Moving beyond Dawkins etc.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mudgely
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
prodigalson2011 said:
Don’t bring religion into this. That’s a blatant red herring. I’m talking pure, hard science. If anyone’s being “religious,” it’s you. You consistently claim as truth completely unsubstantiated speculation just because someone has mused on its possibility.
Click to expand...
I am with you on this. His silly pseudo-scientific fantasy speculations have nothing to do with real science. I say this being a scientist myself.
 
Mudgely said:
Good one. Talking about science is wishful thinking, which you label as science fiction, while religious ideation is realism. Either you have a sense if humor too, or something is askance in your statements.
Click to expand...
You talked about science? No, you were talking about your futurist dream.
There is a growing body of discussion which has not filtered down to the popular media yet on the very topics that you raise.
Click to expand...
Yes, and this growing body of speculative discussion has not filtered down to the scientific men and women of our age either.
These notions are being turned aside as being somehow human. There appears to be a clear trend.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is a clear trend among real scientists to abandon a purely mechanical view of thought processes, and to recognize the value of the spiritual. I will not be surprised if many scientists turn toward religion in the end.

Sorry, but I cannot contribute to this thread any further. A complete waste of time. You can have the last word as you wish.
 
prodigalson2011 said:
haydenplanetarium.org/faq/2009/06/18/why-should-life-be-carbon-based

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980221b.html

Here are my sources. Where are yours?

Don’t bring religion into this. That’s a blatant red herring. I’m talking pure, hard science. If anyone’s being “religious,” it’s you. You consistently claim as truth completely unsubstantiated speculation just because someone has mused on its possibility.

The notion has not been disproved, because no non carbon based life has ever been found. Again, a FEW scientists speculate on a POSSIBILITY, and you assert it as fact. Science doesn’t even understand how carbon based life came to be, so it certainly can’t prove that anything else could have the same potential, especially without any evidence (i.e. Actual non carbon based life.)
Click to expand...
That’s hilarious. Don’t bring religion into this. Ranks right up there with the claim that the chastity requirement is so tough that it validates catholicism as being magical. Then, how about human sacrifice? That seems a lot more rigorous, and therefore more convincing as a legitimate religious practice.

Are you actually trying to prove that religion is true? I think it has been accepted by everyone including the most religious that this is not possible. Or are you trying to advance a scientific proposition on a religous pop site? This would be equally absurd. Ill informed dismissal of science does not magically make religious ideation truthful.
 
Mudgely said:
That’s hilarious. Don’t bring religion into this. Ranks right up there with the claim that the chastity requirement is so tough that it validates catholicism as being magical. Then, how about human sacrifice? That seems a lot more rigorous, and therefore more convincing as a legitimate religious practice.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand what you’re even getting at. My point was that I’m not even talking about any religious claim right now. Show me where I’ve made and attempted to defend a single religious idea in this conversation. You can’t, because I haven’t. I’m talking about your pseudoscientific rambling that is not supported by any real science. From Dr. Persinger to living machines to the “uncertainty of just what life is.” Quit trying to change the subject. What I believe or don’t doesn’t enter into it, because I’m not the one making radical claims which are demonstrably false. Religious claims and scientific claims are of entirely different orders. One is beyond the realm of materialistic inquiry and the other is not. Yours are not beyond that realm and can clearly be shown to be out of step with reality. No reputable scientist would back anything you’re saying. Period.
Are you actually trying to prove that religion is true? I think it has been accepted by everyone including the most religious that this is not possible. Or are you trying to advance a scientific proposition on a religous pop site? This would be equally absurd. Ill informed dismissal of science does not magically make religious ideation truthful.
Click to expand...
Your thinking is truly disjointed here. The only thing I have moved to prove here, successfully I might add, is that you are making stuff up. And there is nothing to prevent a religious person from making a valid scientific proposition. The scientific method is open to anybody. Regardless, though, I have not made proposition 1. You have. All I’ve done is provide plentiful citation from ACTUAL scientists to demonstrate the falsehood of your arguments.
 
Mudgely said:
I am not being mean either when I suggest that your first work your way through the latter 20th century, and then try to catch up with the 21st. That is the problem with religions, is it not? The attachment to fantasy, and never being able to reconcile the present?

The notion that life must be carbon based has already been disproved. Try to catch up.
Click to expand...
OK Mudgely, how about providing some evidence of this new scientific fact we all have to catch up with? I just can’t wait to hear all about this 21st century stuff.

Or did you just make it up once again?
 
John21652 said:
OK Mudgely, how about providing some evidence of this new scientific fact we all have to catch up with? I just can’t wait to hear all about this 21st century stuff.
Click to expand...
Yeah, as a biochemist I am highly curious for revelations about non-carbon based life. I am waiting with bated breath!

(And don’t come up with “virtual life” on computers.)
 
prodigalson2011 said:
I don’t understand what you’re even getting at. My point was that I’m not even talking about any religious claim right now. Show me where I’ve made and attempted to defend a single religious idea in this conversation. You can’t, because I haven’t. I’m talking about your pseudoscientific rambling that is not supported by any real science. From Dr. Persinger to living machines to the “uncertainty of just what life is.” Quit trying to change the subject. What I believe or don’t doesn’t enter into it, because I’m not the one making radical claims which are demonstrably false. Religious claims and scientific claims are of entirely different orders. One is beyond the realm of materialistic inquiry and the other is not. Yours are not beyond that realm and can clearly be shown to be out of step with reality. No reputable scientist would back anything you’re saying. Period.

Your thinking is truly disjointed here. The only thing I have moved to prove here, successfully I might add, is that you are making stuff up. And there is nothing to prevent a religious person from making a valid scientific proposition. The scientific method is open to anybody. Regardless, though, I have not made proposition 1. You have. All I’ve done is provide plentiful citation from ACTUAL scientists to demonstrate the falsehood of your arguments.
Click to expand...
So, let’s discard the absurd disconnect. and get back to the original question. What can the Catholic Church do at this point to gain credibility, and to become relevant? Or is it content to continue to the dust bin of discontinued religions?

It will take some time due to the size of the edifice, but the trajectory is clear. Does anyone care? Should anyone care? There are plenty of religions to pick. If Walmart goes out of business, then there is always Target.

Does the particular religion matter, or it is just the human urge toward the spiritual?
 
Mudgely said:
So, let’s discard the absurd disconnect. and get back to the original question. What can the Catholic Church do at this point to gain credibility, and to become relevant? Or is it content to continue to the dust bin of discontinued religions?

It will take some time due to the size of the edifice, but the trajectory is clear. Does anyone care? Should anyone care? There are plenty of religions to pick. If Walmart goes out of business, then there is always Target.

Does the particular religion matter, or it is just the human urge toward the spiritual?
Click to expand...
The Church is very relevant to very many people. Millions upon millions, in fact. How can you claim that one of the oldest, largest religions in the world is on the verge of being “discontinued?”

Nevertheless, the Church IS having an increase in relevance to the lives of many young people. More and more young Catholics are returning to traditional Church values and practices and more and more are converting every year.

You are fabricating this dilemma in your own mind, apparently. I would guess you just want to see the Church go away that bad. But, bad news. We’re not going anywhere. Get used to us.
 
Furthermore, if you understood anything of Catholicism, you would know that the Church has not changed a single doctrine for almost 2000 years, and it’s still holding up just fine.

As for your anti-Catholic babble, it’ll be forgotten as soon as you’re gone.
 
John21652 said:
OK Mudgely, how about providing some evidence of this new scientific fact we all have to catch up with? I just can’t wait to hear all about this 21st century stuff.

Or did you just make it up once again?
Click to expand...
How about just getting up to date? Web link wars are a waste of time. It is the weight of accumulated knowledge and not finding some site which advocates a point of view, which can support flying monkeys in spaghetti land is what makes more sense. Come to your own conclusions. I don’t care if you disagree with me in areas which I have a well formed opinion in.

But the question posed here is not about cognition, pattern recognition, processor speed, parallelism, artificial intelligence, and so on… It’s clear that these are not topics which can even be discussed relavently here.

The question is what will the Catholic Church do to become relevant in a declining market? While you tout the success of the Church among the ignorant and disadvantaged, what about the more advanced countries? What about Asia?

You may say that ford is better than Chevy. I might not disagree. But if the claim is that the only auto is a ford, then there is a problem.
 
I propose we all just start ignoring Mudgely. Quit feeding the troll, as the lingo goes.
 
Al_Moritz said:
Yeah, as a biochemist I am highly curious for revelations about non-carbon based life. I am waiting with bated breath!

(And don’t come up with “virtual life” on computers.)
Click to expand...
As a biochemist, you should know better. Obviously you are bathed in ochem. But just google the current thinking on the topic. It might be beyond your scope of work, but obviously not beyond your scope of comprehension if you at least got a lower division degree in biochem. If you disagree with where the current thought is going, that’s fine. But don’t pretend that your opinion is the only one, and I will do the same.
 
Mudgely said:
Errr… This is a thread that I started. You seem to be the troll here. Feel free to go back under your bridge.
Click to expand...
In breaking my own proposal, I’ll say that I meant in general, not just in this thread, since it seems the only reason you’re here is to discredit the Catholic Church, or otherwise offend Catholics. Consider this my last exchange. I’ll let you have the last word.
 
prodigalson2011 said:
Furthermore, if you understood anything of Catholicism, you would know that the Church has not changed a single doctrine for almost 2000 years, and it’s still holding up just fine.

As for your anti-Catholic babble, it’ll be forgotten as soon as you’re gone.
Click to expand...
Have your considered slavery, annulment, money lending, treatment of heretics, protection of child molestors? How about 700 years of papal proclamations advising heads of state to keep Jews in ghettos and proscribe their livelihood? Tell us about all three inquisitions, please.

Get off your 2,000 year horse of shame.

The question is how can the Church become a relevant and positive influence. Or is it just a dying carcass at this point?

Attacking me, or disagreeing with me does nothing to make your point.

So far, not a single poster in this thread has had anything positive to say about the catholic church. Nobody has addressed the original question. Is Catholicism just about personal infighting, or is it just this site?
 
Mudgely said:
As a biochemist, you should know better. Obviously you are bathed in ochem. But just google the current thinking on the topic. It might be beyond your scope of work, but obviously not beyond your scope of comprehension if you at least got a lower division degree in biochem. If you disagree with where the current thought is going, that’s fine. But don’t pretend that your opinion is the only one, and I will do the same.
Click to expand...
Forget it.

By the way, just to give you a hint that I do know what I am talking about in science and particularly in biochemistry,Talkorigins.org, a leading evolution website, has published an article of mine on the origin of life by natural causes. It should come up on the first page if you google for origin of life. Have fun reading it. At least then you can gain some real knowledge instead of your pseudo-scientific cr*p.
 
Might you provide a list of where or how the Church can become more relevant today?

Thanks,
Ed
 
Mudgely said:
Is Catholicism just about personal infighting, or is it just this site?
Click to expand...
Catholicism is about upholding the teaching of Jesus and attacking the propaganda of those who drive people to drugs, despair and suicide as a result of their cynical attitude to life which makes out that we are merely sparks in the dark in a valueless, purposeless and meaningless universe…
 
There are a number of staple atheist beliefs or statements of belief.
One is that there is a gradual decline in religious attendance and observation. They usually quote the Scandinavian countries. Now I do not know much about those places except that the number of people living there is relatively small. In the USA there seems to be quite good numbers attending services and in Africa and China the faith seems to be spreading. The situation in Europe I am not sure of. However the stats I have seen imply that the Church is increasing it’s membership by significant numbers annually. Could some one here confirm this for me with a stat.
As for the dream of AI well I am not qualified to comment on it. It seems to be very much a Sci Fi thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top