The Pope's Easter Message
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-04-2011, 11:31 AM
RE: The Pope's Easter Message
How can anyone be surprised at the Pope's Easter message? Or ANYTHING the Pope says. So he says that life is created by an invisible man in the sky! Thats nothing new that he has said there! We know better, we know it didn't take 7 days for example to create the world! Lets just file this away into "Crazy Old Man Says the Craziest Things" folder!

Quote:"Religion poisons everything." - Christopher Hitchens
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2011, 12:27 PM
 
RE: The Pope's Easter Message
(25-04-2011 11:31 AM)Stefania Wrote:  How can anyone be surprised at the Pope's Easter message? Or ANYTHING the Pope says. So he says that life is created by an invisible man in the sky! Thats nothing new that he has said there! We know better, we know it didn't take 7 days for example to create the world! Lets just file this away into "Crazy Old Man Says the Craziest Things" folder!

I agree he's a crazy old man, but not for the above reasons. The quote in the opening post says:

Quote:"If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature," he said. "But no, reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine reason."

The Vatican gave up trying to fight science on its own ground a while ago. Apparently the Galileo thing didn't work out too well. As far as I know, Evolution is taught in Catholic schools.

He seems to be staking a claim to some property inside the Big Bang, something that set the whole thing off. Which is, of course, unfalsifiable and therefore outside the realm of science.

Trouble is, anything is possible inside the Big Bang, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster is as likely as a Catholic God. So he's just pulling fluffy Easter bunnies out of his silly hat to distract the faithful.
Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2011, 03:33 PM (This post was last modified: 25-04-2011 03:45 PM by TrainWreck.)
HEY, hey, hey
(25-04-2011 11:31 AM)Stefania Wrote:  Lets just file this away into "Crazy Old Man Says the Craziest Things" folder!
This is an example of CLASSIFICATION ! ! ! !

Obviously, it is sarcasm, but in fact it demonstrates that you do know what classification is, and that it is a form of censorship - with an understanding the use of relative terms, of course.


(24-04-2011 04:44 PM)BnW Wrote:  
(24-04-2011 08:51 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  . . . and then I will give you my brilliant analysis, based of course, on my impeccable critical thinking skills.
Your hat size is like an extra, extra, extra large, isn't it?
Yes, it is.

(25-04-2011 12:27 PM)riggbeck Wrote:  The Vatican gave up trying to fight science on its own ground a while ago. Apparently the Galileo thing didn't work out too well. As far as I know, Evolution is taught in Catholic schools.
Yes, it is.

(25-04-2011 12:27 PM)riggbeck Wrote:  He seems to be staking a claim to some property inside the Big Bang, something that set the whole thing off.
That may be, but I think the intentions of the Church is more along the lines of what Lilith Pride was alluding to, and that is power control. They're moving in on the atheists' talking point - reason. They're going to straighten their house up more, and atheists are failing to even begin beyond just claiming that atheists have only one thing in common.

Every year, for the past several years, the atheist groups have been sponsoring campaigns, that at best, refer to reason - Celebrate Reason. The Church is well aware of the campaign - they are not stupid like some atheists think. But the problem is atheists have not put together an example of celebrating reason.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2011, 03:11 AM
 
RE: HEY, hey, hey
(25-04-2011 03:33 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(25-04-2011 12:27 PM)riggbeck Wrote:  The Vatican gave up trying to fight science on its own ground a while ago. Apparently the Galileo thing didn't work out too well. As far as I know, Evolution is taught in Catholic schools.
Yes, it is.

(25-04-2011 12:27 PM)riggbeck Wrote:  He seems to be staking a claim to some property inside the Big Bang, something that set the whole thing off.
That may be, but I think the intentions of the Church is more along the lines of what Lilith Pride was alluding to, and that is power control. They're moving in on the atheists' talking point - reason. They're going to straighten their house up more, and atheists are failing to even begin beyond just claiming that atheists have only one thing in common.

As long as the Vatican clings onto the structure of Catholic dogma - virgin birth, transubstantiation, the whole 9 yards - reason will continue to elude them. Accepting evolution was the easy part.

Quote:Every year, for the past several years, the atheist groups have been sponsoring campaigns, that at best, refer to reason - Celebrate Reason. The Church is well aware of the campaign - they are not stupid like some atheists think. But the problem is atheists have not put together an example of celebrating reason.

An example of celebrating reason...you mean like not entertaining the idea of god without objective proof?
Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2011, 09:43 AM (This post was last modified: 26-04-2011 01:06 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: HEY, hey, hey
(26-04-2011 03:11 AM)riggbeck Wrote:  As long as the Vatican clings onto the structure of Catholic dogma - virgin birth, transubstantiation, the whole 9 yards - reason will continue to elude them. Accepting evolution was the easy part.
There is no rush to deactivate that dogma, but they should begin to repackage what it is allegory to.

(26-04-2011 03:11 AM)riggbeck Wrote:  An example of celebrating reason...you mean like not entertaining the idea of god without objective proof?
It's a real shame that that is all that comprises atheist reasoning. It's amazing how keen atheists are to recognizing the Christians flaws, but are just completely ignorant to understanding how fucked up they are themselves and what it requires to fix that. You speak as if reason is inherent of non-catholics, or do you have a more precise group of people who you think are the champions of reason??? Or maybe you think you, alone, are the champion?

The Catholics are going to do it for you, and don't be surprised if they champion me. I was baptized and raised in a Catholic family, that is true fact, that cannot be denied. And my proclamations that there is no god, is irrelevant, to the situation that caused me to investigate classification and propose the hypothesis that classification is essential to that of orderly society by way of standardizing the semantics of communications. The fact that atheists are declining to champion classification reform, in favor of championing public ridicule of Christians, and claims of oppression, is evidence that atheists do not understand good reason - just irrational belief that things will get better when Christians do what it is that the atheists cannot decide to do themselves.

You would be better off if you understood that you should be jealous that you cannot get atheists to see things your way, as well as the Pope is able to get theists to see things his way. You and all the other atheists may not be in lock-step with each other, but what good is that? Atheists can not even get their shit together to put together a school and curriculum that satisfies the ambitions of atheists beliefs of what a good education is and what that would do to better society?

I can take you on an excellent tour of discussions concerning the merits of teaching critical thinking; yet after several years of the same talking point, atheists have yet to put together, so much as, a seminar series to at least try to teach it! teaching critical thinking is definitely not what you atheists think it is.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2011, 08:36 PM
RE: HEY, hey, hey
(26-04-2011 09:43 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  There is no rush to deactivate that dogma, but they should begin to repackage what it is allegory to.

Repackage... so like the intelligent design movement?


(26-04-2011 09:43 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  It's a real shame that that is all that comprises atheist reasoning. It's amazing how keen atheists are to recognizing the Christians flaws, but are just completely ignorant to understanding how fucked up they are themselves and what it requires to fix that. You speak as if reason is inherent of non-catholics, or do you have a more precise group of people who you think are the champions of reason??? Or maybe you think you, alone, are the champion?

Telling someone they don't have proof of an assertion isn't bullying and its not "championing a cause"
If I tell you I have an invisible, ethereal, omnipotent dragon in my garage that only communicates with me, would you believe it just because I say "I've seen it, I have a close personal relationship with it."? Would you believe someone if they said they had a close personal relationship with jesus? and if so than why would you believe them?


(26-04-2011 09:43 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  The fact that atheists are declining to champion classification reform, in favor of championing public ridicule of Christians, and claims of oppression, is evidence that atheists do not understand good reason - just irrational belief that things will get better when Christians do what it is that the atheists cannot decide to do themselves.

1. classification reform?
2. I'll insult anyone who promotes, incites, or enacts violence or hate towards another group based on scripture or theistic 'science'. I'll also insult anyone who tells me a story of their magic friend in the sky, claim they KNOW its truth, don't present evidence that holds up under scrutiny then tells me I deserve to experience eternal agonizing pain because I won't buy into their fairy tail.
3. I've been beaten up, rejected, lost jobs/family members/and girlfriends because I am an atheist, I receive hate mail and threats over the internet and locally all the time. That aside, what about all the parents who teach their kids atheists are these evil filthy creatures that deserve to be tortured? or all the states in the USA where you can only run for public office if you are a christian? or the christian majority believing since they are the majority they get to stamp out the rights of everyone else(atheists included)?
4. Define good reason.
5. What is it that we haven't decided to do that we 'irrationally believe' will make things better when the christians do it?


(26-04-2011 09:43 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  You would be better off if you understood that you should be jealous that you cannot get atheists to see things your way, as well as the Pope is able to get theists to see things his way. You and all the other atheists may not be in lock-step with each other, but what good is that? Atheists can not even get their shit together to put together a school and curriculum that satisfies the ambitions of atheists beliefs of what a good education is and what that would do to better society?

So conformity is good is what you're saying? we should be jealous of mindless automatons?
We aren't a group, yes groups exist made up of atheists and freethinkers but there is not central power or atheist HQ. You don't seem to understand the point about us only agreeing that we don't believe in a god, thats not some pact that binds us together, we have agreed on something, that has absolutely no relevance to what may happen after that. School curriculum is written by the school boards based on credible scientific facts and trusted accumulated knowledge, that is their job, when someone starts trying to push their own agenda into what our children are being taught than of course we're going to get uppity about it.

What good is an education?... you've just answered every question I had about you.


(26-04-2011 09:43 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  I can take you on an excellent tour of discussions concerning the merits of teaching critical thinking; yet after several years of the same talking point, atheists have yet to put together, so much as, a seminar series to at least try to teach it! teaching critical thinking is definitely not what you atheists think it is.

Wrong.
http://www.atheistrev.com/2008/09/promot...nking.html
http://atheism.about.com/od/criticalthin...lthink.htm
http://www.booktalk.org/FACTS-book-selections.php

Hey brother christian, with your high and mighty errand, your actions speak so loud, I can't hear a word you're saying.

"This machine kills fascists..."

"Well this machine kills commies!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2011, 10:29 AM (This post was last modified: 27-04-2011 01:20 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: HEY, hey, hey
(26-04-2011 08:36 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  Repackage... so like the intelligent design movement?
Yes, and atheists are going to have to allow them to recognize its worth. Thus far, it seems, atheists have failed to accomplish what ever it is they have been trying to accomplish over the past forty years in America, because it is the same church and state issues, over and over; and what has occurred is that the Christians have put together a "scientific" description of what they would expect to find when encountering god.

So, yeah, they have the right to change the name of their god to "Intelligent Designer," and atheists have to accept that too.

(26-04-2011 08:36 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  
(26-04-2011 09:43 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  It's a real shame that that is all that comprises atheist reasoning. It's amazing how keen atheists are to recognizing the Christians flaws, but are just completely ignorant to understanding how fucked up they are themselves and what it requires to fix that. You speak as if reason is inherent of non-catholics, or do you have a more precise group of people who you think are the champions of reason??? Or maybe you think you, alone, are the champion?

Telling someone they don't have proof of an assertion isn't bullying and its not "championing a cause"
If I tell you I have an invisible, ethereal, omnipotent dragon in my garage that only communicates with me, would you believe it just because I say "I've seen it, I have a close personal relationship with it."? Would you believe someone if they said they had a close personal relationship with jesus? and if so than why would you believe them?
If you had an organization of people freely willing to testify on your behalf that your claim was true, then yes I would probably be very skeptical; but an individual, I wouldn't think twice.

(26-04-2011 08:36 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  
(26-04-2011 09:43 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  The fact that atheists are declining to champion classification reform, in favor of championing public ridicule of Christians, and claims of oppression, is evidence that atheists do not understand good reason - just irrational belief that things will get better when Christians do what it is that the atheists cannot decide to do themselves.

1. classification reform?
I keep forgetting to add election (constitutional reform), as well. Silly me, classification reform is my pet project. You see it has the latent ability to make people better critical thinkers. And it should be imposed on society with very little controversy; based on the aspect that people never thought library classification systems had any effect on society - I've not come across any laws determining what classification system public institutions are required to patronize. This in turn, provide the atheists a political issue that would garner them some political clout with the Christians, because it does become political when we recognize that the Dewey Decimal system was devised with the intent of promoting Christian Bible studies, as evident by the detailed subdividing of the 200 Religion class - have you ever noticed that?

Anyway, critical thinking people would be better served if they were familiar with the system I put together - The Secular Library Classification system.

(26-04-2011 08:36 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  2. I'll insult anyone who promotes, incites, or enacts violence or hate towards another group based on scripture or theistic 'science'. I'll also insult anyone who tells me a story of their magic friend in the sky, claim they KNOW its truth, don't present evidence that holds up under scrutiny then tells me I deserve to experience eternal agonizing pain because I won't buy into their fairy tail.
You should learn to be more tolerant, especially if they pay more taxes than you.

(26-04-2011 08:36 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  3. I've been beaten up, rejected, lost jobs/family members/and girlfriends because I am an atheist, I receive hate mail and threats over the internet and locally all the time. That aside, what about all the parents who teach their kids atheists are these evil filthy creatures that deserve to be tortured? or all the states in the USA where you can only run for public office if you are a christian? or the christian majority believing since they are the majority they get to stamp out the rights of everyone else(atheists included)?
States Rights, and segregation should be the apex of your political agenda - mine is.
(26-04-2011 08:36 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  4. Define good reason.
Reason based on a consistent logic system, consistently applied to emerging situations
(26-04-2011 08:36 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  5. What is it that we haven't decided to do that we 'irrationally believe' will make things better when the christians do it?
Organize logic and morality systems (politics).

(26-04-2011 08:36 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  
(26-04-2011 09:43 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  You would be better off if you understood that you should be jealous that you cannot get atheists to see things your way, as well as the Pope is able to get theists to see things his way. You and all the other atheists may not be in lock-step with each other, but what good is that? Atheists can not even get their shit together to put together a school and curriculum that satisfies the ambitions of atheists beliefs of what a good education is and what that would do to better society?

So conformity is good is what you're saying?
Yes.
(26-04-2011 08:36 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  we should be jealous of mindless automatons?
No - and you should be mindful of the possibility that classification systems could lead to such.

(26-04-2011 08:36 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  We aren't a group, yes groups exist made up of atheists and freethinkers but there is not central power or atheist HQ.
So long as atheists protest grievances with the government, atheists are channeling a collective organized thought. And it would be good to note that representatives can only represent organized thought, they cannot represent contesting ideologies.

(26-04-2011 08:36 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  You don't seem to understand the point about us only agreeing that we don't believe in a god, thats not some pact that binds us together, we have agreed on something, that has absolutely no relevance to what may happen after that.
So you think it is better to draw an agreement with theists, rather than atheists???

Your reasoning here, has to be getting belabored. You are more willing to form political alliances with Christians, who believe in the space daddy for determining social morality, then forming exclusive alliances with people who you should be more keenly aware of recognizing errors in their reasoning. You never know when the adverse effects of theism come into play in the reasoning of the Christians, with atheists on the other hand we can eliminate that interferrence and concentrate on making sure they are applying consistent logic to their reasoning - a much better approach to solving issues.

(26-04-2011 08:36 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  School curriculum is written by the school boards based on credible scientific facts and trusted accumulated knowledge, that is their job, when someone starts trying to push their own agenda into what our children are being taught than of course we're going to get uppity about it.

What good is an education?... you've just answered every question I had about you.
Yeah, but everyone is complaining about the education system and how it is letting society down. And so the Christians have a decent argument that things like school prayer and religion would be beneficial if reinstituted.

You need to take a look at the facts

(26-04-2011 08:36 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  
(26-04-2011 09:43 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  I can take you on an excellent tour of discussions concerning the merits of teaching critical thinking; yet after several years of the same talking point, atheists have yet to put together, so much as, a seminar series to at least try to teach it! teaching critical thinking is definitely not what you atheists think it is.

Wrong.
http://www.atheistrev.com/2008/09/promot...nking.html
http://atheism.about.com/od/criticalthin...lthink.htm
http://www.booktalk.org/FACTS-book-selections.php
These are good examples of attempts, but it doesn't seem to be catching on to any great fanfare.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2011, 02:16 PM
RE: HEY, hey, hey
(27-04-2011 10:29 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Yes, and atheists are going to have to allow them to recognize its worth. Thus far, it seems, atheists have failed to accomplish what ever it is they have been trying to accomplish over the past forty years in America, because it is the same church and state issues, over and over; and what has occurred is that the Christians have put together a "scientific" description of what they would expect to find when encountering god.

So, yeah, they have the right to change the name of their god to "Intelligent Designer," and atheists have to accept that too.

Have you read 'Of Pandas and People'? Because I have, I read the original that the dover school board tried to push into their science class rooms, it referred to the christian god as the creator and planner of all things and even called him by name 'Yahweh'... read the "new" version too, literally the only difference between them is in the "new" version "god" and "yahweh" are replaced by "intelligent designer"
Repackaging your argument to make it look sciencey and modern is a deceptive tactic, your arguments shouldn't need some new look or style to change anyones mind. If the argument doesn't have evidence to support it, than its garbage, and trying to disprove something with 200 years of accumulated evidence isn't the way to prove your concept right either.
Do they have the right? Sure. Its deceptive though.
Do we have to accept it? Explain why I should.


(26-04-2011 09:43 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  If you had an organization of people freely willing to testify on your behalf that your claim was true, then yes I would probably be very skeptical; but an individual, I wouldn't think twice.

What does the number of people have to do with it? It doesn't matter how many people believe or how strongly they believe, if its not consistent with testable, verifiable facts than its not true.


(26-04-2011 09:43 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  I keep forgetting to add election (constitutional reform), as well. Silly me, classification reform is my pet project. You see it has the latent ability to make people better critical thinkers. And it should be imposed on society with very little controversy; based on the aspect that people never thought library classification systems had any effect on society - I've not come across any laws determining what classification system public institutions are required to patronize. This in turn, provide the atheists a political issue that would garner them some political clout with the Christians, because it does become political when we recognize that the Dewey Decimal system was devised with the intent of promoting Christian Bible studies, as evident by the detailed subdividing of the 200 Religion class - have you ever noticed that?

Anyway, critical thinking people would be better served if they were familiar with the system I put together - The Secular Library Classification system.

Alright teach me than, make me a better at critical thinking so I can understand your higher level of reasoning. Better yet, teach us all so we can accomplish all the things you think we want to do but can't.
We don't want political clout with any group, why should we want to have any group 'favor' us? What we want is a more secular society, educaton based on scientific facts instead of a book written by goat herders and equal rights for EVERYONE.
What does the dewer decimal system have to do with this?


(26-04-2011 09:43 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  You should learn to be more tolerant, especially if they pay more taxes than you.

Did you even read what I said? I don't care if they pay higher taxes, it doesn't give them the right to limit the rights of others and promote violent behavior towards them.
Religion doesn't affect a persons tax rates(at least not in Canada) but that aside churches and religious groups get tax breaks in a lot of places, ministers get tax breaks in the USA and a few other countries, etc etc.


(26-04-2011 09:43 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  States Rights, and segregation should be the apex of your political agenda - mine is.

No because segregation breeds elitism and discrimination, if thats a part of your 'agenda' than why don't you take it to city hall? petition it, we'll see how far it gets.
Secondly, there is no "atheist agenda", there is no "black agenda", and there is no "homosexual agenda" so stop with the conspiracy theory bullshit.
(I know you didn't mention blacks or homosexuals, but I've heard the argument.)


(26-04-2011 09:43 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Reason based on a consistent logic system, consistently applied to emerging situations

Wrong. Consistent logic means nothing if you don't have consistent facts that can be tested and demonstrated to others.

(26-04-2011 09:43 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Organize logic and morality systems (politics).

So you want an atheist political party is what you're saying? whats the point? being atheist is a decision on ONE ISSUE, it has nothing to do with how you view the rest of the world or what you think of national issues.



(26-04-2011 09:43 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Yes.

How does conformity benefit modern society? We don't need massive numbers to keep predators away and we've seen what walking in lock-step does *ahem* catholic church *ahem*.

(26-04-2011 09:43 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  No - and you should be mindful of the possibility that classification systems could lead to such.

So you're warning us that your classification system could lead to conformity, gotcha, I'll be steering clear of any country that listens to you than.

(26-04-2011 09:43 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  So long as atheists protest grievances with the government, atheists are channeling a collective organized thought. And it would be good to note that representatives can only represent organized thought, they cannot represent contesting ideologies.

Yes people who all share even one common belief could be classified as a collective group, but you wouldn't call everybody who liked pasta pastafarians and tell them they should have their own moral compass, logic system and political party would you? and before you say its not the same, yes it is, because non-belief is as irrelevant as what someones favorite food is.

(26-04-2011 09:43 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  So you think it is better to draw an agreement with theists, rather than atheists???

Your reasoning here, has to be getting belabored. You are more willing to form political alliances with Christians, who believe in the space daddy for determining social morality, then forming exclusive alliances with people who you should be more keenly aware of recognizing errors in their reasoning. You never know when the adverse effects of theism come into play in the reasoning of the Christians, with atheists on the other hand we can eliminate that interferrence and concentrate on making sure they are applying consistent logic to their reasoning - a much better approach to solving issues.

How have I attacked anyone with my logic by stating the only thing we have in common is non-belief?
I will agree with a theist up until they say something I disagree with, so goes with everyone I meet, and personally, I'd rather everyone be able to agree regardless of their affiliation rather than have them all squabbling.
No you can't know what effects theism will have on someones mind, we can make some good guesses based off personal experience though, but thats beside the point.
Sorry to go into troll mode but...
Consistent logic is inconsistent.


(26-04-2011 09:43 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Yeah, but everyone is complaining about the education system and how it is letting society down. And so the Christians have a decent argument that things like school prayer and religion would be beneficial if reinstituted.

You need to take a look at the facts

We complain about the school system because religious fanatics are pushing their beliefs into national law and into our schools.
How is prayer and religion enforced in schools beneficial? and how is that relevant to the topic?
Give me the facts and I'll look at them.

(26-04-2011 09:43 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  These are good examples of attempts, but it doesn't seem to be catching on to any great fanfare.

I like how you said atheists haven't made anything about critical thinking or its value, and when I showed you some instances where, yes some have, you say "no no no! that doesn't count!"

Hey brother christian, with your high and mighty errand, your actions speak so loud, I can't hear a word you're saying.

"This machine kills fascists..."

"Well this machine kills commies!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2011, 11:30 PM
RE: The Pope's Easter Message
First of all I'm not shocked by the Pope's statement. Do I think it's wrong? Yes, but I think just about everything he says is wrong.

After all he is the Pope. I don't think you get to the position of leading the largest religion in the world by being a critical thinker.

But I'm really not all that sure that he has the kind of influence you think he does. He is a figure head and leader of the Catholic religion. But if he stepped forward and made a statement in support of the theory of evolution I doubt many of his followers would change their minds about it based his statement. They may even turn against him.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: