Foreskin Restoration / Intactivism Network

Go Back   Foreskin Restoration / Intactivism Network > FORESKIN RESTORATION > Safe Haven
Register FAQ Members List Calendars Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Safe Haven Disrespect for religious views is not permitted.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 10th, 2012
sync45 sync45 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Europe
Posts: 118
Default Re: The view of a Vatican diplomat

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex View Post
Science isn't atheistic, it's secular; God is a non-testable hypothesis.
Whether you call it "secular [Godless] science" or "atheism" it makes no difference, because these are also a form of "belief" that cannot be proved or tested. So that makes atheists or "secular scientists" also "believers". What's the difference, then, between them and those who accept or "believe" in a supreme intelligence that they call "God"? I say there is no difference, except an arrogant superiority complex on the part of "secular science"?

All "science" has ever done is observe phenomena – which is what it was originally understood to do, because that is all it can do. Science has never "created" anything. Or perhaps "God" is another word for the "supreme scientist". But He/It is in an entirely different league and dimension.

Accepting an intelligence greater than our own makes sense, atheism doesn't. Are you telling me that "science" created "Creation"? I think atheism has more to do with egotism than with profound "thinking". One might go so far as to describe atheism as a form of ignorance. But then again, ignorance and arrogance usually go hand in hand.

Scientists are like backyard auto machanics: They know how a car works, but are no good at designing one.

I recall reporting once on an international meeting of top scientists in various fields. It was a “secular” meeting on the role of science in the modern world. One of the speakers began his talk by saying: “At one time, scientists were content to be the high priests of society; now they want to be God”.

I also remember a BBC radio production some years back in which Nobel Prize winners in various natural sciences were asked about their religious beliefs. Their answer could be reduced to a common formulation: "The more I begin to understand how Nature and the universe work, the more I have to accept an intelligence behind it. I have no problem with that if I accept the context of my existence in it".

I think this implies something bigger than themselves or their colleagues that is commonly referred to as "God".

I'm not interested in debating the existence of a supreme intelligence, because it's pointless. There is no need for "proof", because it's all around for anyone to see - if they're willing to open their eyes to it. The burden of proof against a supreme intelligence lies with the detractors of the concept. So far, they have not produced any.

My original posting was very specific and limited, and not intended to start an argument which will never be won or lost, at least not in this life.

Sync45

Last edited by sync45; April 10th, 2012 at 07:25.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old April 10th, 2012
RestoreMeASAP RestoreMeASAP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 252
Default Re: The view of a Vatican diplomat

Whether you call it "secular [Godless] science" or "atheism" it makes no difference, because these are also a form of "belief" that cannot be proved or tested. So that makes atheists or "secular scientists" also "believers". What's the difference, then, between them and those who accept or "believe" in a supreme intelligence that they call "God"?

Playing with semantics.
>
All "science" has ever done is observe phenomena – which is what it was originally understood to do, because that is all it can do. Science has never "created" anything.

Scientists created everything in our modern world, from atom bombs to smartphones to thinking machines(computers), and even life (babies by IVF).


Scientists are like backyard auto machanics: They know how a car works, but are no good at designing one.

Ummm, scientists and engineers created cars. So I guess you argue god created cars too eh?

I recall reporting once on an international meeting of top scientists in various fields. It was a “secular” meeting on the role of science in the modern world. One of the speakers began his talk by saying: “At one time, scientists were content to be the high priests of society; now they want to be God”.

So at what time during Galileo's inquisition, persecution of heresy by the church, and his imprisonment for espousing a heliocentric view, was he considered a "high priest."


I also remember a BBC radio production some years back in which Nobel Prize winners in various natural sciences were asked about their religious beliefs. Their answer could be reduced to a common formulation: "The more I begin to understand how Nature and the universe work, the more I have to accept an intelligence behind it. I have no problem with that if I accept the context of my existence in it".

I think this implies something bigger than themselves or their colleagues that is commonly referred to as "God".

ummmm, Einstein said the idea of a god was naive, and a sign of human weakness, the bible was just primitive legends and childlike.

So far, they have not produced any.
ummmm, the only thing religious folk can produce are myths and superstitions.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old April 10th, 2012
intact intact is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 828
Default Re: The view of a Vatican diplomat

none of this makes any difference, just human rights please.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old April 10th, 2012
Tristan Tristan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 55
Default Re: The view of a Vatican diplomat

sync45, if you had read anything by Christopher Hitchens, who you so readily dismiss, you'd know what the difference is between science and belief. But it's clear that you don't even understand what science is. Science does not begin with a set of predetermined conclusions and seek to confirm them--that is what religion does. Science is the exact opposite of blind faith: it seeks only to gain truth, not to confirm its received beliefs. In other words, scientific principles are based on repeated experiments and observations over many years and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community. These are not "beliefs" in the sense that they change according to the evidence.

That's really all the proof that's needed to counter your "intelligent designer" claims, and there is no special reason why those asserting a non-supernatural course of events should bear the burden of proof, except that it suits you. Indeed, if anything, the one making claims of a supernatural nature bears the bigger burden of proof.

But to bring the discussion back to circumcision, while I agree that medical necessity is a valid reason for circumcising an infant, I take issue with the claim that infant circumcision is defensible on ritual grounds. An informed and consenting adult has every right to make decisions about his religion and body. But just as there is no such thing as a "Marxist baby" or a "white supremacist baby," there is no such thing as "Catholic baby" or a "Jewish baby." A child born to Catholic or Muslim or Jewish parents will grow up and at some point make a decision regarding his religious affiliation: he may decide to identify as a member of his parents' religion or not. An 18 or 24 or 95 year-old who chooses circumcision as an expression of faith is making a personal choice; a baby is incapable of making the decision or giving consent to be circumcised, and "ritual" cannot be used as justification for performing medically unnecessary permanent surgery on a non-consenting person.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old April 10th, 2012
sync45 sync45 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Europe
Posts: 118
Default Re: The view of a Vatican diplomat

Since my last posting, the comments have followed the usual, predictable course: a desperate, almost irrational, attempt to combat my statements, whether the rebuttals make sense or not.

No, scientists have not created anything. You're on the materialistic plane, as most science is. Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us as to who or what provided the raw materials and physical laws that are behind the making of cars, and everything else. That is my point, and you're missing it.

We're all waiting for a detailed explanation of who we are, what we are, where we are, and why we're here. You will never be able to provide that information, because no one on this planet has sufficient overview to know that.

At an internationaol conference marking the anniversary of the Special Theory of Relativity, the late physicist and Einstein collaborator, Profesor John Wheeler, put it to me this way: "We're like ants walking on a balloon. We will never be able to rise above the surface to see the context of our existence. That is where God takes over".

As for Einstein, I've seen quotes that indicate the opposite to what you claim. You're obviously not above manipulating the facts.

"Science" denies extrasensory perception, non-physical entities, telepathy and other "supernatural" concepts that it can't explain. History has proved over and over that todays's science is tomorrow's quackery. Science has changed its mind more times than you've had a warm dinner. It has not proved itself to be a reliable source of absolute knowledge.

In the final analysis, it's all just claim against claim. Despite the huffing and puffing and all the polemics, you haven't any more to offer in the way of explaining the universe and who or what put it here and maintains it than anyone else.

Science is supposed to be open-minded. What I've read here is anything but that.

As I said, continuing this discussion is pointless.

Sync45
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old April 10th, 2012
photenman photenman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 809
Default Re: The view of a Vatican diplomat

In the 1400's in an official document, Catholics pronounced circumcision to be a mortal sin that precluded eternal salvation.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old April 10th, 2012
finman finman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,510
Default Re: The view of a Vatican diplomat

I would have thought that Pope Benedict XVI was against circumcision as he was in the Hitler Youth and their doctrine is anti-Semitic.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old April 11th, 2012
sync45 sync45 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Europe
Posts: 118
Default Re: The view of a Vatican diplomat

Just for the record:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." 1.

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God." 2.


Albert Einstein

1. Cable reply to Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein's (Institutional Synagogue in New York) question to Einstein, "Do you believe in God?"

2. Glimpses of the Great (Macauley, New York, 1930), quoted by D. Brian, Einstein: A Life , p. 186.


And by the way, wasn't it "science" that promoted mass circumcision? Lest we lose sight of the purpose of this forum.

Sync45, over and out.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old April 11th, 2012
RestoreMeASAP RestoreMeASAP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 252
Default Re: The view of a Vatican diplomat

Quote:
Originally Posted by sync45 View Post
Just for the record:

And by the way, wasn't it "science" that promoted mass circumcision? Lest we lose sight of the purpose of this forum.

Sync45, over and out.
Au contraire, religious kooks promote circumcision because a burning bush told them it's the right thing to do. The same type of religious zealots in white lab coats that call themselves doctors pushed circumcision under the guise of pseudo-science in America after WWII.

In any event, I applaud your efforts to try to get the Vatican to review the issue. We can use any help we can get.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old April 12th, 2012
photenman photenman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 809
Default Re: The view of a Vatican diplomat

Quote:
Originally Posted by photenman View Post
In the 1400's in an official document, Catholics pronounced circumcision to be a mortal sin that precluded eternal salvation.
Could I ask you to send this quotation from the official Catholic position on circumcision, that it precludes eternal salvation. Then ask him the Catholic position on circumcision. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio...te_note-CoF-27, which quotes as follows:

^ Eugenius IV, Pope (1990) [1442]. "Ecumenical Council of Florence (1438–1445): Session 11—4 February 1442; Bull of union with the Copts". In Norman P. Tanner ed.. Decrees of the ecumenical councils. 2 volumes. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. ISBN 0878404902. LCCN 903209. OCLC Greek, and Latin , Greek, and Latin. Retrieved 2007-04-25. "[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the Old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our Lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the Passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ's passion until the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the [Jewish] sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation."
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:46.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.