Sim-O

Via Jesus & Mo I happen across this…

HAWKING POSITS FALSE CONFLICT
June 8, 2010

In an interview last night with ABC-News reporter Diane Sawyer, scientist Stephen Hawking opined that human life is “insignificant in the universe,” and then went on to say that “There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason.” He concluded by saying, “Science will win because it works.”

Stephen Hawking does have a point. Bill Donohue, the President of the Catholic League disagrees (I’ve no idea who he is either, but he reckons the Catholic priest abuse scandal is about teh gays not peadophiles).

What Big Bill says is…

How any rational person could belittle the pivotal role that human life plays in the universe is a wonder, but it is just as silly to say that all religions are marked by the absence of reason. While there are some religions which are devoid of reason, there are others, such as Roman Catholicism, which have long assigned it a special place.

How can rational person overstate how little a role humans play in the universe? How can anybody think we have a ‘pivotal’ role in what happens outside of our planets atmosphere? We might be able to warm Earth up a degree or two or be really good at making various forms of life here extinct, but anything on a bigger scale is waaaaay beyond us.

Some religions may be more receptive to reasoned argument, but Catholicism is not one of them. Look at it’s stance on condoms, for Christs sake.

Religions may accept certain bits of science and reason, but as soon as a bit contradicts what is in it’s special writings then it doesn’t want to know. Unless of course it can come up with a bit of holy logical acrobatics to say it’s teachings were wrong without saying they were wrong.

It was the Catholic Church that created the first universities, and it was the Catholic Church that played a central role in the Scientific Revolution; these two historical contributions made possible Mr. Hawking’s career.

Just because somebody is teaching something doesn’t mean what they’re teaching is correct.

Reason, in pursuit of truth, has been reiterated by the Church fathers for nearly two millennia. That is why Hawking posits a false conflict: in the annals of the Catholic Church, there is no inherent conflict between science and religion. Quite the contrary: science and religion, in Catholic thought, are complementary properties. Ergo, nothing is gained by alleging a “victory” of science over religion.

No conflict between science and religion? Why did the Catholic church persecute Galileo for saying the earth orbited the Sun instead of saying ‘really? Could you look into it further?’

There is an inherent conflict twix science and religion: religion is based on what old teachings tell us what to believe, science tells us what we find out from evidence.

Religion without reason, Pope Benedict XVI instructed us in his Regensburg address in 2006, leads to fanaticism. That much Hawking seems to understand. What he doesn’t get is its contra: science without faith also leads to disaster—the genocidal regimes in Germany, the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia being Exhibits A, B, C and D.

Pope Beni got something right, but the examples given of science without faith are not cause and effect. Throughout history there are appalling examples of religious and non-religious people in power causing atrocities. Being ‘of faith’ or not does not mean one is A Good Guy or A Bad Guy.

Religion will never get to the truth. There are too many reasons not to. Science is about discovery. It doesn’t matter what that discovery is.

This is exactly why law should not be made from religious beliefs.
Lord Justice Law (do you reckon he changed his name just to be that cool?)…

In the eye of everyone save the believer religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence. It may of course be true; but the ascertainment of such a truth lies beyond the means by which laws are made in a reasonable society. Therefore it lies only in the heart of the believer, who is alone bound by it. No one else is or can be so bound, unless by his own free choice he accepts its claims.

read the whole post from Heresy Corner.

BBC…

The Church of England’s ruling body will close its meeting with a call for more recognition of the compatibility of religious belief with science.

The motion will urge it to fight back in what is the latest move in a public battle between atheists and believers.

The compatibility of science and religion only goes so far.
The scientist that is also a believer may, for instance, recognise evolution and all the current scientific thoeries as true and look deeper in to how the world works, but ultimately, will come to the conclusion that it all started with god.

An athiest scientist will keep looking.

The motion at the General Synod in London is proposed by Dr Peter Capon.

Many religious people feel they are being gradually pushed out of the public sphere by opponents who are using science as a weapon.

‘Science’ itself isn’t the weapon, rational arguement is. And seeing as religion is not a rational ‘thing’*, then religion is on a loser. Science will one day have all the answers. Although it may take a bit of time.

(*I can’t find the link to which religious person said it recently, so drop a link in the comments if you do)

Dr Capon, himself a former lecturer in computer science, says atheists are misleading the public when they claim science and religion are incompatible.

Athiests are misleading the public? Atheists are using evidence and rational thought. It is the religious folk that are misleading the public with stories and assertions and rules that have supposedly come form god but only come from someone or people with a knack for manipulating people and telling a good story.

Think of it this way. Two scientists, one an atheist and one a believer, after rigorous experimentation and testing and research, after following all the evidence they find about the beginning of life, the universe and everything, they end up ringing the doorbell on the Pearly Gates. God answers.
The religious scientist turns to the atheist and says ‘See. I said it was him that did it. Our quest for the ultimate answer has finished.’
The Atheist scientist looks at God and asks ‘So. How did you do it, then?’

After the pope has attacked the Equality Bill ahead of his coming visit there then comes this…

Harriet Harman has backed away from a confrontation with religious leaders over who they can employ, making clear that she will not force contentious amendments to the Equality Bill through Parliament.

Those contentious issues are the re-wording, an amendment, of the Equality Bill to make it clear that exemptions from the bill applied only to religious posts within an organisation. Which is fair enough. It would be like appointing an interpreter that couldn’t speak the lingo.

But this exemption is not enough for the God Squad.

What gives them the right to discriminate? What is the difference between discriminating on the grounds of religious belief and discriminating against someone on racial grounds?

Nothing at all. They’re both beliefs, both are grounded in fantasy. It’s just that one is more acceptable than the other… apparently.

h/t chrisplol

God. Where to start, eh?

God does judge the nations — all of them — and God will judge the nations.

Nations are made up of individuals. Even during the Nuremburg trials, individuals were prosecuted, not the German nation. What that statement above says is that God is into collective punishment. But we already knew that anyway.

Look at the original sin. Man is born a sinner now because of the decision of an individual, Adam, to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.

What the Vatican says about the original sin is…

It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” – a state and not an act.

Original sin is not something someone’s done, it is inherited. Even a baby that is just born, that has no chance to develop a character, never mind any knowledge, opinion or attitude about anything, is doomed.

Unless of course it renounces a life without god in a ceremony usually taking place before it has any concept of consent never mind the deeper logical and theological concepts involved in a baptism.

Hmm. Isn’t it also usually considered bad form to do stuff to/make someone do stuff that they have no understanding of?

Haaretz…

Dozens of rabbis and Kabbalah mystics armed with ceremonial trumpets took to the skies over Israel on Monday to battle the swine flu virus, according to local media reports

Nice one. Creep up behind the virus and blow your trumpet. That’ll scare the shit out of it and it’ll run away.

“The aim of the flight was to stop the pandemic so people will stop dying from it,” Rabbi Yitzhak Batzri was quoted as saying in the mass-circulation daily Yedioth Ahronoth.

“We are certain that, thanks to the prayer, the danger is already behind us,” added Batzri.

If the dangers already behind you, why did you bother? And doesn’t that also mean that intervention from you ghostly master was not needed?

If it was any other delusion as strong as this, that wasn’t classified as religion or sprituality, they would be removed by the men in white coats ‘for their own protection’.

via normblog

RTE News…

Hundreds of people have been gathering to pay their respects to what they believe is an image of the Virgin Mary in a tree stump in Co Limerick

It happens all the time. Jesus in potates and stuff so why not in a tree stump, eh?

How the hell can a man of the cloth say this with a straight face is beyond me…

…we would also wish to avoid anything which might lead to superstition,’ said Fr Paul Finnerty.

It wouldn’t do to believe in silly stuff like that would it? Fer Christs sake, if you’re gonna believe that a man can rise from the dead, and that’s gotta be quite a hard thing to do, surely a picture of his mum in a tree is piss easy. Infact it probably explains why the preists are so nonchalant about it.

Picture the scene…

Rathkeale Community Council Graveyard Committee chairman Noel White said workmen sprucing up the church land saw the image when they cut the tree.

The sound of a chainsaw, the tree falls over and then…

‘One of the lads said look, our Blessed Lady in the tree,’ Mr White said. ‘One of the other lads looked over and actually knelt down and blessed himself, he got such a shock.’

Cue heraldic fanfare and shafts of devine light. The work men slack jawed in awe and reverence.
Enter stage right, Father Willie Russell with the words to bring everyone back to thier senses…

It’s only a tree.

Via

Click the pic for more Jesus and Mo.

I was driving home southbound on the M40 this afternoon when, as I approached J15 at Warwick, I just cought a glimpse of an advert. The sort that you see on the side of a lorry in a field. It should’ve taken only a few minutes to pull off the motorway and get to the appropriate field but due to lack of knowledge of the area and some hefty roadworks, I eventually get to it after covering 25 miles. On top of that, I could’ve just googled it and then clicked here.

Oh, and I got chased by some bullocks too.

Anyway, this is the ad…

On their site (which has currently exceeded it’s bandwith so the cache is here) the Christians demand…

A Christian Europe
Recognition that Christianity brought Europe freedom, law, culture and public morality. It’s time to return to those Christian values.

Well, where to start? I’m no historian so what, exactly, did Christianity get Europe freedom from? What was oppressing Europe that no other force or thinking or organisation couldn’t have done? What was before Christianity? Paganism, that’s what. Well, paganism isn’t exactly renowned for it’s authoritarianism, is it? So that bit is a load of rubbish.

Society was organised before the introduction of Christianity and for a society to be organised there needs to be rules. Right? And culture? Any way of doing things, consisting of rules and traditions and attitudes and other intangible things make up a culture. You don’t need to work at culture it just happens and cannot be stopped. Another bit of tat, then.

Public morality? Do you really need another paragraph like the previous ones? No, I didn’t think so.

Those ‘Christian values’, eh? What are those values? It changes with every brand of Christianity. They’ all supposed to be tolerant of the individual, but some types don’t allow women or gays to be ordained, or married even, because of what it says in the Bible. Yet other sects of Christianity do allow for it. How does that work? There are other examples but you get the idea.

Britain is a Christian country, vote to keep it that way

It’s a bit, BNP-Lite isn’t it? Or more fairly, Zionistic. What about all those people that aren’t followers of Jesus? These people are horrified whenever an Islamic state is mentioned. Islamic countries are looked down upon, but what they are proposing is no different.

The state should not have a religion. People should, if they want.

Alan Duncan went on the offensive on Have I Got News For You on Friday (apparently. I haven’t seen it yet).

Miss California had made a remarked somewhere that marraige should be between a man and a woman and on HIGNFY…

Mr Duncan, 51, described blonde Miss Prejean as a “silly bitch”, then added: “I don’t agree with her at all.”

After a pause, he went on: “If you read that Miss California has been murdered, you will know it was me won’t you?”

This comment has given rise to some complaints. One of which…

Metropolitan Police received a complaint from George Hargreaves, the leader of evangelical political party The Christian Party whose members believe that homosexuality is a sin.

“Mr Duncan has crossed the line,” Mr Hargreaves said. “A senior politician suggesting, even as a joke, that it is OK that Miss Prejean should be murdered for her evangelical Christian views is totally unacceptable.

“How can we stop gun and knife crime when the man thinks he will be the next Home Secretary makes death threats?”

Nice to see you standing up for law and order, but where’s the crime?
Did he say the fragrant beauty queen should be murdered to death? Was there a call to restrict her rights and discriminate against her because of who or what she is? No. Alan Duncan joked about himself killing her, because I presume, her beliefs would impede on how he lives his life, which has no effect on how she lives hers.

Is the joking about killing her any different than preaching that homosexuals are going TO HELL!! FOREVER!!?

Hell is a pretty scary place, so I’m told. And a little less easily avoided than an irate Alan Duncan, too (if you believe those stories).

Via