|
|
|
| Vatican and aliens |
|
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
 |
I thought the Vatican admitted heliocentric theory was correct in 1971, but this page seems to put the year at 1992. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE2DD1339F932A35751C1A964958260 {"name":"2563795930103329676S600x600Q85.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/f\/fffe087304338aba15213aca88d98902.jpg","w":375,"h":500,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/f\/fffe087304338aba15213aca88d98902"} They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas. |
|
axilmar
Member #1,204
April 2001
|
It's good that the Catholic Church did that, and I wish the Orthodox Church did that as well. As the knowledge of mankind grows, religion should adapt. In a perfect society, there would not be a need for religion, as everyone would be educated and logic would prevail. But it will never happen...so it's much better for religion to adapt to the new circumstances so as that religious people come in contact with the advancements of science. The core teachings of Christianity are not affected by the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence. The meaning of Jesus teachings is to love each other, which is a very important concept for a peaceful society. It does not matter if there is only one or thousands of planets with life. |
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
 |
Quote: As the knowledge of mankind grows, religion should adapt. In a perfect society, there would not be a need for religion, as everyone would be educated and logic would prevail. Of course logic is just another form of faith. -- |
|
X-G
Member #856
December 2000
 |
Quote: The meaning of Jesus teachings is to love each other Of course, that's not really Jesus's teachings so much as the teachings of just about everyone for the last couple thousand years. By no means is it exclusive to that guy, nor to religion. Quote: Of course logic is just another form of faith.
-- |
|
nonnus29
Member #2,606
August 2002
 |
Quote: Of course logic is just another form of faith. That used to be a lot more true than it is today; example: Newton wrote more about theology than he did physics and mathematics. Newton and his contempories viewed scientific investigation as a way of unveiling the grandeur of Gods creation. Science only became a bugaboo when it started to contradict the Bible (ie evolution). |
|
Wetimer
Member #1,622
November 2001
|
Quote: I thought the Vatican admitted heliocentric theory was correct in 1971, but this page seems to put the year at 1992. I'm pretty sure that the Vatican accepted heliocentric theory long before that. Its just that they apologized and vindicated Galileo at that point in time. Quote: I thought the Catholic church endorsed evolution. Oh well. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church. It would appear there current stance is to accept a theistic-evolutionist position with God coming acting to give men big brains and a soul at some point. <code>if(Windows.State = Crash) Computer.halt();</code> |
|
axilmar
Member #1,204
April 2001
|
Logic has nothing to do with faith...apples and oranges. |
|
Alan W.
Member #7,958
November 2006
 |
Logic by itself is nothing special. --- |
|
AngelChild
Member #3,401
April 2003
 |
Faith: not wanting to know what is true. - Friedrich Nietzsche ----- |
|
Alan W.
Member #7,958
November 2006
|
Friedrich Nietzsche: not wanting faith because everybody can be superman (Übermensch). --- |
|
OICW
Member #4,069
November 2003
 |
Well Nietzsche had some complexes, in fact he was pretty weak in real life and was really submissive to his mother. Plus it were just words, later unfortunatelly abused by german regime. [My website][CppReference][Pixelate][Allegators worldwide][Who's online] |
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
X-G said:
+1 Insightfull. Quote: Logic has nothing to do with faith...apples and oranges. You have to have faith in your own logic and faculties, and that the universe really is as we currently see it. -- |
|
X-G
Member #856
December 2000
|
Quote: your own logic Logic is universal, objective and absolute. This is self-evident and does not require faith. Quote: the universe really is as we currently see it. Has nothing to do with logic. -- |
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
Our logic is defined by US. We are hardly logical, nor perfect, so I wonder how "Logic is universal, objective and absolute.". -- |
|
X-G
Member #856
December 2000
|
Do you even know what logic is? If a implies b, and a, then b; if logic were not objective and absolute, we would live in a world without causality where no event could ever be predicted. Forget having computers, or mathematics, or even basic reasoning: the fabric of the universe would unravel. -- |
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
And how can you know its absolute and objective? -- |
|
X-G
Member #856
December 2000
|
... it's self-evident. Or are you saying you don't think rules like "If a-then-b, and a, then b" are true? Or "If not a, then not-a"? That you don't think 1 + 1 = 2? This has nothing to do with physics or evidence or "thinking", or observations of any kind. This has to do with the fundamentality of causality and implication. Really, Moose, you'd have to be really good at denying the self-evident to not admit to these things. It really is exactly the same as denying that 1 + 1 = 2; in every way. -- |
|
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
 |
Quote: Our logic is defined by US.
Meaning we get to define the underlying axioms. Do you need to have faith in an axiom? In other news, the Space Pope would make a good avatar. -- |
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
I think you're just making some rather large assumptions. Quote: It really is exactly the same as denying that 1 + 1 = 2; in every way. That in itself is an assumption. We use it because it happens to work. -- |
|
X-G
Member #856
December 2000
|
So you're saying that 1 + 1 is not 2? Can something be red and not be red at the same time? Can a triangle have four sides? Please, understand what the heck you're talking about before making a fool out of yourself like this. It's not a matter of fact; it's inherent in the very meaning of the words. -- |
|
LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
 |
Quote: Can something be red and not be red at the same time?
Well, a newspaper can be read, and it's black and white.
|
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
Quote: So you're saying that 1 + 1 is not 2? Did I say that? I said it happens to work, so we use it. Quote: Can something be red and not be red at the same time? Can something be in two places at once? Can a person have eyes that don't see the same colors as me? Quote: Please, understand what the heck you're talking about [en.wikipedia.org] before making a fool out of yourself like this. I couldn't care less that you see me as a fool. -- |
|
Evert
Member #794
November 2000
 |
Quote: You have to have faith in your own logic and faculties, and that the universe really is as we currently see it. That observation (and experiment) of the world around us allows us to deduce true knowledge about the world (ie, the world is as it appears to us) is something you need to believe in, it cannot be proven (this is quite an important filosphical point). Logic is not something you need to believe in, since it is completely rigorous (though you can debate about the basic postulates and axioms). Logic itself does not lead to truth if the axioms are false or contradictory. |
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
Quote: Logic is not something you need to believe in, since it is completely rigorous (though you can debate about the basic postulates and axioms). Logic itself does not lead to truth if the axioms are false or contradictory. What I said is that I think the universe and everything we see is based on our own interpretation of it. How that can be "absolute and objective" is beyond me since everything is subjective. -- |
|
Evert
Member #794
November 2000
|
Quote: How that can be "absolute and objective" is beyond me since everything is subjective.
Ah, cogito ergo sum: you can only verify your own existence, everything else could be a figment of your imagination? |
|
|
|
), but there is no way to prove it.
