Pope Says Humanity Needs Saving From Homosexuality

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3916804/Pope-says-humanity-needs-saving-from-homosexuality.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3916804/Pope-says-humanity-needs-saving-from-homosexuality.html)

I'd expect nothing less from a former member of the Hitler youth.

I'm not quite sure what moral authority he has to tell us how to live our lives, given his background and current membership of an intolerant organization which actually discourages the use of condoms. Thankfully in most countries the Church is becoming an increasingly irrelevant part of society.

[anakot]

She (Mrs Pope) is really a pathetic and tragic old queen.

What an evil performance that is guaranteed to bring on more violence against gays and transgender folk. Ranks up there with them saying that condoms do not stop the spread of HIV.

May be they are in their last throes...

I'd expect nothing less from a former member of the Hitler youth.


And surfing around I found this picture of one of his predecessors (Pope Pius X11) when he was a Cardinal

http://www.burningcross.net/inquisition/hitler-pope/hitler-cardinal.jpg

I'd expect nothing less from a former member of the Hitler youth.


And surfing around I found this picture of one of his predecessors (Pope Pius X11) when he was a Cardinal

http://www.burningcross.net/inquisition/hitler-pope/hitler-cardinal.jpg

You can almost hear him saying

"Ja. Vee haf dealt with ze homosexuals in ze party."

Apologies to our German friends.

I'd expect nothing less from a former member of the Hitler youth.


And surfing around I found this picture of one of his predecessors (Pope Pius X11) when he was a Cardinal

http://www.burningcross.net/inquisition/hitler-pope/hitler-cardinal.jpg

Good research!
Just goes to show they would rather support the Nazis, than risk turning away German revenue.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3916804/Pope-says-humanity-needs-saving-from-homosexuality.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3916804/Pope-says-humanity-needs-saving-from-homosexuality.html)

Thankfully in most countries the Church is becoming an increasingly irrelevant part of society.

Right! And what's taking the place of the Catholic Church are the rabid dog fundamentalist Christian sects. People are turning to them in droves all over the world even throughout Asia. And the NGOs are cheering them on while the gays fight among themselves over non-issues.

Just look at President-elect Obama's choice for his inaugural speaker next month, Rick Warren, who makes the Pope look tolerant by comparison.

[dab69]

and more fuel to the worldfire- the 9-11 attacks, which bolstered more religious/superstitious violence.

good it has little to do with Thailand

It seems that anti-gay sentiment is picking up momentum while gays spin their wheels in the mud fighting with each other about how to be sanctimonious and self-righteous.

Now it seems the Rev. Rick Warren, the notorious gay hater, will be the featured speaker at the Martin Luther King Jr. Commemorative Service in Atlanta the day before he gives the invocation at President-elect Barack ObamaтАЩs inauguration.

Let's keep fighting with each other about how "normal" we all are so the anti-sex fascists can start throwing us in prison again. Maybe you guys who are under 50 don't remember those days. Well, it looks like they'll be back again soon.

Forget about the Pope friends, this is getting damn scary, and this movement is well funded and organized.

[Aunty]

Well I wouldn't be losing any sleep over it. After all this is the same perverse and foolish organisation that took 400 years to apologise for its outrageous handling and persecution of Galileo who simply stated an observable truth about God's creation тАУ but as it didnтАЩt fit in with these pompous old dandies wrong view of the world they almost killed him rather than permitting themselves to be educated and enlightened. And itтАЩs the same with homosexuality. They can deny it as much as they like, but it simply does not, and nor will it ever change the fact that homosexuality was created by God.

The current Pope is clearly no less a silly and thoughtless old fool as were his predecessors. We await the Churches apology, in what, maybe another 400 years?

[joe552]

Aunty, I'm with you on this one (for what that's worth!)

[francois]

I'd expect nothing less from a former member of the Hitler youth.


And surfing around I found this picture of one of his predecessors (Pope Pius X11) when he was a Cardinal

http://www.burningcross.net/inquisition/hitler-pope/hitler-cardinal.jpg

Can you document this photo claimed to be Pius XII and Hitler. The cardinal does not resemble Pius XII who was quite thin, unless he lost some weight later on. There is no record that I can find that the two have ever met.

[Khor tose]

The current Pope is clearly no less a silly and thoughtless old fool as were his predecessors. We await the Churches apology, in what, maybe another 400 years?

It won't take 400 years until we get an apology. Unlike Galileo times, the science is out there and well known and it is nearly 100% on the side of homosexuality being normal. I give it 100 years at the most, before the church has to do a mea culpa to the gay population.

[billyhouston]

Can you document this photo claimed to be Pius XII and Hitler. The cardinal does not resemble Pius XII who was quite thin, unless he lost some weight later on. There is no record that I can find that the two have ever met.

This photo is clearly NOT of Eugenio Pacelli though he was Papal Nuncio to Germany from 1917 to 1929 when he became Cardinal Secretary of State.

An excellent book on the subject is "Hitler's Pope" by John Cornwell but I cannot recall reading of any meeting between the Pius XII and Hitler.

They can deny it as much as they like, but it simply does not, and nor will it ever change the fact that homosexuality was created by God.I thought you are a scientist. Or are you channeling Wesley?

[Wesley]

For the longest time I had to play with Home, shall I begin the game with you too, I have stated publicly I am an agnostic, how much more do you wish me to say, the game with Homi was just that, a game, are you as well so gullible.

I had given you more credit, intellectually that is, until the thread on George now I know you are exactly as I stated there. An Ass... and of magnanimous proportions.

Wes

I know you are exactly as I stated there. An Ass... and of magnanimous proportions.I think I'm prepared to put my hand up for that one.

[Aunty]

They can deny it as much as they like, but it simply does not, and nor will it ever change the fact that homosexuality was created by God.I thought you are a scientist. Or are you channeling Wesley?

So what are you saying? That a scientist cannot be a Christian? That the two are somehow mutually exclusive? That the purpose of science (or even its mere existence) somehow disproves the existence of God? What do you think science is a competing religion? You silly creature.

Science doesnтАЩt address why, you moron, it addresses how.

Science doesnтАЩt address why, you moron, it addresses how.Oh OK, silly me. What's your take on Intelligent Design?

[Wesley]

Indeed, Jesus loves you like it or not. And yes throw your hands up in pure disgust as to such a prominent display of ignorance that Aunty should have to step in.

Wes

[Aunty]

Science doesnтАЩt address why, you moron, it addresses how.Oh OK, silly me. What's your take on Intelligent Design?

That you are a prime example of its falsity?

Science doesnтАЩt address why, you moron, it addresses how.Oh OK, silly me. What's your take on Intelligent Design?That you are a prime example of its falsity?Right, but ID is a "how" question, isn't it? As a Christian yourself (and such an inspiration to us non-believers I'm almost ready to take Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior based on the example you are setting) what's it all about? Why are we here and what hapens next? I mean the Pope says he's a Christian and George W. Bush says he's a Christian and you say you are a Christian but what do you all agree about?

[Wesley]

ID, like anythign else, at least at this point in time, is still a theory, nothing more nothing less. You can no more prove there is not a god than Aunty can prove there is. Its all thoery, As long as it remains in the theoretical realm it is only a question for people like you to ponder.

Wes

ID, like anythign else, at least at this point in time, is still a theory, nothing more nothing less. You can no more prove there is not a god than Aunty can prove there is. Its all thoery, As long as it remains in the theoretical realm it is only a question for people like you to ponder.That's why I'm looking to Aunty to provide me with answers to the "why". As Aunty says "JESUS LOVES YOU" and I'm guessing Aunty is a living example of what that love can do for you.

[Wesley]

I think that was meant in jest, I'm just guessing but I think that was toungue in Cheek.
I'm surprised with your intellectual prowess you missed it...?
Wes

I think thatwas meant in jest, I'm just guessing but I think that was toungue in Cheek.But was it magnanimous?

[Wesley]

no I'm being magnanimous when I cut you any slack at all, I was talking about your proliferate ass hole, it has to be very giving to spew out such a stream of shit as you do.

Wes

[Wesley]

oops time to go chase a man, I'll leave you to gra45 and Aunty,

Wes

[Hmmm]

So what are you saying? That a scientist cannot be a Christian? That the two are somehow mutually exclusive? That the purpose of science (or even its mere existence) somehow disproves the existence of God?

OK, I'll bite. A scientific christian is at the very least incongruous - one set of rules for one part of your life, and another set for the other part. But the ID crowd wheel out science PhDs just as the sane side of that argument do, so science is obviously not a robust protection against delusion.

I seem to recall a lecture from you on statistical significance and probability. So what would you say ? God created everything, p < 0.05 ? Or just the invisible celestial teapot ?

[Aunty]

Oh donтАЩt be a bore, Beryl. What do you mean one set of rules for one part of life and another set for the other part? What тАШrulesтАЩ are you talking about? What do you think science is a religion that competes with Christianity much like Islam? However if that is your view, then perhaps you could show me the Book of Science so that I may learn its doctrines and understand how I am to live a good and moral life. And once my days are done what will be my reward for having lived the good science life be? What does Science promise me for that?

Clearly you have a very different view of science than I do. And the other thing that you have left me puzzled with is what does a mathematical measure that gives me 95% confidence (or more) to say that the difference between a bunch of numbers in column A and a bunch of numbers in column B happened to be that way just by chance, or not as the case may be, got to do with creation? You silly queer.

Your notion that being a scientist and a Christian is somehow incongruous, well I can only conclude that either you donтАЩt get out much, or you donтАЩt know many scientists! However the following article may be of interest to you given your apparent extremist views.

Nation's Top Christian Geneticist Defends God and Evolution
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20 ... lution.htm (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070428/nation-s-top-christian-geneticist-defends-god-and-evolution.htm)

By the way I will not be adding anything more to this discussion. It just doesnтАЩt interest me to do that here to be honest. This is a board with an equal measure of anti-christian and anti-science bias. Experience has taught me that discussions on topics of this nature are pointless, unproductive and uninformative around here. Let's get back to attractive young Thai men in their undies!

For me the sciences are a set of methods for discovering, coding and stating i.e. reifying, knowledge. Different sciences have different methods or epistemologies depending on the kinds of realities, or ontologies that are to be reified. The physical reality is received through our senses, social reality is the result of the manipulations were are subjected to by our fellows. The physical sciences reify knowledge about the physical world as it is found i.e. stumbled over, kicked against and how things may happen in a physical sense.

Some social scientists construct theories and demonstrate why things happen in a social ontology so the division between "why" and "how" is not as clear cut as stated above.

To equate the theories of Intelligent Design with those of Darwin and the scientists and thinkers of his time is simply crass. Darwin and the scientists of his time, painstakingly gathered evidence for the emergent theory of evolution. It served to demonstrate that an over-respected body of knowledge was deeply flawed. However, that doesn't mean that those bodies of knowledge didn't contain some useful heuristic for an orderly society in a warm dessert climate.

Perhaps that Jesus fellow or Mohammed did know better than their fellows and had interpreted evidence and drawn on knowledge flowing across the trade routes from East and West.

An open mind can have faith and curiousity, just not at each other's expense.

If you read between the lines, PapaRatzo sounds just like Hitler while he was warming up for the Holocost. Looks like PapaRatzo's Hitler Youth Corp. experience had a lifelong effect on the dangerous old Natzi. Is he so clueless as to not realize that he is talking about 30% to 50% of his own professional staff? Pathetic..... If all of these nut case Christians had their way, Auschwitz would be reopened.....tomorrow.

..... If all of these nut case Christians had their way, Auschwitz would be reopened.....tomorrow.Aunty is a Christian. Does that mean Aunty would be in charge?

[Hmmm]

Oh donтАЩt be a bore, Beryl. What do you mean one set of rules for one part of life and another set for the other part? What тАШrulesтАЩ are you talking about? What do you think science is a religion that competes with Christianity much like Islam? However if that is your view, then perhaps you could show me the Book of Science so that I may learn its doctrines and understand how I am to live a good and moral life. And once my days are done what will be my reward for having lived the good science life be? What does Science promise me for that?

Clearly you have a very different view of science than I do. And the other thing that you have left me puzzled with is what does a mathematical measure that gives me 95% confidence (or more) to say that the difference between a bunch of numbers in column A and a bunch of numbers in column B happened to be that way just by chance, or not as the case may be, got to do with creation? You silly queer.

Your notion that being a scientist and a Christian is somehow incongruous, well I can only conclude that either you donтАЩt get out much, or you donтАЩt know many scientists! However the following article may be of interest to you given your apparent extremist views.

Nation's Top Christian Geneticist Defends God and Evolution
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20 ... lution.htm (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070428/nation-s-top-christian-geneticist-defends-god-and-evolution.htm)

By the way I will not be adding anything more to this discussion. It just doesnтАЩt interest me to do that here to be honest. This is a board with an equal measure of anti-christian and anti-science bias. Experience has taught me that discussions on topics of this nature are pointless, unproductive and uninformative around here. Let's get back to attractive young Thai men in their undies!

OK, opt out if you wish. Avoidance strategy for the cognitive dissonance between science and religion. Good for peace of mind for those in intellectual vegetative states, if nothing else.

You can call what I am talking about a 'competition' betwen science and religion if you wish. But they ARE incompatible ways of thinking.

And just to be clear, we need to distinguish between science, the 'scientific' method, and scientists. The incompatibility between each of these and religion can be pursued, but let's focus on the scientific method, as that is the crux of the 'religious scientist' incongruity.

Your suggested dichotomy between science and religion is self-serving and self-deluding - a device to accommodate the contradiction of maintaining a rational side to your brain along with an irrational side.

The 'scientific' method provides the 'rules' of science. Of course it is often overlooked in science vs religion debates that the scientific method is actually what NON-scientists also use all day, every day: eg I don't need an umbrella today (null hypothesis); walk outside to see if I get wet (experimental method for testing hypothesis); am I wet, p < 0.05 ? (results of experiment); did I need an umbrella, and what should I do tomorrow (interpretation and conclusions). Tomorrow, repeat experiment using same method to see if results are the same, or if hypothesis should be revised.

That you personally can only see probability theory as useful to testing the difference between two columns of numbers is precisely my point ! One set of rules for your 'scientific' life, and another, non-rational set for your 'religious' life.

Probability should also be telling you of the infinitessimal likelihood of a higher power.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we are an arbibtrary species of arbitrary intelligence. As such, there is no reason why we SHOULD understand the origin of the universe or the meaning of life. So there is no need to postulate the god hypothesis in the first place. It's only necessary if you wish to argue that if science cannot answer all the mysteries of the universe in a way that the human brain can comprehend, then the ONLY possible alternative hypothesis is a metaphysical one, ie god.

That would suggest an arrogant confidence in the level of human intelligence that is rather hard to sustain when we look around us at our fellow humans - like I said, an arbitrary species of arbitrary intelligence.

In actuality, we (and our human-conducted science) may or may not ever be able to explain all the mysteries of the universe. But either way, a metaphysical explanation is entirely unnecessary. It may simply be that we are not capable of discovering / understanding. Nothing mysterious about that. No god is necessary.

The assumption that there MUST be a 'why' is just another self-serving device to allow for the unnecessary intrusion of religion into an otherwise rational discussion.

The delusions of individual scientists, such as yourself and geneticist Francis Collins who you cited, are simply evidence that science and scientists are different entities, and science does not always protect scientists against delusion ... especially in our societies where religious inanities are not only tolerated, but inculcated into children, and protected against challenges. Dawkins would say that the religious 'virus' (whether biologically or socially constructed) is very 'clever'.

I'm actually surprised that you appear to be a christian. It makes your previous support for big pharma's outrageous pricing of AIDs drugs to poor countries, well ... incongruous. And that's defining religion on your own terms - ie that goodness and morality are the province of religion. Of course that is an insult to all atheists, and a load of crap. I don't have a religious molecule in my body, yet my personal moral code gets the high ground over any religious 'moral' code (particularly that of pope hitler).

Your only 'reward' after this life (the only life) will be reduction to dust, like the rest of us. Or perhaps you expect to be confined in the invisible celestial teapot for eternity ?

BTW, assuming I understand your implication, the 'Beryl' reference is another delusion. I have not followed the substance of your spats with the ex-colonel. But after having some spats myself with homi in my earlier days, I do now somewhat strangely often find myself to be in general agreement with at least some of his thoughts.

So don't cloud your thinking any further on the current issue with that irrelevance. Also, that particular delusion would lead you to believe that I have no direct acquaintance with science, scientists, and religion. That would also be incorrect.

As for your characterization of the above viewpoints as 'extreme', that shows how out of touch you are with the broad range of views among scientists (and non-scientists). Of course not all scientists express those views because (1) subjecting religion to intellectual scrutiny is seen as 'intolerant' (unlike criticising other things that have about as much associated sense, ie sexism, racism, homophobia), and (2) in certain parts of the world (eg USA), atheists are even less popular than homosexuals, so one's career can easily be adversely affected.

Religion's just a long running & very profitable scam. Thankfully improved education is reducing it's influence in the west, but not nearly fast enough.

Back on topic, I wonder if the pope is a top or bottom? Well surely he wouldn't come out and strongly condemn homosexual acts with no appropriate experience? :idea:

Anything that fat has to be bottom. I suspect that all he can do is lay flat on his back, raise his legs in the air...and scream,"OH, JESUS!!!!!!."

Just look at President-elect Obama's choice for his inaugural speaker next month, Rick Warren, who makes the Pope look tolerant by comparison.

Thanks for that <horrible> news, Annan, which I was previous to this unaware of.

I must say that my reaction to searching for and finding out that issue on Rick Warren was like I felt on the morning of July 4 last year, on American independence day, that the white house announced Bush would ignore many calls and be patronizing China by attending the Olympic games. I was extremely "dissed" by this news. All I can say is my opinion of Obama has suddenly and irreversibly changed.

And the issue for me, at least, is not gay marriage in California. I would have hoped that Obama would be the beginning of putting religion BEHIND in American politics. He could have made a better choice I am sure, one that would not purposely, it seems, antagonize gays like the pope's condemnation (I could only suggest that the pope consult a Lama and maybe try some meditation to get to the root of his feelings of hatred). Obama might have lead the way by choosing not to even have a preacher give an invocation at an inauguration for the leader of a secular country.

I can see that the issues of religion and gays (right-wing focussed on the marriage issue, not rights) are going to continue for a very long time. It is not a good strat.

All I can say is my opinion of Obama has suddenly and irreversibly changed.You haven't read "The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda Of The Media's Favorite Candidate"? You should. Here's a bit from a review of the book. "The Obama that emerges from its pages is not a bad person. It's just that he's like all the rest of them. Not a reformer. Not a Messiah. Obama won the Democratic nomination for his Illinois senate seat by getting a team of lawyers to throw all the other candidates off the ballot on various technicalities. He then spent the next 8 years without any visible sign of rocking the Democratic boat. He was a staunch supporter of Richard Daley who failed to stem corruption. The full extent of Obama's close links with two toxic Chicago associates, Jeremiah Wright and Antoin Rezko, is also laid out in detail. Once he got to Washington DC Obama's record of voting with his party became one of the most solid in the capital."

Let the great disillusionment begin!

Disclaimer: I voted for Obama for two reasons (1) to keep some skin in the game and (2) I didn't want Sarah Palin as next President but one and being President would have killed McCain. He's too old.

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3916804/Pope-says-humanity-needs-saving-from-homosexuality.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3916804/Pope-says-humanity-needs-saving-from-homosexuality.html)

I'd expect nothing less from a former member of the Hitler youth.
.

to be fair it was compulsorary...one of my greatest socialist friends was in the Hitler Youth

Aunty wrote:
They can deny it as much as they like, but it simply does not, and nor will it ever change the fact that homosexuality was created by God.
..and his son JC was rather suspect..hanging around with all those blokes :cheers:

[zinzone]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3916804/Pope-says-humanity-needs-saving-from-homosexuality.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3916804/Pope-says-humanity-needs-saving-from-homosexuality.html)

I'd expect nothing less from a former member of the Hitler youth.

I'm not quite sure what moral authority he has to tell us how to live our lives, given his background and current membership of an intolerant organization which actually discourages the use of condoms. Thankfully in most countries the Church is becoming an increasingly irrelevant part of society.

Agree with you z909.

Imagine the outrage if instead of condemning us gays the effing Pope had said the same re Jews or Muslims?
he presides over a mafia controlled "church" that has paid out trillions literally because of the child molestation activities of his pervert Priests.
What hypocrisy?!

Imagine the outrage if instead of condemning us gays the effing Pope had said the same re Jews or Muslims?Didn't he make an anti-Muslim comment recently?

As 1 who is not american can some one tell who is this ric warren , and what does he stand for

[rincondog]

Who will save humanity from the Catholic Church?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW3IXpEcBZk

[Wesley]

For me the sciences are a set of methods for discovering, coding and stating i.e. reifying, knowledge. Different sciences have different methods or epistemologies depending on the kinds of realities, or ontologies that are to be reified. The physical reality is received through our senses, social reality is the result of the manipulations were are subjected to by our fellows. The physical sciences reify knowledge about the physical world as it is found i.e. stumbled over, kicked against and how things may happen in a physical sense.

Some social scientists construct theories and demonstrate why things happen in a social ontology so the division between "why" and "how" is not as clear cut as stated above.

To equate the theories of Intelligent Design with those of Darwin and the scientists and thinkers of his time is simply crass. Darwin and the scientists of his time, painstakingly gathered evidence for the emergent theory of evolution. It served to demonstrate that an over-respected body of knowledge was deeply flawed. However, that doesn't mean that those bodies of knowledge didn't contain some useful heuristic for an orderly society in a warm dessert climate.

Perhaps that Jesus fellow or Mohammed did know better than their fellows and had interpreted evidence and drawn on knowledge flowing across the trade routes from East and West.

An open mind can have faith and curiousity, just not at each other's expense.

Actually, this makes more common and scientific sense than anything does I have read to date.

I am agonistic, however it is not my job to convince everyone else they should not be, nor for them to tell me I should not be, Freedom to have or not have faith or believe is fundamental to all people.

I do not think they are mentally incompetent just maybe not enlightened as our good fellow here.

I think statements as if they would open the killing chambers of Hitler are as foolish as some of the shit the Christians say, both are too far to the right or left. Moderation is the key to any common knowledge of oneтАЩs self and the universe. To equate anyone with such a tragedy is ludicrous in any right-thinking mind.

Wes


Wes

Let the great disillusionment begin!


I think it's begun. It looks like Obama's "White Water Gate" is already here. The talking head networks won't let up. The scandal is going to haunt Obama's administration until the very end.

I agree. Obama will be happy just to be in the game.

.... it simply does not, and nor will it ever change the fact that homosexuality was created by God.

Wes, I also found 555's post one of the few rational ones here. Aunty is clearly having problems differentiating between a "fact", which is something that can be shown and proven to have happened, and is usually either witnessed or corroborated by substantial verifiable evidence, and a belief, which cannot and is not - quite a failing for a scientist!

[Wesley]

I agree, 555 had a most enlightening post, it just happened to be far enough up the thread I did not notice it when I posted I prefer people not try to impress with long enticing words and keep it simple. Most here do not use dictionaries even though on the internet now they are a search away. So when people begin to use words that I barely remember from my graduate work I tend to skip over, but indeed the post I quoted and 555 were readable and make sense to the average reader without having to do a search on every other word. I have no problem with intelectual discussions, I just prefer they keep it simple and not just throw out words that the average person is going to skip over. I think 555 and the writer I quoted did that. I do not entirely disagree with Aunty; I just like her, think this is not the time of forum to discuss theology and the big bang or ID, I realize it says whatever, but as stated some theologians would be turning over in their grave if they were to find out their work was being discussed n a gay forum.

I do think the discussion is relevant, As to Obama and the Governor of Illinois is going to hurt him as well the appointment of Caroline Kennedy who will not reveal her financial statement as if she were above the fray may be a stumbling block. However. I do believe Obama can overcome those and the gay issue with Mr. Warren if the people will look to see why he was included not that he was included in the inauguration ceremony. After all it is his Inauguration not ours he has a right to choose anyone he wants and for whatever reasons , if he is trying to unit 40% of the population by alienating 3 of 4 % then he may have made a good choice. At least he is not closed minded to change which was his platform.

[anakot]

The current Pope is clearly no less a silly and thoughtless old fool as were his predecessors. We await the Churches apology, in what, maybe another 400 years?

It won't take 400 years until we get an apology. Unlike Galileo times, the science is out there and well known and it is nearly 100% on the side of homosexuality being normal. I give it 100 years at the most, before the church has to do a mea culpa to the gay population.

Who cares! I mean really who cares. Here we have a bunch of predominantly homosexual mean who believe in a myth about a homosexual man.

I think most of the hets have got over it and moved on. So why don't we. Read Dawkins and move on. Enjoy your life because you are long time dead!

[Wesley]

Just look at President-elect Obama's choice for his inaugural speaker next month, Rick Warren, who makes the Pope look tolerant by comparison.

Thanks for that <horrible> news, Annan, which I was previous to this unaware of.

I must say that my reaction to searching for and finding out that issue on Rick Warren was like I felt on the morning of July 4 last year, on American independence day, that the white house announced Bush would ignore many calls and be patronizing China by attending the Olympic games. I was extremely "dissed" by this news. All I can say is my opinion of Obama has suddenly and irreversibly changed.

And the issue for me, at least, is not gay marriage in California. I would have hoped that Obama would be the beginning of putting religion BEHIND in American politics. He could have made a better choice I am sure, one that would not purposely, it seems, antagonize gays like the pope's condemnation (I could only suggest that the pope consult a Lama and maybe try some meditation to get to the root of his feelings of hatred). Obama might have lead the way by choosing not to even have a preacher give an invocation at an inauguration for the leader of a secular country.

I can see that the issues of religion and gays (right-wing focussed on the marriage issue, not rights) are going to continue for a very long time. It is not a good strat.

Persoanlly, I don't give One rats ass what the Pope has to say and never did.... ever in my life. To spend time on him at all on this forum is in my opinioin foolish.

Wes

quite a failing for a scientist!Alleged scientist. As we know from Aunty's relative homintern, Aunty's work is either or maybe both editing a magazine called "Nuclear Physics for the Under Fives" and dissecting amoeba. Aunty has confirmed the relationship by giving us details of homintern's life. I did a Search and found Aunty also doesn't agree with a leading philosopher of science called Carl Popper. How mainstream is Aunty's science then? Maybe not very.

[Wesley]

quite a failing for a scientist!Alleged scientist. As we know from Aunty's relative homintern, Aunty's work is either or maybe both editing a magazine called "Nuclear Physics for the Under Fives" and dissecting amoeba. Aunty has confirmed the relationship by giving us details of homintern's life. I did a Search and found Aunty also doesn't agree with a leading philosopher of science called Carl Popper. How mainstream is Aunty's science then? Maybe not very.

If anyone wishes to look at the details of Popper, they may discover why Aunty may disagree on some points. However, HumeтАЩs skepticism and what philosophers I am familiar with would take some time to study, in order to make any conclusions of which I am sure not many here have taken the time to evaluate his work in totality. One might tend to think at first with all of his distiquihed works, Knighthood and other works that he may well be right about everything. However, most like Curious, likely has no idea what he was talking about or what Popper may have really been writing. To do an exhaustive study would take months.

However, most like Curious, likely has no idea what he was talking about or what Popper may have really been writing.That makes complete sense Wes thanks for clearing that up for me.

...this is the same perverse and foolish organisation that took 400 years to apologise for its outrageous handling and persecution of Galileo who simply stated an observable truth about God's creation тАУ but as it didnтАЩt fit in with these pompous old dandies wrong view of the world....

Still, he got off easier than Giordano Bruno. In 1600 they burned him for saying the same thing--And never have appologised.

This round-the-world stuff was long a bone\ boner of contention: poor Pearl came close to being burned at the stake for giving one.... Round-the-world. Job, that is.
But a smart lawyer got her off...After she got him off, I'm sure.
And all my lovely Smores went to waste!

I just read that there are 55% fewer nuns in the U.S. than there were in 1965 and 445 priests were ordained in 2002 compared with 1,575 in 1965.
Between 1965 & 2002 the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700 and two-thirds of the seminaries that were open in `65 are closed now.
I wonder how many there are in jail?
Pope Ratsass said the U.S. should import Mexican priests.
How?... Wait at the border and hope to catch a couple wet jesuites?

[joe552]

Ireland is now importing priests from Africa. Fair's fair, I say. When I was a schoolboy, we brought a shilling every week for the 'black babies' - luckily some of it paid for a good education for some, and they can come and minister to the declining churchgoing population here.

Ireland is now importing priests from Africa. Fair's fair, I say. When I was a schoolboy, we brought a shilling every week for the 'black babies' - luckily some of it paid for a good education for some, and they can come and minister to the declining churchgoing population here.

This is known as god moving in mysterious ways.

Getting back to Karl Popper, Wesley, I don't think that any philosopher worthy of the appellation would posit that they had sole understanding of the nature of all realities, rather that they have contributed to our understandings and methods of enquiring and knowing. The conferment of a knighthood cannot be taken as some sort of state endorsement of academic theorising. The conferment of research grants on the other hand can.

In my view two very accessible philosophers have been associated with the London School of Stand-up Comics in recent years. These would be Anthony Giddens who was Director recently during which time Bruno Latour ha been a visiting fellow. Interestingly they have parallel theories (Structuration and Actor Network) and both have refuted those who too closely or mechanistically seek to apply them. Rather they see them as analysis tools through which some patterns may be revealed.

[Wesley]

Ireland is now importing priests from Africa. Fair's fair, I say. When I was a schoolboy, we brought a shilling every week for the 'black babies' - luckily some of it paid for a good education for some, and they can come and minister to the declining churchgoing population here.

This is known as god moving in mysterious ways.

Getting back to Karl Popper, Wesley, I don't think that any philosopher worthy of the appellation would posit that they had sole understanding of the nature of all realities, rather that they have contributed to our understandings and methods of enquiring and knowing. The conferment of a knighthood cannot be taken as some sort of state endorsement of academic theorising. The conferment of research grants on the other hand can.

In my view two very accessible philosophers have been associated with the London School of Stand-up Comics in recent years. These would be Anthony Giddens who was Director recently during which time Bruno Latour ha been a visiting fellow. Interestingly they have parallel theories (Structuration and Actor Network) and both have refuted those who too

closely or mechanistically seek to apply them. Rather they see them as analysis tools through which some patterns may be revealed.

As to Popper, after a look, there were so many Philosophers mentioned whose workwas tied in with his contribution, to understand it all, as impolied that Aunty may hold claim to such a possibility, it was my opinion that unless you had been keeping up with his work all along; it would be impossible to find out what he cointributed with out going back and reading it all. Something I don't think any of us have the time to do. If Aunty has kept up with it and keeps up with this sort of thing who am I to say she is right or wrong considering I am not willing or capable of that much reading at this age. Altnhough, I recognized some philosopers in which I was farmiliar with, I was not willing to go back and look up all that kind of work again. I liked it in college but have had little of no practical use for it since then. Nice to know the basics when you are reading a book, but not practical in the everyday running of my life.

[ceejay]

it would be impossible to find out what he cointributed with out going back and reading it all.

I wouldn't bother if I were you Wesley. The time's better spent chasing boys. After all, it would be impossible to prove you had read Popper.

[Wesley]

I have no intentionon reaading him this late in life, when I was younger and time to spend in a book maybe, but now you are right , my time is better spent chasing boys and I do a fine job of that .

Wes

I don't know what Aunty's argument was but Popper's major contribution to the philosopy of science can be stated very simply. He posits that scientific theories cannot be proven*. However, theories can be refuted often by simple experiments or observations.

The classic example is often given of the theory that all Swans are white. This theory might have been acceptable until the discovery of Australia and the black swans found there.

*very nice subtle joke ceejay.

[Aunty]

I donтАЩt have any particular problem with Popper, 555, that is just more blabbering claptrap put forward by the boardтАЩs usual morons (e.g., Hovelturd, Curious et al.,) who, when the works of Popper were brought up several years ago, actually demonstrated a total lack of understanding of his basic ideas, (contrary to their claims of expertise of course!) You on the other hand have very succulently, and correctly, stated it. And itтАЩs not that overly complicated either, is it, no doubt much to the chagrin of those here who try to make out they are very smart people by the example of their overly dense, convoluted, and contrived posts with lots of big words in it. Big words must mean they are much more intelligent than you and I, right?

Anyway, back to Popper. At the time Beryl seemed to become completely obsessed with the тАШnull hypothesisтАЩ pounding the table and waving his idiotтАЩs stick at me and rattling on some rubbish about how it clearly disproves I am a scientist or that it denies my work as a scientist being of value, but rather is worthy only of ridicule! (Or something like that. I really don't know it's of that little interest to me). But this from a man who doesnтАЩt even know me or my work or what exactly it is I actually do! ItтАЩs desperate, itтАЩs embarrassing, itтАЩs actually pathetic. But there is this sad creature out there who is desperate to try and put me down to make himself (and his own sense of inadequacy or personal failings) feel better. At the end of the day whoтАЩs interested. Certainly not me!

As you would no doubt know Popper is but one of many philosophers of science out there with a view on тАШwhat is science?тАЩ. What he has to say is very interesting and it has been very influential, and I do actually use PopperтАЩs idea of the falsifiable hypothesis when it comes to my own work. My view is that a good scientific theory should have predictive properties that can be tested and falsified through experiment. For example, when I think about how something might work, I like to think how can I disprove it? What experiment can I do that would show me that my theory is wrong? But unlike the BerylтАЩs of this world, I do not think in absolute terms, science, the world, and all that is within it is so seldom reduced to a set of simple, clear cut and precise rules that we can neatly pop things into. Philosophers know this, moralists know this, mums and dads know this, and scientists, when it comes to science at the coal face certainly know this. However those who have not advanced much beyond an undergraduateтАЩs education do not seem to know it and this seems to be a common failing of those who have only a Bachelors degree in my experience. The absolute terms of the text book appears to have given them quite a false, although comforting view, of how knowledge is derived and the world is to be viewed i.e., with an unshakable certainty from the moment of its conception/ discovery, and the whole world must fall into this black/white view. It is so far from the truth.

Of course as subsequent philosophers of science have pointed out, many of PopperтАШs ideas about science are actually wrong, or at least they provide an overly narrow and restrictive view of what science is, that the reality of science is that it is far broader and a more complex process (but no less scientific) than a bunch of falsifiable theories. (Of course those educated back in the 40тАЩs and 50тАЩs on this board think that the philosophy of science begins and ends with Karl Popper). As a working scientist I am aware of the limitations of PopperтАЩs view of science on an almost daily basis. A lot of science now has no theory and no hypothesis; it is driven purely by technology. Does that mean that that work and any of its discoveries are not scientific? Sequencing of the human genome for example had no particular hypothesis or theory it was testing. It was made possible by the march of technology and was in essence a descriptive study. Was this work not a piece of ground breaking fundamental science? The point IтАЩm trying to make here is that not all science is about theories and falsifiable statements; itтАЩs much more complicated than that.

As a scientist I have seen how science evolves, and personally, I subscribed more to the view of Imre LakatosтАЩ than PopperтАЩs to explain what science actually is. But as a busy scientist, with work to do, I do what I do and I get on with it. I donтАЩt get too hung up on what some philosopher may think or how they may describe what science is. And when it comes to certain members of this board I care even less what they think. All they actually do by their endless ranting is to show me actually how thick they are! Lol But no doubt they will pile on in here now, lambasting me, and telling me/showing I am WORNG WRONG WRONG!!!!! Look he's wrong, so he's an idiot!!! Some of these sad inadequate creatures really do need to get a life!