I'm a former atheist. Ask me anything.

[miguel]

on what historical basis can you say Galileo was arrogant?

Whether or not he was arrogant, he was perceived to be. (Arrogant people rarely realize they’re arrogant. At least that’s what my wife tells me.)

“…Pope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism. He made another request, that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo’s book. Only the latter of those requests was fulfilled by Galileo. Whether unknowingly or deliberately, Simplicio, the defender of the Aristotelian Geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was often caught in his own errors and sometimes came across as a fool. Indeed, although Galileo states in the preface of his book that the character is named after a famous Aristotelian philosopher (Simplicius in Latin, Simplicio in Italian), the name “Simplicio” in Italian also has the connotation of “simpleton.” This portrayal of Simplicio made Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems appear as an advocacy book: an attack on Aristotelian geocentrism and defense of the Copernican theory. Unfortunately for his relationship with the Pope, Galileo put the words of Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicio. Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction to his book. However, the Pope did not take the suspected public ridicule lightly, nor the Copernican advocacy. Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, and was called to Rome to defend his writings…”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#cite_note-38

Galileo’s only mistake was to not incorporate some of Kepler’s calculations (regarding rotation of the sun).

Gallileo was an amazing scientist, but only one mistake?

“…Galileo dismissed as a “useless fiction” the idea, held by his contemporary Johannes Kepler, that the moon caused the tides. Galileo also refused to accept Kepler’s elliptical orbits of the planets, considering the circle the “perfect” shape for planetary orbits.” (I don’t hold this against him BTW. He was blazing many trails.)

• Galileo was found “vehemently suspect of heresy,” namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to “abjure, curse and detest” those opinions.

“vehemently suspect” is not the same thing as “guilty”. And actually it turns out the sun is not motionless at the center of the universe…suggesting another mistake?

 

[yankee_doodle]

Whether or not he was arrogant, he was perceived to be. (Arrogant people rarely realize they’re arrogant. At least that’s what my wife tells me.)

“…Pope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism. He made another request, that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo’s book. Only the latter of those requests was fulfilled by Galileo. Whether unknowingly or deliberately, Simplicio, the defender of the Aristotelian Geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was often caught in his own errors and sometimes came across as a fool. Indeed, although Galileo states in the preface of his book that the character is named after a famous Aristotelian philosopher (Simplicius in Latin, Simplicio in Italian), the name “Simplicio” in Italian also has the connotation of “simpleton.” This portrayal of Simplicio made Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems appear as an advocacy book: an attack on Aristotelian geocentrism and defense of the Copernican theory. Unfortunately for his relationship with the Pope, Galileo put the words of Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicio. Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction to his book. However, the Pope did not take the suspected public ridicule lightly, nor the Copernican advocacy. Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, and was called to Rome to defend his writings…”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#cite_note-38

I read the same Wiki article. The man was persecuted for advocating ideas; which by our standards is called tyranny.

Gallileo was an amazing scientist, but only one mistake?

I’m sure he made more than a single mistake, but believing every human has the right to freely express ideas wasn’t one of them

“…Galileo dismissed as a “useless fiction” the idea, held by his contemporary Johannes Kepler, that the moon caused the tides. Galileo also refused to accept Kepler’s elliptical orbits of the planets, considering the circle the “perfect” shape for planetary orbits.” (I don’t hold this against him BTW. He was blazing many trails.)

Yes (I pointed out this mistake in the post you’ve responded to here)?

“vehemently suspect” is not the same thing as “guilty”.

Yet he was convicted by the inquisition?

And actually it turns out the sun is not motionless at the center of the universe…suggesting another mistake?

indeed, but again I included this fact in my last post (and included text from the Wiki article you’ve cited). Anyway, I hope you agree that this wasn’t a shining moment in CC history?

 

[miguel]

I read the same Wiki article. The man was persecuted for advocating ideas; which by our standards is called tyranny.

And people in the Church were originally open to those ideas, until his Dialogue with Simplicio (simpleton) alienated them.

Yes (I pointed out this mistake in the post you’ve responded to here)?

No you didn’t. The irony here is your bigotted putdown of josie L as one “who doesn’t have an especially good grasp of church history”, as “a knowledgeable and willing accomplice to the churches horrendous conduct both today and throughout history”, “an apologetic for an oppressive institution that discriminates against minority groups, shields criminal child molesters from prosecution, and has a history that includes suppressing science and burning human beings at the stake.” Your own grasp of history suffers from a serious lack of balance dude.

indeed, but again I included this fact in my last post (and included text from the Wiki article you’ve cited). Anyway, I hope you agree that this wasn’t a shining moment in CC history?

Well you conveniently didn’t point out that the sun really isn’t fixed and the Church was inadvertantly correct on this point. No it wasn’t a shining moment and Pope John Paul II acknowledged that and apologized.

 

[josie_L]

And people in the Church were originally open to those ideas, until his Dialogue with Simplicio (simpleton) alienated them.

No you didn’t. The irony here is your bigotted putdown of josie L as one “who doesn’t have an especially good grasp of church history”, as “a knowledgeable and willing accomplice to the churches horrendous conduct both today and throughout history”, “an apologetic for an oppressive institution that discriminates against minority groups, shields criminal child molesters from prosecution, and has a history that includes suppressing science and burning human beings at the stake.” Your own grasp of history suffers from a serious lack of balance dude.

The funny thing is I have a history degree. God bless Miguel.

 

[yankee_doodle]

And people in the Church were originally open to those ideas, until his Dialogue with Simplicio (simpleton) alienated them.

you’re twisting the facts.

No you didn’t. The irony here is your bigotted putdown of josie L as one “who doesn’t have an especially good grasp of church history”,

actually I acknowledged (or at least inferred) she has a good grasp of church history

as “a knowledgeable and willing accomplice to the churches horrendous conduct both today and throughout history”, “an apologetic for an oppressive institution that discriminates against minority groups, shields criminal child molesters from prosecution, and has a history that includes suppressing science and burning human beings at the stake.”

yes, and only a person who does know these facts, yet still acts as an apologist for the CC, can be truly culpable (indeed culpability requires knowledge). However, I obviously don’t infer culpability for the acts themselves, but rather it’s culpability as an “enabler”

Your own grasp of history suffers from a serious lack of balance dude.

then let’s have a “who knows more about history contest”

Well you conveniently didn’t point out that the sun really isn’t fixed and the Church was inadvertantly correct on this point. No it wasn’t a shining moment and Pope John Paul II acknowledged that and apologized.

Not only did I point out that Galileo asserted a motionless sun, but I even copied in the Wiki text detailing his theory (and the counts he was convicted on). BTW I’m not sure if you’re accurately describing geocentrism either.

 

[1holycatholic]

fA fraction of 1% of US prisoners say they’re atheist or agnostic, while Catholics are the largest group in US prisons, and protestants trail closely behind (each comprise about a third of our prison population).

Since self identified atheists constitute a fraction of 1% of the U.S. population that’s not very surprising.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Since self identified atheists constitute a fraction of 1% of the U.S. population that’s not very surprising.

according to the federal bureau of prisons atheists comprise 0.209% of our prison population. Catholics are nearly 40%, while protestants are around 35% (this is a 1997 poll):

freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists

The percentage of “atheists” in this country is a much more elusive statistic (and sources vary). However, the above site shows the following:

A 2006 Harris interactive poll shows 4% of the US population is atheist, while 14% is agnostic. In a 2004 University of Akron poll 11% of respondents identified as atheist or secular. A 2002 Pew Research poll identified 13.2% of Americans as non-religious/secular. Among younger people in this country nearly 20% identify themselves as atheist, agnostic, or no religion.

The poll you’re referring to is a 1995 Encyclopedia Britanna poll, identifying .03% as atheist and 8.8% as non-religious (the same poll taken in 1900 showed 0% atheists, which is obviously an absurd number).

It seems pretty clear your assertion that less than 1% of the US are atheists is wrong.

But still … just because atheist and agnostics are underrepresented in prison doesn’t prove or disprove anything (in fact the subject is really a red herring, and it’s unfortunately the type of thing we’re compelled to say when theists attack secular Americans and charge us with all sorts of false absurdities, from immorality to conspiring to bring about the fall of mankind).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Actually, it is the atheist who is full of silly arguments. The funniest thing is this: Atheists seem to devote a lot of energy to protesting something they say doesn’t exist! And they call us irrational!

Not really - the Thuggee cult was a menace in India, as a practical result of its devotion to the goddess Kali: the British suppressed it, surely rightly, not because of theological objections so much as because the devotion referred to was shown by committing murder: that is why it was a menace. The conquistadors stamped out the Aztec gods as thoroughly as they were able, and Christians were very busy destroying the shrines of gods they believed to be demons. And so on…​

A religion can be hugely dangerous in practice, however certain its opponents may be that its deities are non-existent. Christianity need not worship a real God to be hugely influential or hugely dangerous. So atheist anti-theism is as far as that goes, justified.

Does Allah have to be thought really existent, for Catholics to object to Allah ?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

We are the natural checks and balances system that contains religion (and prevents it from dominating society with its mindless #$%^). Imagine a theocratic society full of Jesus-bots

I think I agree with that - opposition is good for Christians: it prevents them becoming too secure & too complacent. Only steel that is tempered is going to be any good for anything - Christians need to be opposed, if they are to be good for anything; otherwise, they just become mountains of flab ​

 

[1holycatholic]

according to the federal bureau of prisons atheists comprise 0.209% of our prison population. Catholics are nearly 40%, while protestants are around 35% (this is a 1997 poll):

freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists

The percentage of “atheists” in this country is a much more elusive statistic (and sources vary). However, the above site shows the following:

A 2006 Harris interactive poll shows 4% of the US population is atheist, while 14% is agnostic. In a 2004 University of Akron poll 11% of respondents identified as atheist or secular. A 2002 Pew Research poll identified 13.2% of Americans as non-religious/secular. Among younger people in this country nearly 20% identify themselves as atheist, agnostic, or no religion.

The poll you’re referring to is a 1995 Encyclopedia Britanna poll, identifying .03% as atheist and 8.8% as non-religious (the same poll taken in 1900 showed 0% atheists, which is obviously an absurd number).

It seems pretty clear your assertion that less than 1% of the US are atheists is wrong.

But still … just because atheist and agnostics are underrepresented in prison doesn’t prove or disprove anything (in fact the subject is really a red herring, and it’s unfortunately the type of thing we’re compelled to say when theists attack secular Americans and charge us with all sorts of false absurdities, from immorality to conspiring to bring about the fall of mankind).

You’re combining atheist, agnostic or “no religion” into atheist which is inaccurate. “No religion” does not mean atheist, nor does agnostic.

From the article I linked:
These data were published in the chapter titled “Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns” in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, ed. by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK (2005). Different type of data collection methodologies using different types of questions showed a consistent pattern: In most countries only a tiny number of people (zero to a fraction of 1 percent) will answer “atheism” or “atheist” when asked an open-ended question about what their religious preference.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Unfortuantely for your argument, Papal Infallibility does not extend to science. Faith and morality, yes; astronomy, no.

Indirectly, it can. Whenever any science or discipline adopts positions which have a bearing on faith and morals, the Church’s teaching authority can - according to its own principles - be involved. And sometimes, it engages its infallibility when pronouncing on such matters.​

So: abortion is not of interest only to medics - the Church has ruled that it is heresy to advocate abortion. Heresy is irrelevant to medicine as medicine - it is a strictly theological category, and is valid within theology; not within medicine or biology or gynaecology as such. Which is what makes it possible for theologians to argue - as they have - that parts of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae fulfil the conditions for being defined infallibly. If abortion were of no moral or doctrinal interest, neither the Encyclical nor they would have had any business to bother themselves with it. What we do with our bodies is of doctrinal importance - so they do have a right, even a duty, to take an interest

That the Church’s teaching competence extends even to matters not of themselves directly theological is itself Catholic teaching. The principles of the various disciplines & sciences are not affected, neither are their methods or their results: the Church is not presuming to competence in them as such, but only so far as they provide the Church with subject-matter of concern from the Church’s POV as well as from their own. Biologists, not bishops, are the people to teach biology - the Church leaves things alone unless & until what interests the biologists also has some bearing on what the bishops are to concern themselves with. The Church does not teach Hebrew or OT exegesis - but it does undertake to say whether or not Catholics are at liberty to believe that the Book of Jonah is a fiction. Whether a passage is in prose or verse it leaves to the scholars to decide.

 

[miguel]

actually I acknowledged (or at least inferred) she has a good grasp of church history.

How gullible do you think we Catholics are?

Not only did I point out that Galileo asserted a motionless sun, but I even copied in the Wiki text detailing his theory (and the counts he was convicted on).

I know you did. And I pointed out that he was wrong about a motionless sun. It’s ironic that the Church found him “vehemently suspect of heresy” for holding that the sun is motionless. Also, as understood today, heliocentrism simply means that the sun is the central body of gravitational attraction for each planetary orbit. It doesn’t mean that the sun is motionless. And each planetary orbit is an ellipse with two foci. The sun is at one of the foci of each ellipse. It is not at the center of each ellipse. Galileo believed, with limited evidence that the planets were in circular orbit around the sun. He was also wrong about circular planetary orbits.

 

[miguel]

The funny thing is I have a history degree. God bless Miguel.

Too bad they don’t give degrees for sweetness. God bless you too Josie.

 

[yankee_doodle]

How gullible do you think we Catholics are?

It’s you’re reading comprehension that’s at issue (I’ll restrain my comments on your gullibility)

I know you did. And I pointed out that he was wrong about a motionless sun.

no, but I assume you went back and read my previous post?

It’s ironic that the Church found him “vehemently suspect of heresy” for holding that the sun is motionless.

he was persecuted for objecting to the churches view it held at the time, period. You can spin the story anyway you want to to reinforce the fantasy world you live in, but it doesn’t change the facts

How dare you think independent of the holy Roman guardians of the cross? Burn that man alive

 

[josie_L]

Too bad they don’t give degrees for sweetness. God bless you too Josie.

:blushing: