The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: God , Church , pedophilia , anti-homosexuality , Međugorje scam  (Read 20533 times)

Offline stalkingcockroach

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile

What is religion , do you understand that ?

All world's newspapers are writing about pedophilia scandals by catholic church .
 If Uganda's anti-homosexuality bill becomes law, the chief executive of the country's main gay rights group could face life imprisonment. That is nothing new
just public opinion has never known the truth about church . Thanks to internet we can find out the truth.

What you think if priests really believe in God ? I do not think they believe in God by themselves or if they believe
what is that religion actually and how is that ?


Catholic church is anti gay and for moral but the great majority of people think that priest are homosexuals .

They are just incredible many scandals coming from the church ( homosexuality , pedophilia , crime , corruption ,
pregnant nuns ) , protestant bishops  in Sweden are lesbians on the other side Catholic church is accused for mass
pedophilia . Do they believe in God and how is that actually ?

========== What is religion and how did they created "thing"?

How do they create religion ? What are the scientific facts about religion ?
“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me.”

Einstein



======= Hate Crimes and Religious Intolerance

Hate crimes are defined by federal law as criminal acts motived by an assailant’s prejudice against the victim’s religion, race, ethnicity, disability, gender, or sexual orientation.  The FBI reports that religious intolerance accounts for about 20% of hate crimes reported by law enforcement authorities across the nation.



======= Schizophrenia
In a study of patients with schizophrenia that had been previously admitted to a hospital, 24% had had religious delusions.[8] This has led some researchers to question whether schizophrenia leads an individual to become more religious, or if intense religiosity leads to schizophrenia.






======= Exorcism crime by church , just one example

Exorcism in Romania ends in death

She was treated for schizophrenia, but when she relapsed, a monk and four nuns tried a different method: exorcism.



======= No , they did not stopped that , they make a new thing and catholic church is making "thing"

But they do it now again and we can follow it . Really a huge thing for Catholic church , a new big place for pilgrimage
Međugorje scam .

Clear bluff and scam , could give evidence for how they created religion.
You can find their website and read all about it :

Something like this :

- it always starts with some uneducated people in some small village
- Virgin or Jesus speaks to them
- Virgin promises heaven or punishment with hell
- he makes deeply religions people scared
- Virgin make a big promises , you can find it under (  Međugorje Virgin Mary 10 secrets)
- church joining the game , collecting money
- they make business on it
- Vatican see possibility to become big and join if it can make a profit on it
- The success , sell scam to uneducated und religious folk ( some people just need religion and they sell it to them )



Is religion something more than this?
I have never seen more then this.

 Is that not stupid to support religion just to give all free  to few dirty bustards ?

 Or maybe you can see that some people find a trust in religion and maybe that is good , great percentage
hope to see again some person they loved again in heaven .

 Do we have to support religion just because we can not tell to some person : " Sorry you are never going to see again
your loved person again and death is just a end for everything ."


 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Good deeds do not need supernatural justification. Therefore the purpose of religion is to justify or excuse evil. The one thing all religions have in common is that they teach their followers to despise, shun, pity, denigrate or murder people who don't share their beliefs.  The world will be a better place when it is free from religion. Ignorance is excusable, faith is not.   
 

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
"....God is a term for an existence imagined by man in terms of his own personality and irreducible to any tenable definition."
John MacKinnon Robertson
« Last Edit: 19/02/2014 03:40:07 by Aemilius »
 

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Which, by the way, does not preclude the existence of some kind of "God". It only indicates that we, as of yet, are unable to either detect or define what that is, or what, if any, its mechanism of operation might be. We don't have all the data, and likely never will.... making any speculation/conjecture useless really. 

That's what at least one old eighth grade dropout would've expected a real Physicist to say!   
« Last Edit: 19/02/2014 05:19:41 by Aemilius »
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Aemilius, it seems you are saying that the only scientific response to the concept of "God" is that of the agnostic. I would go with that.

In my experience, most objections to God turn out to be objections to religious beliefs and practices.  Many of these objections are well founded, but some are based on ignorance/prejudice.  Few, if any, say anything about God, certainly nothing with the scientific validity of a simple "I don't know".  Why does that seem to be such a difficult thing for some people to say?   
 

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
....it seems you are saying that the only scientific response to the concept of "God" is that of the agnostic. 

Exactly.
« Last Edit: 23/02/2014 09:17:21 by Aemilius »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
The problem with god is that every definition turns out to be contradictory to observation. Buddhism manages without a god, which is a step in the right direction, but why bother with any sort of mysticism? At best, it's a sign of intellectual cowardice. Not that I could call Buddhists or Quakers cowards, but standing up for the right thing to do shouldn't require an appeal to the irrational.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Quote
The problem with god is that every definition turns out to be contradictory to observation

Surely that is not a problem with God, it is a problem with people who believe they can define God rather than have the courage to admit that they don't know.  This must apply equally to theists and atheists.  The former try to define God to prove the concept, the latter would have to define God to have any hope of disproving the concept.

Everybody hates an agnostic. :)
 

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
And both, the theist and the atheist, are therefore equally self-deluded.
« Last Edit: 23/02/2014 23:07:12 by Aemilius »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Self-delusion is about inventing the unnecessary - quite the opposite of reductionism. Possibly the most damaging kind is the delusion that one is inherently incapable of making a simple decision. Agnostics are to be pitied, not hated.

We use words to convey meaning. If you can't define a word by example or by attribute, it has no meaning. The word god has no consistent meaning because it has no attributes consistent with observation. Occam rules.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Quote
Possibly the most damaging kind is the delusion that one is inherently incapable of making a simple decision. Agnostics are to be pitied, not hated.

There is also a big difference between knowing and thinking you know.  Presumably you have scientific proof for your belief, otherwise, your "simple decision" is just a matter of personal preference, or self deception.  Why would you pity someone who does not need to protect himself/herself with false certainties of any kind? 
 

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Self-delusion is about inventing the unnecessary - quite the opposite of reductionism.

No it's not. Self delusion is about tricking or deceiving oneself into believing something without having all the data needed to arrive at any conclusive determination of fact.

Theists insist there's a God without having all the data needed to arrive at any conclusive determination of fact.

Atheists insist there's no God without having all the data needed to arrive at any conclusive determination of fact.
 
Anyone who continues to insist they've reached a conclusive determination of fact without having all the data needed to do so is by definition self deluded.
« Last Edit: 26/02/2014 07:41:53 by Aemilius »
 

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Another thing atheists share with theists, in addition to habitually insisting on the factuality of unsupported conclusive determinations of fact, is the tendency to denigrate anyone who doesn't agree with them. Dr. Calverd actually provides an excellent example. First he says all religions teach their followers (among other things) to pity people who don't share their beliefs, and then he as an atheist goes on to employ the same revolting tactic, declaring that agnostics (and likely anyone else who disagrees with him) should be pitied because they don't share his beliefs!

An agnostic, on the other hand, logically recognizes the folly of committing to any conclusive determination of fact arrived at without having all the needed data.

Theism and atheism are really just two sides of the same worthless coin. 
« Last Edit: 24/02/2014 08:30:15 by Aemilius »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
  Presumably you have scientific proof for your belief, otherwise, your "simple decision" is just a matter of personal preference, or self deception.
I'm a scientist: I'm paid not to believe anything. I fly around the country to work with ionising radiation and sick animals: belief can be fatal - just read the accident reports.

The "simple decision" is either to note that there is no robust, predictive and experimentally disprovable hypothesis that requires a god, and plenty of evidence that every god hypothesis that has been posited has failed;  or to ignore the facts and believe in whatever fantasy justifies your evildoing. But don't expect me to accept it as an excuse.

Quote
Why would you pity someone who does not need to protect himself/herself with false certainties of any kind?
I don't. I just pity those who hedge their bets because they can't choose whether to accept the evidence of their own eyes or the nonsense that others peddle. 

« Last Edit: 24/02/2014 12:32:18 by alancalverd »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
An agnostic, on the other hand, logically recognizes the folly of committing to any conclusive determination of fact arrived at without having all the needed data.

How much data do you need? Every definition of a functional god is either ridiculous or immediately disprovable. 
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Quote
Every definition of a functional god is either ridiculous or immediately disprovable.

That would be a valid argument if you had studied every definition there has ever been.  Perhaps you have? Otherwise it is just an opinion based on partial evidence.

Quote
I'm a scientist: I'm paid not to believe anything. I fly around the country to work with ionising radiation and sick animals: belief can be fatal - just read the accident reports.

It sounds as though your work is laudable and of great value, but introducing it into this discussion suggests a disappointing lack of relevant arguments.  It's a bit like pulling rank, I feel sure you can do better than that.
 

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Every definition of a functional god is either ridiculous or immediately disprovable.

Nothing but opinion. There's nothing to suggest that a creator (or God) should have to continue on within the creation as a functional element any more than one should expect a potter to continue on within the pot as a functional element.

How much data do you need? 

I don't know.... and clearly neither do you. In view of the very real possibility that the creator may not actually be (or ever have been) within or even observably connected to the creation, even having all the data about the universe may not be sufficient to enable any questioner to arrive at a conclusive determination of fact.
 
« Last Edit: 24/02/2014 22:47:46 by Aemilius »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile

That would be a valid argument if you had studied every definition there has ever been.  Perhaps you have? Otherwise it is just an opinion based on partial evidence.
If anyone had come up with a valid definition of a god, all others would have fallen by the wayside and there would be no mystery in theology.

Quote
It sounds as though your work is laudable and of great value, but introducing it into this discussion suggests a disappointing lack of relevant arguments.  It's a bit like pulling rank, I feel sure you can do better than that.
Not pulling rank, just pointing out that, according to the accident reports, belief is never justified and always potentially dangerous.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Nothing but opinion. There's nothing to suggest that a creator (or God) should have to continue on within the creation as a functional element any more than one should expect a potter to continue on within the pot as a functional element.
All gods are a reflection of human conceit. We make stuff, so vanity drives some people to think that all stuff must have been made by something like ourselves. The evidence suggests that it wasn't.

Mind you, it's a useful analogy. Once a potter has made a pot and either given up pottery, or died, or in some other way discontinued his relationship with his creation, there is clearly no point in asking him to alter it, or even attempting to discuss pottery with him. But theists spend a lot of time asking their gods to alter or explain the universe, or doing something to please or placate them, so clearly everyone who invents a god, invests his fantasy with some continuing functionality.   

Quote
In view of the very real possibility that the creator may not actually be (or ever have been) within or even observably connected to the creation, even having all the data about the universe may not be sufficient to enable any questioner to arrive at a conclusive determination of fact.
A creator unconnected with its creation? Something of an oxymoron, surely! 
« Last Edit: 24/02/2014 23:29:38 by alancalverd »
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Quote
A creator unconnected with its creation? Something of an oxymoron, surely!

There seems to be a widespread assumption that the definition of god should include the role of creator, and that "god" should be preceded by the definite article.  Those who impose such limitations on their thinking are inviting narrow thinking and prejudice.   

Quote
If anyone had come up with a valid definition of a god

Logically this must include your definition of god.  Does this mean you are basing your seemingly prejudiced opinion on an invalid definition?  Would it not be reasonable to expect more of a scientist?
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Quote
Logically this must include your definition of god.  Does this mean you are basing your seemingly prejudiced opinion on an invalid definition?  Would it not be reasonable to expect more of a scientist?
I haven't attempted a personal definition of anything supernatural. I can point to anything natural. But you seem to have missed the point: one valid definition or unequivocal demonstration of something that actually exists or existed would make all other gods, and hence most religions, redundant and invalid.
 

Offline Aemilius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
All gods are a reflection of human conceit. We make stuff, so vanity drives some people to think that all stuff must have been made by something like ourselves.

That's quite an assertion Dr. Calverd.... Can you prove it? If you can't, then it must be a delusional belief masquerading as a substantiated declarative statement stemming from a determination of fact arrived at without having all the needed data.       

The evidence suggests that it wasn't.

And what evidence is that?

Once a potter has made a pot and either given up pottery, or died, or in some other way discontinued his relationship with his creation, there is clearly no point in asking him to alter it, or even attempting to discuss pottery with him.

One can't even say that with any certainty. In this case, if there is a creator that we are as yet unable to either define or detect.... How could one presume to know how, whether or to what degree it may or may not be capable of interacting with it's creation? Another delusional belief masquerading as a substantiated declarative statement stemming from a determination of fact arrived at without having all the needed data.

But theists spend a lot of time asking their gods to alter or explain the universe, or doing something to please or placate them, so clearly everyone who invents a god, invests his fantasy with some continuing functionality.   

When it comes to knowing whether or not some kind of God exists, or even defining what that might be.... How do you see focussing on what theists do or don't do as lending any credibility to your determination of fact (e.g. "There is no God.") arrived at without having all the needed data?
« Last Edit: 26/02/2014 12:17:17 by Aemilius »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
I've stayed out of this thread because the title looks unnecessarily insulting to religious people (who do not all deserve to be branded as paedophiles), but there is no logical room for God. If he understands how everything works, there's nothing special about him to justify giving himself the title of God because he's just an ordinary natural being doing ordinary things who just happens to have access to all the levers of power which he makes sure no one else can reach. For him to be special, he would need to be supernatural, but that would require him to be magic; inexplicable even to himself, at which point he again loses the right to the title of God because God would have to understand everything. By understanding everything he necessarily renders himself ordinary and realises that he cannot be a God. There is no God - he is just a fantasy idea; a superhero for adults to cling to whenever they feel small.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile

All gods are a reflection of human conceit. We make stuff, so vanity drives some people to think that all stuff must have been made by something like ourselves.


That's quite an assertion Dr. Calverd.... Can you prove it? If you can't, then it must be a delusional belief masquerading as a substantiated declarative statement stemming from a determination of fact arrived at without having all the needed data.
It's a scientific hypothesis: summative, predictive and disprovable. Show me one that isn't.       

Quote

The evidence suggests that it wasn't.


And what evidence is that?
Observation. There is no observed phenomenon that requires a supernatural creator.

Quote

Once a potter has made a pot and either given up pottery, or died, or in some other way discontinued his relationship with his creation, there is clearly no point in asking him to alter it, or even attempting to discuss pottery with him.


One can't even say that with any certainty. In this case, if there is a creator that we are as yet unable to either define or detect.... How could one presume to know how, whether or to what degree it may or may not be capable of interacting with it's creation? Another delusional belief masquerading as a substantiated declarative statement stemming from a determination of fact arrived at without having all the needed data.
It was your suggestion that the creator might have lost interest in his creation.

Quote

But theists spend a lot of time asking their gods to alter or explain the universe, or doing something to please or placate them, so clearly everyone who invents a god, invests his fantasy with some continuing functionality.   


When it comes to knowing whether or not some kind of God exists, or even defining what that might be.... How do you see focussing on what theists do or don't do as lending any credibility to your determination of fact (e.g. "There is no God.") arrived at without having all the needed data?
Not the point. If "active" theists think there is a god of any sort, one must presume that either they are insane (by Einstein's test) or that they really think it can be influenced by human entreaty. Having no material evidence for the existence of a god, I can only take theists at their word and then ask if their word makes sense. It doesn't.

As for "all the needed data" you usually don't need much to disprove a disprovable hypothesis.  We infer existence from the influence that objects have on their environment. So we know that there is an elephant in the room because the furniture is broken and there is a pile of elephant dung on the floor. The absence of either suggests no elephant. So what observed effect does any god have, that cannot be explained by other means that are consistent with a wholly atheistic universe?

It all comes down to Occam in the end. 
« Last Edit: 25/02/2014 19:34:38 by alancalverd »
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: alancalvard
I haven't attempted a personal definition of anything supernatural.

This just brings us back to the fact that you are, on your own admission, denying the existence of something you have not attempted to define.

You say I have missed the point.  I disagree.  I have no quarrel with you, or anyone else expressing belief or disbelief in God, the tooth fairy, Santa Clause, or any mythical figure you might care to name.

I freely accept that there are aspects of various definitions of God that might be amenable to scientific investigation, but I think it is important to distinguish between God, religion and various definitions of God, which cannot be more than people’s opinions.

What I take issue with is the pretence that the question can be solved scientifically. 

Where the religious beliefs of people, especially people with influence, interfere with scientific progress, I believe scientists have a right, possibly a duty, to defend their corner.  However, I think it is only common sense to recognise what one is fighting against.  The “enemy” is ignorance and prejudice, not some concept that cannot adequately be defined. 

Quote
It all comes down to Occam in the end

Is it ironical that it all comes down to William of Ockham who was a Franciscan Friar?   
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums