1 of 5
1
Big Bang
Posted: 04 May 2006 01:36 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  134
Joined  2006-02-13

For anyone who's interested in learning more about the 'Big Bang' theory I heartily recommend "Big Bang: The Most Important Scientific Discovery of All Time and Why You Need to Know About It" by Simon Singh, which I've just finished.

It's very readable and gives an excellent history of science and the cosmos from the Greeks, through Galileo, Copernicus (with all the Church interference) through to the present day. Interestingly, one of the main early theorists was a priest, Georges Lemaitre, who showed up a flaw in Einstein's work.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 May 2006 02:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19
[quote author=“calmooney”]Interestingly, one of the main early theorists was a priest, Georges Lemaitre, who showed up a flaw in Einstein’s work.

Not interesting for anyone with a knowledge of the history of science. It is riddled with those papist conspirators.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 May 2006 04:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  134
Joined  2006-02-13
[quote author=“frankr”][quote author=“calmooney”]Interestingly, one of the main early theorists was a priest, Georges Lemaitre, who showed up a flaw in Einstein’s work.

Not interesting for anyone with a knowledge of the history of science. It is riddled with those papist conspirators.

You can consider me suitably withered by your sarcasm if you like Frank, however, I found Lemaitre very interesting given the Church’s prior history of persecuting those who dared to contradict the church’s teachings about the universe. Lemaitre clearly demonstrates that you can be both a brilliant scientist and a devout catholic. Or perhaps you’d rather I didn’t highlight such a positive example of a catholic priest? rolleyes

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 May 2006 05:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

calmooney
You are right. My sarcasm was unwarranted. Mea culpa. I just get annoyed that people are surprised when priests are scientists, but that was no reason to write what I wrote.
frank

edit: I do not think the Catholic Church’s antagonism towards science is as rampant as people claim. We all know Galileo but can someone name another scientist? I am sure there are a few but the number of scientists produced by the church far outweighs the few persecuted by the Church.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 May 2006 11:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1377
Joined  2004-12-21

but can someone name another scientist


giordano Bruno…they actually burned him.

 Signature 

http://powerlessnolonger.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 May 2006 01:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2821
Joined  2005-04-29

Frank, how many people need to be burned alive by an organization before you think they deserve severe retribution by worldwide political organizations?

Oh, that’s right. It’s been quite a while since your club has burned anyone to death. So here’s the next question that comes rapidly to mind: What forces (i.e., political, Holy Spirit, . . . ?) caused the RCC to stop tying up human beings and torching them?

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 May 2006 02:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

I would say cultural. The church has not been responsible for the burning of any scientists to my knowledge. Bruno was a heretic priest burned for doscetism not for his heliocentric views.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 May 2006 03:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Administrator
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  156
Joined  2006-01-05

do you think people should still be burned alive for heresy? i mean if it worked then, surely a tactic like that would convert people now.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 May 2006 03:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1377
Joined  2004-12-21

I would say cultural. The church has not been responsible for the burning of any scientists to my knowledge. Bruno was a heretic priest burned for doscetism not for his heliocentric views.

What difference does it make?  Would it have been OK if he was accused of witchcraft?

You are a poor apologist.

 Signature 

http://powerlessnolonger.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 May 2006 03:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

No I do not think people should be burned alive for heresy. I am not a product of their time. Do you think we are less barbaric? Do you think our culture does not have characteristics that people from the past would consider barbaric. Read the hippocratic oath. They didn’t even know when life began back then but they still saw that abortion was unethical. We know when life begins (science tells us) and yet we choose to end one in three of these lives. Hooray for us we don’t burn heretics but we will kill three thousand innocents a day and celebrate this choice as a right. At least when the ancients killed they knew they were dealing with the sacred gift of life. We have developed weapons that are capable of destroying all human life on this planet. We are so enlightened. We as a culture have left women to fend for themselves and to care for children without fathers. We look the other way when men do this. We in our tolerance have given permission to a generation of boys to be brought up fatherless. We are surprised that they don’t know how to act like men. All hail tolerant society. We don’t use fire but we are much more destructive and deadly than any Inquisition.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 May 2006 04:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2821
Joined  2005-04-29

Frank, I can add to your list of modern atrocities that are apparently seen as just part of the landscape: the use of napalm in battle. I’ve heard that the Vietnam era was not the end of this amazingly cruel weapon. So I agree with a lot of what you say.

As for whether your religion club set fire to scientists or non-scientists, I’m a little surprised you even brought up such a point. For one thing, isn’t science as we know it a fairly recent thing? Hundreds of years ago, science was barely in its infancy, awaiting developments in lens-grinding technology, etc. But even if pre-scientists can be thought of as “scientists,” aren’t you splitting hairs?

For instance, I am not a scientist. But I’ll bet I’d be burned alive by your club members if I’d been born a few hundred years ago had I spoken as freely about RCC atrocities as I actually do.

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 May 2006 04:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2168
Joined  2005-11-15

[quote author=“frankr”]No I do not think people should be burned alive for heresy. I am not a product of their time. Do you think we are less barbaric? Do you think our culture does not have characteristics that people from the past would consider barbaric. Read the hippocratic oath. They didn’t even know when life began back then but they still saw that abortion was unethical. We know when life begins (science tells us) and yet we choose to end one in three of these lives. Hooray for us we don’t burn heretics but we will kill three thousand innocents a day and celebrate this choice as a right. At least when the ancients killed they knew they were dealing with the sacred gift of life. We have developed weapons that are capable of destroying all human life on this planet. We are so enlightened. We as a culture have left women to fend for themselves and to care for children without fathers. We look the other way when men do this. We in our tolerance have given permission to a generation of boys to be brought up fatherless. We are surprised that they don’t know how to act like men. All hail tolerant society. We don’t use fire but we are much more destructive and deadly than any Inquisition.

Once again you fail to face that the 85% of the population that call themselves Christian are the vast contributors to these unfortunate conditions. Including the development of dire weapons.

Direct your lamenting at your own, frank. For some (not) mysterious reason, your magic formula for human society is not producing the desired result.


_

 Signature 


Welcome to Planet Earth, where Belief masquerades as Knowledge!

This way to the Unasked Questions—->
<—- This way to the Unquestioned Answers

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 May 2006 05:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

Mia
This is not Christendom. I do not doubt that Christians are behind some of the atrocities I mention. It is not ecause of Christian ideals. Some are a direct attempt to remove the yoke of Christianity.

homunculus
Science is not a recent phenomena. I believe you can see it traced back to Egypt and Greece. I don’t think it was effective discipline. I think you are wrong about the Church burning you. Most heresy dealt with people who taught or preached theology. The village atheist is not a recent phenomena. The skeptics were legion. Read Chaucer and you will see that hypocrisy in the church was mocked even then. You will see Dante attack his enemies both in and out of the church. Erasmus and thomas More write against the abuses of the Church. In praise of folly was written in the early 16th century. It directly attacks the church during inquisitorial times and he is not tried. You had to be spreading hersy in order to get the churchs attention. I am not saying this in defense of their actions. I am just dsaying you most likely would not be burned.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 May 2006 05:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  872
Joined  2006-02-16

Isn’t tolerance a wonderful thing! Practiced so skillfully by atheists and with only a faint hope by the Christian vermin.

homunculus
Because you don’t belive in God you must continue to degrade the Catholic Church
with your condescending remarks. Does it make you feel superior to call the Catholic Church a club? It is probably a good thing you got out of religon because with your aloof attitude and intolerance for anything you don’t subscribe to you surely would have lit the fires yourself.

Mia

Once again you fail to face that the 85% of the population that call themselves Christian are the vast contributors to these unfortunate conditions. Including the development of dire weapons

.

So now all of the scientists are Christians. Isn’t amazing how things change when it benefits the argument. I guess the atheist scintists and inventors only invent dialasys machines and the like.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 May 2006 06:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2168
Joined  2005-11-15

[quote author=“Humble Servant”]
So now all of the scientists are Christians. Isn’t amazing how things change when it benefits the argument. I guess the atheist scintists and inventors only invent dialasys machines and the like.

Don’t know how you got that from what I said, HS.

However, it would be accurate to say that the world’s most notorious weapon came into being under the direction of a Christian president:

“We cannot read the history of our rise and development as a nation, without reckoning with the place the Bible has occupied in shaping the advances of the Republic. Where we have been the truest and most consistent in obeying its precepts, we have attained the greatest measure of contentment and prosperity.” ~ Franklin Delano Roosevelt, “Fireside Chat” radio broadcast, 1935

. . . and later:

Truman has been quoted as saying, “The atom bomb was no ‘great decision.’… It was merely another powerful weapon in the arsenal of righteousness.” He also called the bomb the “greatest achievement of organized science in history,” and wondered aloud about how “atomic power can become a powerful and forceful influence toward the maintenance of world peace.”

 

 

_

[ Edited: 04 May 2006 06:26 PM by ]
 Signature 


Welcome to Planet Earth, where Belief masquerades as Knowledge!

This way to the Unasked Questions—->
<—- This way to the Unquestioned Answers

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 May 2006 06:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  50
Joined  2006-05-04

I will be in touch.  You have it all wrong and I will help you understand so that you don’t sound so ridiculous.  Work on your spelling, too.

Later.  god

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 5
1
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed