OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!

[spirokeat]

Well, what did you expect? After all, the actors have had HUNDREDS of YEARS to practice their lines and perfect their technique.

cackle, yup, couldn't agree more. But they sure as hell didn't see Darwinism coming did they.

Spiro

[Zapmeister]

Originally posted by Arryn:
Wrong. You have confused religion, which is the practice of worship and a system of beliefs, with the question of the existence or non-existence of a deity. It is possible to accept the existence of (some) god, yet not accept *any* of the beliefs commonly associated with that entity, including human-written codices and bureaucratic power structures.

I agree, and don't believe I said otherwise, nor confused religion with metaphysics. My comment was based on your usage of the term agnostic, which I continue to claim means a belief in the unsolvability of a question. Your usage of the word "bunk" implies that you know a particular belief set is wrong, and hence have gone some way towards solving the problem.

[Zapmeister]

Originally posted by Arryn:
It was for heresy. The following Catholic page The Galileo Controversy has an excellent overview of it, despite playing semantic games about it being for heresy.

It mis-represents the facts. Galileo's hand-written confession, forced from him by the Inquisition, included these words:

But since I, after having been admonished by this Holy Office entirely to abandon the false opinion that the sun was the centre of the universe and immovable, and that the earth was not the centre of the same and that it moved, and that I was neither to hold, defend, nor teach in any manner whatever, either orally or in writing, the said false doctrine; and after having received a notification that the said doctrine is contrary to Holy Writ, I did write and cause to be printed a book in which I treat of the said already condemned doctrine and bring forward arguments of much efficacy in its favour, without arriving at any solution:...

[PrinzMegaherz]

Norfleet wrote:
Canada may have a system in which people who have money go to the US to seek health care....but this just underscores the point that Canada's healthcare system, while more ubiquitous, is still of inferior quality. You certainly can't deny that people do this: I've known several Canadians who do this exact thing: Travel to the US to get some operation performed....at their own expense.

I know some germans who went to America for some special treatment. But I am not sure whether this is proof for a general superiority of your system. It only shows that in certain regions of medicine one might be better of with your health system.

[ July 28, 2004, 09:57: Message edited by: PrinzMegaherz ]

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
It mis-represents the facts.

Of course it does, and should not come as a surprise, given that the Church took 500 years to even come up with as little admission of stupidity as it managed to. But, when I said it was an "excellent overview", my intent was that it stated the issues in dispute, and why. I could have also pointed out that the page is full to bursting with misleading statements and self-serving, obfuscatory excuses for the Church's behavior. But I didn't because I felt that such should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of open-mindedness and some ability to comprehend written English. In short, being able to determine for oneself whether to take things at face value, or needing to read between the lines. Which, having such capabilities yourself, you noted. For those lacking, nothing I might have added would help.

I don't feel it's my place, nor do I have the time (unlike Graeme), to try to enlighten the willfully ignorant. So I tend to not include caveats and warnings, or speak in simple language. I expect people to be educated to a minimal standard, and I have little patience for the semifunctionally-illiterate.

Thankfully, Zap, you are one of those rare folks that has a clue.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by PrinzMegaherz:
I know some germans who went to America for some special treatment.

Coming to the US for special treatment does not mean that the US has a better system. All it shows is that there may be a doctor, team, or hospital here that is better at something than can be found somewhere else. The US does not have a monopoly on all the best doctors and medical technology on this planet. However, in many areas, we do. But it's a fallacy to generalize from specifics. Not to mention being impolitic and rude (arrogant) to the folks living somewhere other than the US.

[Boron]

Originally posted by Zapmeister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boron:


but if you think about it the guidlines of the church HAVE been wrong before (flat earth, anyone?) and could easily be wrong again. Thats no reason to cut all ties with the organization that you might respect and love deeply.

so a question : galilei was the one who discovered that . i am pretty sure you know the story . the catholic church forced him to deny his ideas . he did .

but now some hundred years later the pope spoke galilei holy .


Actually, I think most of the stories about people thinking the world is flat are apocryphal. Certainly, the Greeks knew it was round and the flat earth was not the reason Galileo was persecuted.

The issue there was whether the Sun or the Earth lay at the centre of the solar system. Catholic teaching demanded that it be the Earth, but Galileo knew otherwise.

And yes, official recognition of the error was only forthcoming from the Catholic church in recent times.

---

yeah it was the sun . i just quoted Cheezeninja's
and didn't notice that small fault .
but the old astrologists like galileo are really good examples for that and similiar with darwin some catholic sects still claim that the bible is true and the earth got formed in 6 days .

the main problem with the catholic church i have is that they are the most "aggressive" big world religion . they evangelise still intolerant .
in history they even forced other beliefs violently to theirs like the inqisition in spain or the crusades .
on the other hand the muslims tolerated catholic beliefers in the middle ages and didn't force them to get either catholic or killed .
same with the force proselitiziation of the native americans .
protestants , buddhists and so on try to convince you rational that their faith is the one true but if they can't convince you they don't treat you as a worse human .
while the catholic church is much more agressive and treats you as inferior if you don't let you convince to become catholic and stay with your belief .

that makes me fear . fanaticism is evil . just look at bin laden . but the muslim faith is in general more tolerant bin laden is only a sect which isn't even tolerated by the muslim leaders while the catholic church seems to me much more fanatic and they tolerate , even support extreme and almost violent catholic sects .
at least in europe the catholics are this way perhaps the american catholics are more moderate because they are not as dependent on the pope as the european ones and they are not the majority in the usa so they can't afford to be as arrogant as they are in europe .
in the area where i life protestants are a small minority ( about 5-10% ) and especially the old catholics are still very intolerant and even show us protestants that we are very inferior in their eyes .
they would almost like to start a new 30 years war lol .
so my view of the catholics is perhaps a bit biased by own expierience .
of course every major group has "black sheeps" but normally the main organisation tries to get rid of these "black sheeps" .
while with the catholic church this is the other way round . there the highest leaders not only tolerate these black sheeps but even share their opinions .

it is like e.g. in a democracy still some or many politicians are corrupt but at least a democracy tries to limit corruption while in a dictature it is supported and the dictator him self profits most from that .
the pope is in many ways similiar to that .
the current pope is good and rather modest but his most likely successor ratzinger is very intolerant again .

[ July 28, 2004, 12:56: Message edited by: Boron ]