Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well, and this will get a few peoples backs up I'm sure - there are a lot of primitive, backward thinking people in this country.

There are similar contrasts between western and eastern Europe.

[Danno 1,228]

it's not as baffling when you were raised in a country with a true separation of church and state. My beliefs and my reasoning are never at conflict, and I would think any well reasoned man can be a strong believer without any problem. I don't see I question a lot of things about the catholic faith... and, luckily I wasn't raised with a fundamentalist background, where I do have to agree 100% to it in order to be considered a 'true catholic', if someone was raised like that, good for them.. but, being religious does not equal to blindly agree to something

-Who is talking about Church and state and why do you keep steering in that direction?

-who questioned whether a well reasoned person could not be a believer in general?

-Who suggested one must agree 100% with the RCC to be a true believer?

Every time I think we are done with this sub-topic you keep throwing odd stuff up.. almost like you are debating yourself as they are points I never brought up.

My simple question was "How does one associate them self with a religion they (seemingly) have little in common with (save Capital punishment).

Now you claim:

"I don't see I question a lot of things about the catholic faith"

So let me ask ...(if you care to answer).

Do you agree with Church teaching on.....

Male only Priests?

Ban on Gay marriage?

Overall view of Homosexuality?

Abortion?

Birth control?

Pornography?

Celibate Priests?

Infallibility of the Pope?

Purgatory?

Immaculate Conception?

Virgin Birth?

Resurrection of Christ?

Assumption of Mary?

Miracles of Christ?

Do you recite the Apostles Creed... and believe it?

Actually Pedroh, I don't really ask you to answer these as it might be to personal but I would bet you would have a whole lot more "No's" (you don't agree or accept) than "yes" which if correct, does beg the question:

"What exactly is a Catholic anymore?".

is there a specific catholic model? if you're out of that model, or answer more NO's than YES', are you not considered a real catholic? do you have to blindly believe all the things that a religion tells you in order toe be cosnsidered a 'religious person'?

plus.. why are you changing the topic to religion, we're debating about the scientifical proof of evolution..

Ahh actually the "topic" is about a Movie, that line of conversation kinds ended when I pointed out how silly the concept was that the movie industry would not RUN too a move which offended Religious folks and Christians especially.

-----------

Why is it, I keep talking about the Catholic faith and you keep diverting into Religion in general.

That would be like me trying to determine how one considers himself a "conservative" and he replies back about being "political".

I only wonder why someone who disagrees with nearly everything about a denomination would join it.

[HAL 9000 96]

It certainly shouldn't have an equal platform, but if the 39% statistic is accurate, that's extremely disturbing and must say something about the standard of public education.

I don't think its any coincidence that slogans and party political soundbites are so prevalent in American politics - to me this comes out of the same stable.

It might speak volumes about the failure of science education in this country or it could speak nothing of the sort... remember, like I've reminded someone else elsewhere... the statistic reports. I do agree that there is definitely something amiss that needs to be addressed... so the safest bet is to ensure neither science nor theology are encroaching on each others' academic environments- as it should be.

[pedroh 21]

it's not as baffling when you were raised in a country with a true separation of church and state. My beliefs and my reasoning are never at conflict, and I would think any well reasoned man can be a strong believer without any problem. I don't see I question a lot of things about the catholic faith... and, luckily I wasn't raised with a fundamentalist background, where I do have to agree 100% to it in order to be considered a 'true catholic', if someone was raised like that, good for them.. but, being religious does not equal to blindly agree to something

-Who is talking about Church and state and why do you keep steering in that direction?

-who questioned whether a well reasoned person could not be a believer in general?

-Who suggested one must agree 100% with the RCC to be a true believer?

Every time I think we are done with this sub-topic you keep throwing odd stuff up.. almost like you are debating yourself as they are points I never brought up.

My simple question was "How does one associate them self with a religion they (seemingly) have little in common with (save Capital punishment).

Now you claim:

"I don't see I question a lot of things about the catholic faith"

So let me ask ...(if you care to answer).

Do you agree with Church teaching on.....

Male only Priests?

Ban on Gay marriage?

Overall view of Homosexuality?

Abortion?

Birth control?

Pornography?

Celibate Priests?

Infallibility of the Pope?

Purgatory?

Immaculate Conception?

Virgin Birth?

Resurrection of Christ?

Assumption of Mary?

Miracles of Christ?

Do you recite the Apostles Creed... and believe it?

Actually Pedroh, I don't really ask you to answer these as it might be to personal but I would bet you would have a whole lot more "No's" (you don't agree or accept) than "yes" which if correct, does beg the question:

"What exactly is a Catholic anymore?".

is there a specific catholic model? if you're out of that model, or answer more NO's than YES', are you not considered a real catholic? do you have to blindly believe all the things that a religion tells you in order toe be cosnsidered a 'religious person'?

plus.. why are you changing the topic to religion, we're debating about the scientifical proof of evolution..

Ahh actually the "topic" is about a Movie, that line of conversation kinds ended when I pointed out how silly the concept was that the movie industry would not RUN too a move which offended Religious folks and Christians especially.

-----------

Why is it, I keep talking about the Catholic faith and you keep diverting into Religion in general.

That would be like me trying to determine how one considers himself a "conservative" and he replies back about being "political".

I only wonder why someone who disagrees with nearly everything about a denomination would join it.

how do you know I disagree with nearly everything of my religion? Are you a mind reader now? plus, luckily, everyone takes religion as they want to, there's not a 'right' manual to become a true religious person.. so, if for your being religious is obeying EVERYTIHNG your church tells you, fine, I don't hate, but don't come and tell me that I'm not a true religious person because I question some things..

[HAL 9000 96]

What I am saying is, study it as something that was, not as something that is now. Not all opinions are equally valid, not all opinions demand air time.

Rights smites. What about the right not to be indoctrinated into ignorance. If one wants to get there, one should have to forge ones own path. Every child should have that right in public schools.

As much as I'd love to agree with you on it... people have a right to be as stupid as they please.

[HAL 9000 96]

it's not as baffling when you were raised in a country with a true separation of church and state. My beliefs and my reasoning are never at conflict, and I would think any well reasoned man can be a strong believer without any problem. I don't see I question a lot of things about the catholic faith... and, luckily I wasn't raised with a fundamentalist background, where I do have to agree 100% to it in order to be considered a 'true catholic', if someone was raised like that, good for them.. but, being religious does not equal to blindly agree to something

-Who is talking about Church and state and why do you keep steering in that direction?

-who questioned whether a well reasoned person could not be a believer in general?

-Who suggested one must agree 100% with the RCC to be a true believer?

Every time I think we are done with this sub-topic you keep throwing odd stuff up.. almost like you are debating yourself as they are points I never brought up.

My simple question was "How does one associate them self with a religion they (seemingly) have little in common with (save Capital punishment).

Now you claim:

"I don't see I question a lot of things about the catholic faith"

So let me ask ...(if you care to answer).

Do you agree with Church teaching on.....

Male only Priests?

Ban on Gay marriage?

Overall view of Homosexuality?

Abortion?

Birth control?

Pornography?

Celibate Priests?

Infallibility of the Pope?

Purgatory?

Immaculate Conception?

Virgin Birth?

Resurrection of Christ?

Assumption of Mary?

Miracles of Christ?

Do you recite the Apostles Creed... and believe it?

Actually Pedroh, I don't really ask you to answer these as it might be to personal but I would bet you would have a whole lot more "No's" (you don't agree or accept) than "yes" which if correct, does beg the question:

"What exactly is a Catholic anymore?".

is there a specific catholic model? if you're out of that model, or answer more NO's than YES', are you not considered a real catholic? do you have to blindly believe all the things that a religion tells you in order toe be cosnsidered a 'religious person'?

plus.. why are you changing the topic to religion, we're debating about the scientifical proof of evolution..

Ahh actually the "topic" is about a Movie, that line of conversation kinds ended when I pointed out how silly the concept was that the movie industry would not RUN too a move which offended Religious folks and Christians especially.

-----------

Why is it, I keep talking about the Catholic faith and you keep diverting into Religion in general.

That would be like me trying to determine how one considers himself a "conservative" and he replies back about being "political".

I only wonder why someone who disagrees with nearly everything about a denomination would join it.

how do you know I disagree with nearly everything of my religion? Are you a mind reader now? plus, luckily, everyone takes religion as they want to, there's not a 'right' manual to become a true religious person.. so, if for your being religious is obeying EVERYTIHNG your church tells you, fine, I don't hate, but don't come and tell me that I'm not a true religious person because I question some things..

Plus apparently Danno is equating 'everything' in the Catholic faith with those things he lists. A Dannologic classic.

[pedroh 21]

yea, Catholicism can be summarized to 14 questions..

[HAL 9000 96]

Is that why there are Express Mass services?

[pedroh 21]

Is that why there are Express Mass services?

yup.. 25 min masses, the Padre can't miss his soccer match (cuz of course, all Padres love football)

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Joseph, like many Fundamentalists cannot get past believing in a literal understanding of the Book of Genesis. That's the brick wall that keeps them from accepting the Theory of Evolution.

Literal or not, what is the value of the Book of Genesis or any other book of the Bible?

What makes it more important to you than, say, the Book of Jack and The Beanstalk?

Both are fairy tales.

There is value in truth, which is what the Book of Genesis contains. Truth, however, is not synonymous with fact. That's where Fundamentalists get tripped up on.

Truth? What truth? I don't get it.

"What is truth?" is a very simple question. Of course, answering it isn't so simple. We can offer definitions like "Truth is that which conforms to reality, fact, or actuality." But this basic definition is not complete because its definition is open to interpretation and a wide variety of applications. What is reality? What is fact? What is actuality? How does perception effect truth? We could offer answers for each of these questions, but then we could again ask similar questions of those answers. I am reminded of the paradox of throwing a ball against a wall. It must get half way there, and then half way of the remaining distance, and then half of that distance, and so on. But, an infinite number of halves in this scenario never constitutes a whole. Therefore, it would seem that the ball would never reach the wall if we applied the conceptual truths of halves. The ball-against-the-wall scenario simply illustrates that defining and redefining things as we try to approach a goal actually prevents us from getting to that goal. This is what philosophy does sometimes as it seeks to examine truth. It sometimes clouds issues so much, that nothing can be known for sure.

But, even though it is true that an infinite number of halves (1/2 of "a" + 1/2 of the remainder + 1/2 of the remainder of that, etc.) does not equal a whole, we can "prove" that it does by simply throwing a ball at a wall and watching it bounce off. Actually, the "1/2" equation above does not equal a whole -- mathematically. The problem is not in the truth but in its application, as is often the case with philosophical verbal gymnastics.

...

In order for truth to be defined properly, it would have to be a factually and logically correct statement. In other words, it would have to be true. But, perhaps we could look further at truth by determining what it is not. Truth is not error. Truth is not self-contradictory. Truth is not deception. Of course, it could be true that someone is being deceptive, but the deception itself isn't truth.

In relativism, all points of view are equally valid and all truth is relative to the individual. If this were true, then it would seem that this is the only truth relativism would have to offer. But, the problem is that in reality, relativism isn't true for the following basic reason. If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false? 1) If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false. 2) If you say yes, then relativism is false. Relativism seems to defy the very nature of truth; namely, that truth is not self-contradictory.

http://www.carm.org/secular-movements/relativism/what-truth

[Peikko 1,575]

What I am saying is, study it as something that was, not as something that is now. Not all opinions are equally valid, not all opinions demand air time.

Rights smites. What about the right not to be indoctrinated into ignorance. If one wants to get there, one should have to forge ones own path. Every child should have that right in public schools.

As much as I'd love to agree with you on it... people have a right to be as stupid as they please.

Adults have that right. Children in public education have the right not to be led down the garden path of ignorance.

[Peikko 1,575]

Consider this. If we allowed for the teaching of creationism as a valid contemporary belief system in public education, and that belief system is at odds with the biology curriculum, who's rights are being infringed? Creationism is in fact subversive as a contemporary belief system even though set in a historical context it is innocuous.

[jundp 191]

Thanks for the vote of confidence although I don't need it. The promotion of creatinism is the promotion of ignorance. There is no defence for doing that in my opinion.

have you discussed that with the pope?

Catholic church has stated many times that they agree with evolution and t here's no conflict between the catholic religion and the scientific theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church)

Jump to: navigation, search

The position of the Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has moved over the 150 years since the publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859 from a long period with no authoritative pronouncement from the Vatican, to a statement of neutrality in the 1950s, and then to more explicit acceptance in recent years. Today[update], the Church's official position remains a focus of controversy and is fairly non-specific, stating only that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict, though humans are regarded as a "special creation", and that the existence of God is required to explain the spiritual component of human origins. This view falls into the spectrum of viewpoints that are grouped under the concept of theistic evolution.[1][2]

------------------------------------

My friend you say you are Catholic, is there any position the Church teaches on that you agree with?

How is Pedro disagreeing with the Catholic Church here? The Catholic Church's OFFICIAL position on evolution is that faith and scientific findings are not in conflict. Saying that humans are a 'special creation' merely acknowledges the spiritual component of humans which is what makes us special. We are children of God through our spirituality.

I don't need Wikipedia to tell me that, Danno, because I too am a (practicing) Catholic who believes in God and also accepts the scientific evidence of evolution.

"Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers." -- Jesse Ventura

Or maybe it's a place of gathering and community. It has nothing to do with being weak-minded or needing 'strength in numbers' and everything to do with following a spiritual path and enjoying the company of others who share your faith.

Why must there be disdain for people who have a strong faith? It doesn't mean we are ignorant or uneducated at all. There are indeed those stereotypes, but there are as many non-believers who are ignorant of intellectual matters. Faith and intelligence are not mutually exclusive, you know.

it's not as baffling when you were raised in a country with a true separation of church and state. My beliefs and my reasoning are never at conflict, and I would think any well reasoned man can be a strong believer without any problem. I don't see I question a lot of things about the catholic faith... and, luckily I wasn't raised with a fundamentalist background, where I do have to agree 100% to it in order to be considered a 'true catholic', if someone was raised like that, good for them.. but, being religious does not equal to blindly agree to something

[mawilson 2,133]

"What is truth?" is a very simple question. Of course, answering it isn't so simple. We can offer definitions like "Truth is that which conforms to reality, fact, or actuality." But this basic definition is not complete because its definition is open to interpretation and a wide variety of applications. What is reality? What is fact? What is actuality? How does perception effect truth? We could offer answers for each of these questions, but then we could again ask similar questions of those answers. I am reminded of the paradox of throwing a ball against a wall. It must get half way there, and then half way of the remaining distance, and then half of that distance, and so on. But, an infinite number of halves in this scenario never constitutes a whole. Therefore, it would seem that the ball would never reach the wall if we applied the conceptual truths of halves. The ball-against-the-wall scenario simply illustrates that defining and redefining things as we try to approach a goal actually prevents us from getting to that goal. This is what philosophy does sometimes as it seeks to examine truth. It sometimes clouds issues so much, that nothing can be known for sure.

But, even though it is true that an infinite number of halves (1/2 of "a" + 1/2 of the remainder + 1/2 of the remainder of that, etc.) does not equal a whole, we can "prove" that it does by simply throwing a ball at a wall and watching it bounce off. Actually, the "1/2" equation above does not equal a whole -- mathematically. The problem is not in the truth but in its application, as is often the case with philosophical verbal gymnastics.

...

In order for truth to be defined properly, it would have to be a factually and logically correct statement. In other words, it would have to be true. But, perhaps we could look further at truth by determining what it is not. Truth is not error. Truth is not self-contradictory. Truth is not deception. Of course, it could be true that someone is being deceptive, but the deception itself isn't truth.

In relativism, all points of view are equally valid and all truth is relative to the individual. If this were true, then it would seem that this is the only truth relativism would have to offer. But, the problem is that in reality, relativism isn't true for the following basic reason. If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false? 1) If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false. 2) If you say yes, then relativism is false. Relativism seems to defy the very nature of truth; namely, that truth is not self-contradictory.

http://www.carm.org/secular-movements/relativism/what-truth

So truth is whatever you want it to be?

Does the Holy Book of Jack and the Beanstalk contain truth?

And by the way, the sum of the geometric series 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + · · · is 1. The n-th finite sum is 1 - 1/2^n

which converges to 1 as n goes to infinity, so 1 is the value of the infinite sum.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

"What is truth?" is a very simple question. Of course, answering it isn't so simple. We can offer definitions like "Truth is that which conforms to reality, fact, or actuality." But this basic definition is not complete because its definition is open to interpretation and a wide variety of applications. What is reality? What is fact? What is actuality? How does perception effect truth? We could offer answers for each of these questions, but then we could again ask similar questions of those answers. I am reminded of the paradox of throwing a ball against a wall. It must get half way there, and then half way of the remaining distance, and then half of that distance, and so on. But, an infinite number of halves in this scenario never constitutes a whole. Therefore, it would seem that the ball would never reach the wall if we applied the conceptual truths of halves. The ball-against-the-wall scenario simply illustrates that defining and redefining things as we try to approach a goal actually prevents us from getting to that goal. This is what philosophy does sometimes as it seeks to examine truth. It sometimes clouds issues so much, that nothing can be known for sure.

But, even though it is true that an infinite number of halves (1/2 of "a" + 1/2 of the remainder + 1/2 of the remainder of that, etc.) does not equal a whole, we can "prove" that it does by simply throwing a ball at a wall and watching it bounce off. Actually, the "1/2" equation above does not equal a whole -- mathematically. The problem is not in the truth but in its application, as is often the case with philosophical verbal gymnastics.

...

In order for truth to be defined properly, it would have to be a factually and logically correct statement. In other words, it would have to be true. But, perhaps we could look further at truth by determining what it is not. Truth is not error. Truth is not self-contradictory. Truth is not deception. Of course, it could be true that someone is being deceptive, but the deception itself isn't truth.

In relativism, all points of view are equally valid and all truth is relative to the individual. If this were true, then it would seem that this is the only truth relativism would have to offer. But, the problem is that in reality, relativism isn't true for the following basic reason. If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false? 1) If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false. 2) If you say yes, then relativism is false. Relativism seems to defy the very nature of truth; namely, that truth is not self-contradictory.

http://www.carm.org/secular-movements/relativism/what-truth

So truth is whatever you want it to be?

Does the Holy Book of Jack and the Beanstalk contain truth?

Relativism seems to defy the very nature of truth; namely, that truth is not self-contradictory.