Space

[Sisyphus]

Talk about sensitive.

[pywakit]

Yep. I am. Particularly when the horrors perpetrated by institutions like the Church are ignored, glossed over, or otherwise mischaracterized so as to make them appear solely in a positive light. When nothing could be farther from the truth.

 

The Church did more than probably any other entity to stifle freedom of thought ... and were instrumental in stunting, and retarding the growth of human knowledge. If not for their 'ministrations' we would probably have human colonization of both the Moon, and Mars by now.

 

I will never understand how a man ( or woman ) could spend their ENTIRE lives studying a book of conjecture, unsupported opinions and heresay. How much intrinsic value could there possibly be in receiving a doctorate in FANTASY?

 

Call me crazy, but I happen to care about people like Bruno. Even though he is long dead, I am still ashamed and disgusted at the actions of these people who claimed ( and still do ) 'moral superiority' over others. I have no problem imagining the agony he suffered physically, and mentally as he was burned at the stake for suggesting there might be other actual suns, with planets orbiting them ...

 

Not to mention the horror his surviving family members must have suffered having to live with the knowledge of his pain.

 

Yes, I am sensitive. Something wrong about caring for strangers? Isn't that what Jesus did? I may not believe he had any connection to some supernatural being ... but he had a good message. Too bad it became perverted by his 'followers'.

Edited January 28, 2010 by pywakit

[Sisyphus]

Wow. I think Mr Skeptic was trying to say "even the Catholic Church accepts evolution, so why can't you?" The point being that being so literalist and dogmatic towards Galileo taught them a lesson (eventually). Long, anti-Catholic rants are not really welcome here (I say as a moderator), although illustrating their historical blockheadedness actually supports Mr. Skeptic's point.

[pywakit]

Wow. I think Mr Skeptic was trying to say "even the Catholic Church accepts evolution, so why can't you?" The point being that being so literalist and dogmatic towards Galileo taught them a lesson (eventually). Long, anti-Catholic rants are not really welcome here (I say as a moderator), although illustrating their historical blockheadedness actually supports Mr. Skeptic's point.

 

You are correct in that I should have kept my 'views' to myself. But characterizing it as a 'rant' is inappropriate. I stated verifiable facts.

 

And ... "What does that say? That they don't let their faith blind them to what can be seen. Unlike other religions." is a fallacious argument unsupported by the facts.

 

I'm not 'anti-Catholic'. I am anti-stupidity. Anti-irrationality. Which covers ANY religion. They haven't 'learned' anything. No 'lesson taught'. Your comments are woefully out of touch with reality.

 

That 'historical blockheadedness' is a quaint euphemism for the terror these people ( and other religions, too ) perpetrated on those in disagreement with the doctrines. And there is nothing 'historical' about it. The attitudes have not changed. Think the Church is cool with other intelligent life in the universe? I don't think so. Ask any priest if God 'created' any other 'intelligent life' ... let alone any life at all ... anywhere else but here.

 

Sorry if the facts are inappropriate. Like I said ... I happen to care. I felt I had a right to 'set the record straight'. His comments about the church were INACCURATE. And easily proven to be inaccurate. Feel free to admonish me for telling the truth. You might do well however, to study the issues before you lend support to gross falsehoods.

 

In addition, I am not the one who brought up religions. Several of you had made comments already. You can call my comments 'unwelcome' ... but I also felt that the comments were 'unwelcome'. Are you suggesting I have no right to weigh in with facts? Or is it only ok if it's 'generally accepted falsehoods'?

 

Apparently I am supposed to be concerned with the 'feelings' of everyone ... but my own. Well, sorry. Mine count too. Stop telling lies, ( intentional or not ) and I won't feel the need to rebutt them.

 

Have a nice day.

 

Oh. One more thing. About that other comment ... "Even the Catholic Church accepts evolution". Are you serious? Check your facts. Again. The Church has grudgingly accepted that evolution exists. They do NOT accept that Man came from the 'primordial ooze' ... and they also claim that God 'spoke' or 'willed' everything into existence. The evolution you speak of was just God setting things in motion. Man, however, was formed seperately and fully complete. Get your facts straight.

 

This may be an alien concept to you, but why don't you try admitting when you are wrong ... like I do. You might be surprised how 'liberating' it can feel to admit being human. Or is doing so an admission of 'weakness' that is intolerable to you?

Edited January 28, 2010 by pywakit

[Mr Skeptic]

I was talking about the Church of today, not of 100 years ago. If you were to look at, say, Americans from 100 years ago, they did some pretty nasty stuff as well. And further back, even nastier stuff. In fact, all kinds of peoples of all kinds of ideologies have done really nasty things in their past.

 

Think the Church is cool with other intelligent life in the universe?

The Director of the Vatican's Observatory, Fr. José Gabriel Funes, said in an interview with the Vatican daily, L'Osservatore Romano, that believing in the possible existence of extraterrestrial life is not opposed to Catholic doctrine.

 

I'm gonna say "yes".

 

Oh. One more thing. About that other comment ... "Even the Catholic Church accepts evolution". Are you serious? Check your facts. Again. The Church has grudgingly accepted that evolution exists. They do NOT accept that Man came from the 'primordial ooze' ... and they also claim that God 'spoke' or 'willed' everything into existence. The evolution you speak of was just God setting things in motion. Man, however, was formed seperately and fully complete. Get your facts straight.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

 

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

 

I stick by what I said. Maybe if science finds out what a soul is they might change their minds on that point, but since souls are not in the domain of science, this is just another example of their faith not getting in the way of the facts.

[pywakit]

Trouble reading? The quote of mine says INTELLIGENT life.

 

The Director of the Vatican's Observatory, Fr. José Gabriel Funes, said in an interview with the Vatican daily, L'Osservatore Romano, that believing in the possible existence of extraterrestrial life is not opposed to Catholic doctrine.

 

I'm gonna say "yes".

 

You just don't get it. You can't see through the statement. This is a very carefully, craftily worded statement designed to make you believe he said something other than what he actually said.

 

So allow me to clear it up. You can believe anything you want. It won't be 'opposed' to Church Doctrine because the Church Doctrine doesn't address it. No 'official' word from God ... through His messenger ( the Pope ) on this, or any issue relating to extra-terrestrial life, or intelligent extra-terrestrial life. Technically, he wasn't lying. Got it?

 

Yes technically, he is 100% correct. And you ..... are not cognizant of the deficiencies in his communication. Your bad.

 

I'm gonna say 'no'.

 

Now the Church 'spokesmen' ... being forced to address 'evolution' ... go about it in the prescribed manner that has worked so well for so many years. These guys aren't dummies.

 

Suddenly ... it's 'old' news. Good Heavens, they cry. It's been in the Bible all along. Look! It even says in the Holy Bible that "we evolved from the slime" and then they reference the following 'quote' from Genesis 2:7.

 

"Now this teaching of “the Magisterium” is rather astounding in view of the fact that since the

beginning, the Church has told us, every Lent, to “remember man that thou art dust and unto dust

thou shalt return” based, obviously, upon Genesis 2:7 wherein it is said that “The Lord God

formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man

became a living soul.”

 

Rather slippery little fellas, aren't they? Of course, that isn't what Genesis 2:7 says. Or is it? Hmmm. Maybe it is ...

 

New International Version (©1984)

the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

 

New Living Translation (©2007)

Then the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground. He breathed the breath of life into the man's nostrils, and the man became a living person.

 

English Standard Version (©2001)

then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

 

New American Standard Bible (©1995)

Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

 

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)

Then the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the earth and blew the breath of life into his nostrils. The man became a living being.

 

King James Bible

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

American King James Version

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

American Standard Version

And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

Bible in Basic English

And the Lord God made man from the dust of the earth, breathing into him the breath of life: and man became a living soul.

 

Douay-Rheims Bible

And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

 

Oh LOOK!!! Here's one! Lol. Of course, this is not the one used by most English speaking Catholics. But that's cool. So here we are ... the human form 'possibly evolved' from slime. Just like the Catholics are now claiming they have known all along. It's really quite remarkable. Who knew???

 

Mmm. Don't think so. According to this, God just used the MATERIALS in the slime to *magically* make a fully formed human.

 

Darby Bible Translation

And Jehovah Elohim formed Man, dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and Man became a living soul.

 

English Revised Version

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

Webster's Bible Translation

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

World English Bible

Yahweh God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

Young's Literal Translation

And Jehovah God formeth the man -- dust from the ground, and breatheth into his nostrils breath of life, and the man becometh a living creature.

 

And to be perfectly objective here, I also read the info available on your astronomer. How un-enlightening. This gets so tiresome. If you can't honestly and rationally discuss this, then what's the point?

 

And by the way, what does other human bad behavior have to do with your assertions about the Church? Nothing.

 

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

 

Why doesn't the Church have an 'official' position? What are they teaching the kids in school? That there 'might' be intelligent life elsewhere in the universe? That it is 'possible'? I think not.

 

From Wiki:

 

Since the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859, the position of the Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has slowly been refined. For about 100 years, there was no authoritative pronouncement on the subject. In the 1950s, the Church's position was one of neutrality; by the late 20th century its position evolved to one of implicit acceptance.

 

Meaning, by virtue of refusing to address the issue, it was assumed that the Church 'probably' wasn't going to try to deny the 'possibility' of evolution ( in general ) anymore.

 

Today[update], the Church's official position is a fairly non-specific example of theistic evolution.[1][2], stating that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict,

 

Funny. They said exactly the same thing about their 'misunderstanding' with Galileo in 1992.

 

..... though humans are regarded as a special creation, and that the existence of God is required to explain both monogenism and the spiritual component of human origins. No infallible declarations by the Pope or an Ecumenical Council have been made

 

In other words, God won't tell them. That's what 'infallible' declarations are, you know. God speaking directly to the Pope.

 

You blithely ignore the atrocities of 1000 plus years. You blithely ignore what they are ACTUALLY saying right now. This is untenable. You can show me one example of the Church ALMOST admitting that 'evolution' is possible ... thus apparently 'proving' your assertion that the Church will not let their 'faith get in the way of the facts.

 

And I can show you a plethora of examples of the Church consistently ( and violently ) 'allowing their faith to get in the way of the facts'. Right up to today.

 

Go ahead and 'stand by your assertions'. You are are obviously incapable of rational observation ... or rational discussion.

 

I will stand by my assertions, too. The difference is ... I can back them up.

 

I am not 'picking' on the Catholic Church. I am stating the facts/events as recorded. If you don't like reality, you don't have to participate in it.

 

(edit) Just want to say that it appears most Catholics do not follow strict Church Doctrine anymore. Well over 50% of self-professed Catholics believe in Evolution. Good for them. Buddhist, Hindu, and Jewish top the list of religions believing in evolution. I think I took more offense to the ...

 

And the Pope accepts evolution. Perhaps they remember from that one time they had a disagreement with a scientist called Galileo, to whom they have now appologized. What does that say? That they don't let their faith blind them to what can be seen. Unlike other religions.

 

.... quote more than anything else. There is no basis for such a claim. The facts say otherwise. The facts make it quite clear that the Catholic Church's real focus ... much like any religion ... was to control people and amass more power. It's a sad part of our world's history. And it still hasn't changed.

 

Religion has done much good for our species. That is undeniable. But the fact is ... every religion that has ever existed has been conceived by Man. No exceptions. And every religion shares the same failing. They are FANTASY. Nothing more. It makes no difference if ONE human being believes the fantasy ... or a BILLION. There is simply NO rational, logical, objective reason to believe in fantasies. No matter how complex you make them. No matter how long the fantasy has been believed. No matter how many humans claim to "know it to be true in their heart of hearts". It will never change the reality. It's made up. By us. End ( or should be ) of story.

 

It's like living in a planet-sized madhouse. When does humanity finally become rational? When will humanity learn to distinguish fantasy from reality? Soon I hope.

 

Ok. Ban me if you feel you must. And my sincere apology to the OP.

Edited January 29, 2010 by pywakit

[Mr Skeptic]

It won't be 'opposed' to Church Doctrine because the Church Doctrine doesn't address it.

 

Exactly -- we agree then, they don't say it is false. Other religions claim evolution is false because it disagrees with their religious texts. Same with extraterrestrial life. Need my to point to two religions which do so?

 

As for 1000 years of nasty history, please, by all means, tell me what groups you belong to and I shall tell you some of the nasty things your ancestors did. If you would like me to judge you for who you are today rather than for who your ancestors were, why not do the same for others?

[Sisyphus]

Apparently I am supposed to be concerned with the 'feelings' of everyone ... but my own.

 

Yes, that's right. That's what civility requires.

 

It's not about "telling the truth." It's about pointlessly incendiary and off-topic tangents. Nobody is denying the Spanish Inquisition happened, but it has nothing to do with anything in this topic.

 

What does matter is that the evidence for certain phenomenon, such as evolution, that a Biblical literalist might have a problem with is so great that not even the organization that didn't apologize to Galileo until 1992 is willing to deny it. Do you understand that that is what the point was?

Edited January 29, 2010 by Sisyphus

[gre]

Are there any theories out there that consider space a field (or Field-Like? If space can't exist without matter and vis versa, wouldn't that imply they are somehow tied together?

 

If a single particle/mass existed in an area without space, maybe a specific quantity of space would exist around that particle/mass?

[mooeypoo]

I want to remind the debaters that the thread is about Space, and not about religion.

 

We do not have religious or theological discussions on this forum. Please get back on topic.

[pywakit]

Exactly -- we agree then, they don't say it is false. Other religions claim evolution is false because it disagrees with their religious texts. Same with extraterrestrial life. Need my to point to two religions which do so?

 

As for 1000 years of nasty history, please, by all means, tell me what groups you belong to and I shall tell you some of the nasty things your ancestors did. If you would like me to judge you for who you are today rather than for who your ancestors were, why not do the same for others?

 

I'm sorry. You missed my point entirely. But don't worry about it. I should have kept my views to myself. Ok?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Yes, that's right. That's what civility requires.

 

It's not about "telling the truth." It's about pointlessly incendiary and off-topic tangents. Nobody is denying the Spanish Inquisition happened, but it has nothing to do with anything in this topic.

 

What does matter is that the evidence for certain phenomenon, such as evolution, that a Biblical literalist might have a problem with is so great that not even the organization that didn't apologize to Galileo until 1992 is willing to deny it. Do you understand that that is what the point was?

 

You also missed my point entirely. But that too, is ok. Please accept my apology for disturbing you all.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I want to remind the debaters that the thread is about Space, and not about religion.

 

We do not have religious or theological discussions on this forum. Please get back on topic.

 

Yes, Moo. I am in the wrong. My apology.

[Galindo]

There are two types of people in this world. The believers and non-believers. Not believing in something closes your mind off to an entire universe of possibilities.

[pywakit]

There are two types of people in this world. The believers and non-believers. Not believing in something closes your mind off to an entire universe of possibilities.

 

No it doesn't. There are only so many years I have to contemplate the real universe. There is way more to learn than I will ever have time for already.

 

There are an INFINITE number of POSSIBILITIES. If you want to waste your time fruitlessly considering the possibility of elves ( for example ), go right ahead. I have better things to do.

[mooeypoo]

Also, believing in an absolute closes your mind to alternatives.

[pywakit]

Also, believing in an absolute closes your mind to alternatives.

 

How true.

[Mr Skeptic]

There are two types of people in this world. The believers and non-believers. Not believing in something closes your mind off to an entire universe of possibilities.

 

No, suppose that you have two exact opposites, A and ~A. (here ~ is the symbol for logical negation, a more thorough negation than the English word "not"). If you accept A, then you reject ~A. If you accept ~A, then you reject A. If you believe A or ~A, then you are definitely right, as one of the two must be true, but everyone knows that so you really didn't say anything. It's a tautology, it must be true. And it is the position of an agnostic.

 

So then there's the believers, who assert A, the deniers, who assert ~A, and the agnostics who do not assert either. If you prefer you can say the agnostics assert (A or ~A), and they are right (both the believers and deniers also assert (A or ~A) by the way).

 

Other logic systems allow you to attach probabilities to the assertions.

[Galindo]

No, suppose that you have two exact opposites, A and ~A. (here ~ is the symbol for logical negation, a more thorough negation than the English word "not"). If you accept A, then you reject ~A. If you accept ~A, then you reject A. If you believe A or ~A, then you are definitely right, as one of the two must be true, but everyone knows that so you really didn't say anything. It's a tautology, it must be true. And it is the position of an agnostic.

 

So then there's the believers, who assert A, the deniers, who assert ~A, and the agnostics who do not assert either. If you prefer you can say the agnostics assert (A or ~A), and they are right (both the believers and deniers also assert (A or ~A) by the way).

 

Other logic systems allow you to attach probabilities to the assertions.

 

What happens if you believe in both opposites?

[Mr Skeptic]

What happens if you believe in both opposites?

 

Then you are wrong.

 

Or, it could also mean that you reject the Principle of Non-Contradiction. Which essentially boils down to refusing to reject falsehoods.

[Galindo]

Then you are wrong.

 

Or, it could also mean that you reject the Principle of Non-Contradiction. Which essentially boils down to refusing to reject falsehoods.

 

Ok, say A=The Holy Bible and ~A=The Quran...are you wrong for believing both? Or are you opening up to both sides?

[Mr Skeptic]

Ok, say A=The Holy Bible and ~A=The Quran...are you wrong for believing both? Or are you opening up to both sides?

 

No, it cannot be. If A=The Holy Bible then ~A is everything that is not The Holy Bible. ~A includes (but is not limited to) dogs, the Quran, pineapples, clowns, and cheeseburgers.

 

Do not confuse negation with mutually exclusive.

 

Hm, I forgot to mention, in that logic system A should be a statement (ie something with a truth value, it can be true or false). Not an item. For example, it could be A="Every statement in the Holy Bible is true". The negation of that would be, ~A="At least one statement in the Holy Bible is false". B="Every statement in the Quran is true" would be mutually exclusive with A but is not the negation of it. In logic mutually exclusive would be ~(A and B), that is they are not both true.

 

To negate some statement A in English, you can say, "It is not true that A".

Edited January 30, 2010 by Mr Skeptic

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Those are not contradictory items, so they would not be A and ~A. They are merely two options out of many.

 

(That's not to say some propositions in each may contradict -- that may be the case. But you can't believe both contradictory propositions at the same time. You can, however, believe that both books are generally right.)

[ydoaPs]

Blood_pardon, I would appreciate it if you answer my question.

the mean thing is to remain skeptic? unless the bible is true.

Which texts an why? The earliest manuscript of the proto-orthodox New Testament we have includes the Shepherd of the Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas. Are those right too? The doctrine of inerrancy is only possible due to a complete ignorance of how the Bible was made and what it actually is.