, but did believed in God).
I would like to recommend St. Thomas Aquinas' Five logical proofs for the existence of God. You can find them in article three at: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm The first proof, that of Prime Mover is particularly interesting.
yet millions of people still think he knows more about science than the greatest experts in the various fields of science When you make wild claims please cite a source or provide an example. Do you have any proof of your assertion?
Slashdot Mirror
While religion has been misused as an excuse by some to justify their behavior, this does not necessarily fault the religion. It's ironic that you disparage the very thing whose principles afford you free speech.
While we may not be in agreement on this issue, to fault a religion because of the actions of a few of its followers is a logical fallacy (ad hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem). At the very least we should refrain from being derogatory and voice our disagreements politely.
It's obvious you didn't read the link I posted. Bruno was not executed for his scientific view of the cosmos. No one is arguing who executed him.
Baptism of children is drawn from the Bible. A debate for a different forum. http://www.catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp
Your assumption is false.
Religion helped bring about science. It was belief in God that drove man to find order in the universe, and early science was funded by the Church (Newton, Galileo, etc). Not to mention the Church founded scientific institutions.
Also, from religion you get the concepts of the equality of men before the law and such things as the Emancipation Proclamation, etc. Don't fault the message for the messenger. That's an ad hominem.
If the case against religion were so clear cut, there wouldn't be over a billion Catholics. Take the time to research Catholicism from both sides of the issue. Secular Slashdot and the news media aren't going to give you a balanced view.
it all comes down to whether you believe in the soul or not (taboo for Slashdot I know, but you started it). if you believe in the soul, the question becomes one of when the soul is imparted to the body http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp
destroying an unborn child is another form of homicide.
FYI Giordano Bruno was not burned for his scientific views:
From http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=15401
Bruno's crimes were more profound than teaching an alternative cosmology. He taught a humanist, materialistic pantheism, which was rather incoherent. He was a defiant critic of many ecclesiastical doctrines. After rejecting Catholicism, he joined Calvinism, but was excommunicated by them and ejected from Geneva, appearantly because of his outspoken defiance of Church authority in Geneva too.
He was a humanist who published what he considered humorous works but others found them to be obscene. In 1584 he published "The Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast", which was not about cosmology, but an attack on the Catholic Church.
In 1587, he was excommunicated by the Lutherans in Germany. Seems this guy couldn't get along with anybody.
In 1591, he went to Venice (not too bright, either), and was tried before the Inquisition (not for his Copernican views, however). He was inprisoned for 6 years. After haven been given several terms in which to retract his heretical teachings, he was handed over to the secular authorities. They executed him.
These types of laws were appropriate to that society during that period in human history. I would recommend Scott Hahn's, A Father Who Keeps His Promises as further reading: http://www.amazon.com/Father-Who-Keeps-His-Promises/dp/0892838299/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200637021&sr=8-1
Really now? The Inquisition was a series of tribunals to try heretics. Not a war. To dispel some misinformation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
I think it is possible to disagree politely, and we should always take that option. Not that I am the best example.
Please read any Papal Encyclical before being derogatory.
An appeal to emotion and an ad hominem. Atheism has rendered the worst forms of injustice and the most killing throughout history (Communism, Hitler, etc). You fault the message for the messenger.