Vatican official: Atheist's theories 'absurd'

Mar 3, 2009 Full story: MSNBC 234

Vatican official calls atheist's theories 'absurd' Cardinal Levada: No conflict between evolution science and faith in God A A How we worship A A Judaism Jews pray at the Mount of Olives, matzoh is baked in ...

Full Story

“Boot to the Head”

Since: Jul 08

Mogadore, OH

#21 Mar 4, 2009
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are just lying. A typical Christian tactic when asked to back up earlier lies.
Give us a SPECIFIC EPISODE of skeptoid in which the host/hosts have said that Evolution DISPROVES the existence of God.
You can't do it.
What you CAN find is an episode in which they tell you that Evolution and Fundamentalism are incompatible.
Tough titty.

If you choose to follow a religion which is observably in opposition with reality, it is not our duty to protect you from this.
If you don't like it, stop following that religion because I can guarentee you one thing - reality ain't go to change to fit your beliefs.
<quoted text>
Nope. You haven't. Like every other self indulgent Christian to come on the boards, you are claiming to be a martyr.
"Oh, it's so hard to be a Christian. Boo hoo. Everyone beats up on us."
Yawn.
Find me a textbook. ANY textbook that specifically says that Evolution disproves God.
If you can find one, I'll bet you $1000 that it's published by an anti-Evolution Christian publishing company and that the CORE concept of the book is about how wrong evolution is.
Yes let me spend hours going over old radio broadcasts and podcasts from recent years to disprove a claim on topix. If I did quote shows and dates how would anyone follow up?

Do you honestly claim that no scientific author anywhere at anytime has claimed that ToE removes God from the picture or the need for God in the creation of the universe or flat out disproves the concept of a creator.

Even Chuck D. had problems with the religious implications of his theory.

And please keep in mind that I am fine with ToE and God coexisting quite happily in my demented little gourd and tarnished little heart.
Nuggin

Granada Hills, CA

#22 Mar 4, 2009
Cathoholic wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes let me spend hours going over old radio broadcasts and podcasts from recent years to disprove a claim on topix. If I did quote shows and dates how would anyone follow up?
You aren't "disproving" a claim. You are backing up your bullshit. If you are now admitting that you lied and can't offer any evidence - then fine. We accept your retraction. Think next time before you post lies.

And, as for following up - if it's a podcast we can download it just as easily as anyone else.
Cathoholic wrote:
Do you honestly claim that no scientific author anywhere at anytime has claimed that ToE removes God from the picture or the need for God in the creation of the universe or flat out disproves the concept of a creator.
Yes. I am stating that no _scientific_ author has made the claim that evolution "disproves the concept of a creator." Any _scientific_ author would recognize that this is NOT what evolution does.

Evolution disproves a literally reading of Genesis - sure. Of course, so does anatomy, astronomy, gravity, geography, meterology, etc etc etc.

To blame evolution for poking holes in mythology where EVERY OTHER SCIENCE has already poked holes is, frankly, typical Creationism.
Cathoholic wrote:
Even Chuck D. had problems with the religious implications of his theory.
Dr. Chuck D. MD/PhD Nobel Prize winner in molecular biology? Or do you mean the rapper?

Since: Nov 08

Boise, ID

#23 Mar 4, 2009
Cathoholic wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes let me spend hours going over old radio broadcasts and podcasts from recent years to disprove a claim on topix.
I don't doubt that someone on a podcast somewhere claimed that evolution falsified God. People say a lot of crazy things in podcasts. What we want to see is peer reviewed textbooks and scientific peer reviewed papers that claim that evolution falsifies god. Got any of those?
Do you honestly claim that no scientific author anywhere at anytime has claimed that ToE removes God from the picture or the need for God in the creation of the universe or flat out disproves the concept of a creator.
As part of a scientifically peer reviewed paper? No, this has never happened.
Even Chuck D. had problems with the religious implications of his theory.
Obviously, the Pope had problems with the religious implications of the Earth orbitting the Sun, but that doesn't stop it from being true.

Since: Jul 08

Rio Rancho, NM

#24 Mar 5, 2009
This is a curious thread. Evolutionary theory obviously takes away the imagined 'logic' of many historical god concepts.

To be a Christian you MUST accept that Jesus was actually God! before the 'foundation' of this universe AND that Jesus co-created all the 100 billion galaxies we see, along with all the living things. There's no other surviving christology for Christians. If you don't accept this you're limiting the concept of Jesus as part of the Trinity, that's not allowed! Somewhere in history (centuries after Jesus) Church promoters decided that there had to be no back-steeping or logical compromises, Jesus was God! and Teacher and Creator and Savior ( it became official in the 4th century). Back then it didn't seem so outrageous because of all the other man/god stories people were familiar with. There was a lot of competition for savior stories.

Most Christian theologians will say that if you don't accept Genesis you can't expect the claims of the 4th Gospel to be valid, it has to be a package deal for it to have any divine standing.

Since: Jul 08

Rio Rancho, NM

#25 Mar 5, 2009
back-stepping, sorry
MattJ

San Jose, CA

#26 Mar 9, 2009
Bluenose wrote:
What the ToE says WRT to god is precisely nothing, nil, zip, nada.
Try telling that to the militant atheists who DO use the theory of evolution as a wedge to force teaching atheism in the schools. Think of Sagan, Gould and Dawkins as examples.

Try telling that to the rabid, anti-religious bigots posting scurrilous slanders against the religious both in these Topix forums and in the talkorgins Usenet group.
MattJ

San Jose, CA

#27 Mar 9, 2009
Erasmus05 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't doubt that someone on a podcast somewhere claimed that evolution falsified God. People say a lot of crazy things in podcasts. What we want to see is peer reviewed textbooks and scientific peer reviewed papers that claim that evolution falsifies god. Got any of those?
<quoted text>
As part of a scientifically peer reviewed paper? No, this has never happened.
<quoted text>
Obviously, the Pope had problems with the religious implications of the Earth orbitting the Sun, but that doesn't stop it from being true.
You are missing the point. Of course it doesn't happen in peer reviewed papers. It would be off-topic there.

But the same people who DO write those peer reviewed papers often have a nasty habit of ranting against religion in other forums. Take Dawkins, for example. He used to publish in peer reviewed journals. But now he publishes mainly anti-religious diatribes.

Since: Nov 08

Boise, ID

#28 Mar 9, 2009
MattJ wrote:
<quoted text>
But the same people who DO write those peer reviewed papers often have a nasty habit of ranting against religion in other forums.
30% of those scientists also believe in God.

Take Dawkins, for example. He used to publish in peer reviewed journals. But now he publishes mainly anti-religious diatribes.
Take Collins, for example. He has published tons of papers and he has published a pro-religious book.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#29 Mar 9, 2009
MattJ wrote:
<quoted text>
Try telling that to the militant atheists who DO use the theory of evolution as a wedge to force teaching atheism in the schools. Think of Sagan, Gould and Dawkins as examples.
Try telling that to the rabid, anti-religious bigots posting scurrilous slanders against the religious both in these Topix forums and in the talkorgins Usenet group.
Please provide a case where a teacher has used the theory of evolution to promote atheism in the classroom.

Plus, people expressing their opinions on a forum is very different from teaching. Do you feel that atheists should not be allowed to express their opinion?
Nuggin

Granada Hills, CA

#30 Mar 9, 2009
MattJ wrote:
<quoted text>
Try telling that to the militant atheists who DO use the theory of evolution as a wedge to force teaching atheism in the schools. Think of Sagan, Gould and Dawkins as examples.
Try telling that to the rabid, anti-religious bigots posting scurrilous slanders against the religious both in these Topix forums and in the talkorgins Usenet group.
You are once again making crap up.

Insisting that we don't "teach" - "It was all Jewish Magic!" as the answer to every question is NOT the same thing as teaching atheism.

Further, it's your team, the Creationists who are truly teaching a brand of atheism toward ALL other religions.

This "defense of Christmas" crap is nothing more than an attempt to disenfranchise ALL other religions.

Ditto Creationism in school.

You think we don't recognize your tactics, but they are clear: "If we keep the people stupid, we can control them."

Well, that's worked well for the middle of the country, but you aren't getting the coasts.
MattJ

San Jose, CA

#31 Mar 9, 2009
Erasmus05 wrote:
<quoted text>
30% of those scientists also believe in God.
<quoted text>
Take Collins, for example. He has published tons of papers and he has published a pro-religious book.
Good for him! But the Dawkin-imitators are both more numerous and more noticed.
MattJ

San Jose, CA

#32 Mar 9, 2009
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You are once again making crap up.
NO, you are. You do, for example, when you claim:
Further, it's your team, the Creationists who are truly teaching a brand of atheism toward ALL other religions.
They are not MY team! Not even close.

I have corrected you on this point before. That you obstinately continue in this false accusation makes you a slanderer.

A stupid slanderer at that.
MattJ

San Jose, CA

#33 Mar 9, 2009
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Please provide a case where a teacher has used the theory of evolution to promote atheism in the classroom.
My own high-school biology teacher did it in about 1977. Only a fool would assume this is an isolated incident.
MattJ

San Jose, CA

#34 Mar 9, 2009
jerb1 wrote:
Most Christian theologians will say that if you don't accept Genesis you can't expect the claims of the 4th Gospel to be valid, it has to be a package deal for it to have any divine standing.
WHY, oh WHY, do you keep posting such drivel? No, NOT "most christian theologians". It is only a minority, if by "accept Genesis" you mean "accept a literal interpretation of Genesis", as you appear to mean.

If you paid attention to the article, you should have noticed this. For from the article it is clear that NO Catholic theologian could make this insistence.

There is a LOT more variety to Christendom than Lutherans and Evangelical/fundamentalists.
Brian

Lafayette, AL

#35 Mar 9, 2009
I suppose that could be large part attributed to many searching for antidote to pervading heartless religion.
Brian

United States

#36 Mar 9, 2009
MattJ wrote:
<quoted text>
Good for him! But the Dawkin-imitators are both more numerous and more noticed.
Could it be in large part an antidote to heartless religion, at least that which is "the more numerous and noticed"?
Chaz

Manchester, UK

#37 Mar 9, 2009
MattJ wrote:
<quoted text>
My own high-school biology teacher did it in about 1977. Only a fool would assume this is an isolated incident.
Well then, it should be easy to provide more examples.

Since: Nov 08

Boise, ID

#38 Mar 9, 2009
MattJ wrote:
<quoted text>
Good for him! But the Dawkin-imitators are both more numerous and more noticed.
More noticed by whom? You?

The fact that both exist refutes your argument. Scientists can and do separate their scientific conclusions from their opinions on religious matters.

Since: Nov 08

Boise, ID

#39 Mar 9, 2009
MattJ wrote:
<quoted text>
My own high-school biology teacher did it in about 1977. Only a fool would assume this is an isolated incident.
I suppose this same teacher also used heliocentrism to argue against the existence of God?
MattJ

San Jose, CA

#40 Mar 9, 2009
Erasmus05 wrote:
<quoted text>
More noticed by whom? You?
The fact that both exist refutes your argument. Scientists can and do separate their scientific conclusions from their opinions on religious matters.
NO, it does no such thing. Your inability to understand that the argument is not refuted also means you are incapable of understanding scientific reasoning to support scientific conclusions.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Streamwood Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: J&J Garage Door and Electric Openers Dec 18 martinez martin 3
Woman caught in Naperville prostitution sweep s... Dec 16 Pimp Daddy 4
South Elgin is Kane County's Most Corrupt Polic... (Mar '12) Dec 15 Joe Citizen 31
Glen Ellyn keeps village property tax levy flat Dec 13 David 1
Martial arts for you or your children? Dec 11 gbschaumburg 1
klaus koch epal Dec 10 teed off 1
Review: Chopsticks Dec 6 stephanie 1
Streamwood Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Streamwood People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Streamwood News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Streamwood

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 8:37 am PST

Bleacher Report 8:37AM
Green Bay Packers vs. Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Live Score & Analysis for Tampa Bay
NBC Sports 8:50 AM
Kyle Long inactive for Sunday's game vs. Detroit
NBC Sports 9:03 AM
Jay Cutler active vs. Lions, will back up Jimmy Clausen
Bleacher Report 9:44 AM
Packers vs. Buccaneers: Live Score and Analysis for Green Bay
NBC Sports10:20 AM
Jimmy Clausen unimpressive early in Chicago