Catholic girl tries to take on Richard Dawkins: [vid]

[SP33Demon]

Why is so much of her chest exposed? :awe:

Cleavage not found, boobs sagging down to her waist affirmative.

 

[preslove]

Maybe not exactly. But Pope Benedict was speaking about the fallacy that only what can be proven scientifically or with evidence is worth exploring, and that people who think this way are growing and mocking philosophy/religion. He seems to say this is a dictatorship in itself, i.e. 'show me' or what you say is worthless.

So what the woman was saying, science being a religion unto itself, is made more coherent by the Pope. The Pope is challenging people like Dawkins and saying we are capable of exploring things that are beyond hard evidence, and more related to spirit/philosophy.

The pope is the spiritual/temporal dictator of the Catholic Church, which is pretty fucked up considering what Jesus actually preached:

And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Matthew 23:9

The Catholic church has no legitimacy when it comes to science, philosophy, or even scripture.

 

[grrl]

I didn't think that was what she was trying to say. But she was a bit scattered, so I guess it's possible.

When you say nothing, it's possible that you are saying everything. :hmm:

 

[SaurusX]

Is Dawkins the same guy who hates women?

http://www.io9.com/5938698/the-great-geek-sexism-debate

 

[ElFenix]

hey look it's this thread again

 

[child of wonder]

The "atheism is a religion, too" argument cracks me up.

It's essentially admitting "yes, we're dogmatic, irrational, close minded, and have no basis for believing as we do but... but.... so are you!"

 

[JD50]

Ya. She's one of the Millions, perhaps billions, who are stuk on Certainty.

Religion says, "Here are the answers"
Science says, "This is our best understanding in regards to your questions"

Many people just want a simple "Answer", not necessarily the truth of the matter.

:thumbsup:

 

[mvbighead]

I think the basis of her argument was that science never proves anything completely. IE - What once is determined as the accepted view may later be challenged, and refuted, and changed.

The problem is, religion is exactly the same way. You have some that argue that homosexuality is strictly forbidden based on biblical text. Yet other churches marry gays and lesbians and note that the homosexuality is not forbidden anymore than pork is forbidden. (http://www.heartlandproclamation.org/)

Long story short, it is pretty easy to see that science often conflicts with one's religious view points. She was basing her argument on the idea that everything the Roman Catholic religion states is infallible, whereas science can be refuted over time. The problem is, she does not recognize that there are likely even Catholic churches that differ in belief with the pope.

The other problem is science is not a religion per se. It is an idea of rationalization and proofs and disproofs. Religion is faith based, science is proof based. One is a religion, the other is an ideology based on proving something as accurately as possible.

 

[TheVrolok]

Cleavage not found, boobs sagging down to her waist affirmative.

Thank you, was going to give the video a shot, but now that I have the boob review, it will be unnecessary.

 

[eits]

The "atheism is a religion, too" argument cracks me up.

It's essentially admitting "yes, we're dogmatic, irrational, close minded, and have no basis for believing as we do but... but.... so are you!"

but it's true.

 

[Geosurface]

Is Dawkins the same guy who hates women?

http://www.io9.com/5938698/the-great-geek-sexism-debate

Not at all, he was 100% right in his comments on that case and the people who went after him were purely stupid.

 

[phucheneh]

but it's true.

No.

'there is a magic book that tells me what to believe based on bullshit fairy tales'

'that's stupid'

One of those is religion. One is just a statement.

 

[disappoint]

The pope is the spiritual/temporal dictator of the Catholic Church, which is pretty fucked up considering what Jesus actually preached:

And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Matthew 23:9

The Catholic church has no legitimacy when it comes to science, philosophy, or even scripture.

Actually, I have a father on earth as well who raised me. Scripture is no better.

He ain't no better no better no better SAaaAWING better!

 

[Skel]

Who set this up? Was it Dawkins' group or the Catholics?

 

[MrColin]

There are some good arguments to be made in favor of religion but she didn't present any of them.

 

[lxskllr]

There are some good arguments to be made in favor of religion but she didn't present any of them.

I can't watch this stuff. I don't think there's any good argument to be made for religion if you're dealing with facts. Religion will lose 100% of the time. If you shift the argument to philosophy, you can make a reasonable debate, but I'm not into philosophy. It's mental masturbation, with no conclusions aside from "feelings".

 

[KB]

That was so uncomfortable for her. I think she busted her brain box.

I love how people's attacks on Dawkins and science is always the same. They say "well science is a religion". To them I say read a science book from the 50s. Now read a modern day science text. See how much has changed? About 50% of it has been refined and updated. The bible hasn't changed at all. Which one sounds more like a religion, a book that is in a constant state of change or one that can never be changed.

 

[zinfamous]

Thank you, was going to give the video a shot, but now that I have the boob review, it will be unnecessary.

this.



(Still marked though...who knows what I will be into when the evening rolls around :hmm

 

[preslove]

Actually, I have a father on earth as well who raised me. Scripture is no better.

He ain't no better no better no better SAaaAWING better!

Jesus was talking about "Father" as a priestly or religious honorific. So, he was arguing against organizing a religion along the lines of the Catholic church.

 

[Krazy4Real]

LOL @ one of the things said.

If a person is choking, I have two choices. I can do the Heimlich maneuver, or I can pray for you. Which one would you prefer?

 

[GagHalfrunt]

but it's true.

No, a select few people are stupid enough to believe it's true.

 

[disappoint]

Jesus was talking about "Father" as a priestly or religious honorific. So, he was arguing against organizing a religion along the lines of the Catholic church.

Yes I understood that. I didn't say Jesus is no better. I said scripture is no better if it doesn't make the distinction and just makes a blanket statement like no Fathers except the invisible one in the clouds. But I'm paraphrasing.

 

[Red Storm]

No.

'there is a magic book that tells me what to believe based on bullshit fairy tales'

'that's stupid'

One of those is religion. One is just a statement.

I guess it depends on what your view of religion is. If you believe that religion is a set of beliefs, then I could see why Atheism would be considered a religion as well. It's a belief that there is no god.

The only one I wouldn't consider a religion is agnosticism, because that's basically "We don't know."

 

[disappoint]

LOL @ one of the things said.

If a person is choking, I have two choices. I can do the Heimlich maneuver, or I can pray for you. Which one would you prefer?

And a religious person who isn't a nutter might say both. An atheist who isn't a nutter would say pray if you want but do the Heimlich first!

 

[sandorski]

I guess it depends on what your view of religion is. If you believe that religion is a set of beliefs, then I could see why Atheism would be considered a religion as well. It's a belief that there is no god.

The only one I wouldn't consider a religion is agnosticism, because that's basically "We don't know."

Except "Religion" isn't just a set of Beliefs.