Well, we all have a cross to bear, including Ratzi. Trouble is, he doesn’t do it very well because he thinks someone else did it for him almost 2,000 years ago. Votes: +30

Humans have been damaging the environment ever since they existed. Many ancient civilizations were distorted for this reason.

London was heavily polluted until the 1950s, when it got so bad they had to start cleaning it up.

In short pollution and damage to the environment and its clean up have nothing to do directly with religion. Votes: +12

I've been told more than once that it takes more faith to be an atheist than a believer because what happens if an atheist is wrong and ends up facing God? I usually reply that faith doesn't have anything to with it but rather evidence does. And I've been told I can't disprove a God. But I say the evidence befalls the one making the claim and not the one who isn't. I make no claim there's a God.

It's the 21st century and through science we've learned countless explanations about the nature of things but that doesn't seem to resonate with true believers who not only reject but shun any evidence that may contradict their religious views which aren't based on anything except old text that's been translated over and over again into simplistic ideas without any real evidence to support them.

Sure, we may not know all the answers and perhaps never will. But it doesn't give anyone free license to invent an explanation unsupported by evidence or a reasonable testable hypothesis. Science is still our best bet to learn the answers of many things unknown and has already done a lot and continues to do so. And unlike religion it's self correcting.

But 4000 years of religious indoctrination has created a stranglehold worldwide that in my view will never end. Mythology, superstition, and pseudoscience remain the order of the day to about 90% of the world's population and religious leaders such as Pope Benedict only perpetuate those very dangerous follies based only on myths.

He's not the first and certainly won't be the last.

Most of the religious reject the notion that we're primates and have the DNA to prove it and that it takes a healthy living brain to support a thought. Believers in an afterlife have it backwards--after you die you have everlasting death not life. In my view that makes life all the more important. I'll never understand why that isn't enough for people like the Pope and his followers. I'm very happy to be alive in the first place even though it's finite.

But atheist need to be careful too and not replace God worship for state worship (for example) or other dubious things only to fill an emotional need. Votes: +45

Coming from a proponent of overpopulation, this is indeed rather rich.

Not to mention those people that think we can't possibly destroy the environment because it's up to god when our end comes, and we can't hasten or slow that. Votes: +36

"In short pollution and damage to the environment and its clean up have nothing to do directly with religion."

The history of religion reveals otherwise. The Wholly Babble says the earth is made for man, man is to have dominion over it essentially without limitation, man should procreate his brains out (again without limitation), and that the after life is more important than this real life. A more perfect recipe for colossal disaster could not be written.

Not understanding our relationship with nature, how to live with nature, and live within the limits of nature is a direct result of the superstition of religion. Votes: +56

The existence of a pope and all his wealth is heavily contrary to everything that could be the quintessence of the new testament. If I was the pope (And I am glad that I am not...) that was something that would really bother me.
Anyway, isn't it funny that the pope tries to act like a "final authority" himself all the time?
But I think we should not argue about things we know already: the ambiguity tolerance of religious "leaders" has always protected them from such criticism. Not to mention self-criticism.
Votes: +7

From Genesis 1:28

God said unto [mankind], Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

If you're of the God-bothering persuasion, you've had permission from the big G himself to exploit the heck out of the natural world - subduing it and having dominion over it and whatever else takes your fancy.

It's an atheist point of view that the world was not created solely for the benefit of Homo Sapiens, and that we need to look after it if we're not to go the way of the dinosaurs. Votes: +33

But only Ratzi and his hordes can sell salvation on a stick. Step right up and buy your salvation! Get your Jesus on a stick! It's environmentally friendly because the sticks and figurines were produced by a miracle and not by the atheist method of chopping down trees or pulling oil out of the ground and using the devil's tool chemistry to convert it into something that looks like a European Jesus on a stick. Don't forget to leave you brains at the door, your income in the basket, and your little boys behind the altar tapestries.
Votes: +15

Your rational, logical and truthful observation would not be considered 'acerbic' in any other spectrum of human discourse, but that of immune bonkers religion.
It is about time that the various Churches, and their privileged Hierarchy, were called to account for their crimes against humanity; especially the 50% of humans that happen to be female.
It makes my blood boil that these theoratz still have the amazing hold over ignorant folk.

More power to the JREF, should it choose to combat these vermin ala Vatican, these parasitic preists. Votes: +15

"Deluded" is an understatement. Last night, I watched the Penn & Teller Bullshit episode on the Vatican, so seeing Pope Ratzo's face here this morning gets my blood boiling once again. That Ratzo has anything to say about anything is the height of audacity. I'm an ex-catholic, and I can tell you a thing or two about the sick organization called the "Catholic Church," but P&T do a great job of skewering the Vatican and its evil minions, so catch the episode if you can. Votes: +11

I recall years ago discussing a dammed and flooded Tasmanian valley with a colleague. I expressed concern about the monumental loss of environment. Her response was that everything was put here by God for us to exploit.

Indeed, with a belief that our lives are mapped by an omnipotent force, it's hard to see what would drive a believer toward conservation. Votes: +10

Dear Blessed Father:
Your Messiah instructed you to "sell all you own and give it to the poor; take up your cross and follow me".
-You can keep the gold filigree vestments however. Votes: +11

welcome to the extended Dark Ages >_<
uncle Joe accommodates the needs of, alas, a great majority
Votes: +5

God gave us dominion over the earth in genesis. http://bible.cc/genesis/1-26.htm

He should have been clearer if he wanted us to be more environmentally minded.

Is god going to print a second edition when it becomes time to stop multiplying? Don't get me wrong, I like to multiply! Well, I enjoy the prelude to the actual multiplying part anyways...

The pope's an idiot. jesus christ! Votes: +16

After my initial kneejerk reaction to the BS spewed by the Ratman, I took a brief look around the web to see what xtians may be saying about stewardship of the earth. It seems that most are blaming greed and some even interpret genesis as a commandment of sorts to be good conservationists by the implication that god was speaking within the context of being in a "garden". jesus christ! Wouldn't a reasonable person think that a supreme being would be capable of writing a book that wasn't so easily interpreted to mean absolutely anything?

Interesting that the Ratman blames atheists. I would ask why place blame, founded or unfounded? What's the point? Clearly his concern is *not* with environmentalism. And in general, xtians are not concerned with this life but the next. Which cheapens this one. Acerbic indeed! Religion is corrosive at it's very core. Votes: +18

For those who haven’t yet seen it, I recommend watching Penn & Teller’s latest Bullshit episode (Season 7, Episode 10) about the Vatican. It takes on Holy Joe for, among other things, attacking an Italian comedian who criticized him in public, saying he deserved to go to hell. When the Vatican couldn’t get the Italian government to bring out the old torture tools of the inquisition and throw the feisty girl in the dungeon, they reversed tactics and magnanimously forgave her.

Don’t worry, Randi, you won’t fry. I’m sure Joe XVI will absolve you too (however unwanted his counterfeit words may be). I fear Penn and Teller are doomed, however—simply beyond redemption.
Votes: +5

I think Teller's in a good position but Penn is definitely forever doomed. ;-) And Mr. Randi can take care of himself against god or satan. :-)

Yes, that was a great Bullshit episode. They should make an expanded edition devoted to the Vatican and xtianaity in general. P&T could secure their spot of TV for years to come with that subject alone.

Bill Maher's Religulous is another absolute must see. Votes: +7

Papal product: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DHda.../Ratzi.jpg Votes: +3

I recall that after Joe delivered a speech in Australia about the evils of materialism, he adjusted his gold brocaded silk robes, took the limo to his private jet, and flew back to his palace with the jewels in the doorknobs.
Votes: +9

Coming from a proponent of overpopulation

You're FOR overpopulation?? Votes: -5

Here's a benefit that atheists have over believers: Atheists can't say, "Well, if we screw it up, God'll just fix it for us! Yay! Go God!" Votes: +3

How is that a benefit?
Votes: +0

So at what point has the pope tried to help the environment? I must have missed the memo where god is going to come down in a week and zap away all the pollution.

The only things that can or will manage to help out our environment are scientific advances. The catholics have no superpower that is going to allow them to help this situation. Or so i believe.

Putting on my believers hat for a moment.

Lets say that there is superpowers, god is up there watching us , the devote have acess to faith healing , and simple medalions have the ability to protect one from all kinds of nastiness.

Now they have all of this, powers we mortals could not think of. And an invisible, omnipotent level 54 wizard at their disposal. Now what do they do?

Do they petition their wizard, or his underlings to put these powers to work? Do they even use his infinite knowledge to maybe give us some technological way to overcome the pollution?

No what they do is say " well sucks to be you" and give a big speech about how people who don't have these mystical powers are destroying the world.

If they are right, we simply do not have the tools. I can assure everyone, that at least speaking for myself, i don't have the slightest hint of omnipotence, so my ability to zap away pollution is slim to nil.

It just seems a bit to me like going into a bar and someone is beating up a small man. The bouncer, a rather big fellow is simply standing by, when asked why he does not just stop it , his reply is " well they arn't big enough. If they did what i did they could get out of this situation. ".

Isn't protecting people with no power what the proper use of power is? Whether that is giant muscles or magic, it shows callous disregard if people ( or supernatural beings) only use it only when they feel like it. Or just to help their friends. Votes: +8

Religious folk, classy as always. Sort of goes to the point of, "Something that is entirely irrational but said in a rational tone of voice tends to sound, well, rational." Religious people spend their entire lives being sanctimonious, self-righteous, duplicitous morons and then promptly shift the blame to others for the ills of mankind. Then, they proceed to justify everything with the bible (a la Ann Coulter's "God said, 'here's the earth, it's yours, rape it'"). First-class douchery. Votes: +4

Well, a benefit as far as winning the argument goes. It means that atheists, having no scapegoat, actually have to take an interest in being good stewards of the planet and its resources. A believer can screw it up and just go, "Meh...God'll fix it" and leave it at that. No moral responsibility at all. Votes: +6

That makes no sense. People aren't disagreeing with what he said at all.

People are saying it's the pot calling the kettle black, or, closer, the pot calling the silverware black.

The church is a big offender, and the pope is an idiot and a hypocrite. Votes: +6

You missed the point already mentioned in several comments. The bible (a work of humans) says that its god gave this planet for our use and abuse for whatever we want ("subdue" and "dominion over"). That's a good decree that people own the planet and can do whatever they want. This is the doctrine from Judaism to Christianity to Islam. Nowhere in the bible does it mention not abusing ecosystems and resources for sustainance of the planet. So, for Ratzie to condemn atheists for abuses is not just kind of hypocritical - it is. Roman Catholicism, of which good ole' Ratzie is the head, has been the flag-bearer of pillaging resources of all sorts for at least a thousand years.

Humans are the final authority (seeing that there is no higher - eh hem) and the damage we do is our responsibility. But, as has also been alluded, religion has a nice diversion to blame: namely, god. It is nice when you can say "God did it. God made me do it. God decreed it here. The devil made me do it." etc. and etc. Personal responsibility is not something taught by the church - only personal guilt over supposed incursions against its god, doctrines, and laws. Votes: +7

Initially, thanks for the comments, but, if I may, there are some things that I don't agree with.

People aren't disagreeing with what he said at all

Then maybe I misunderstood the post, but I don't think this is the case, because I'm commenting the post written by Randi, who literally says "No, Joe, it is not true". That sounds like a disagreement to me.

The fact that the Church is/isn't a big offender or the Pope is/isn't an idiot and hypocrite is not relevant to the message being right.

The bible (a work of humans) says that its god gave this planet for our use and abuse for whatever we want ("subdue" and "dominion over").

I may be wrong because I don't know much about the Bible, but if the passage being referred to is the one quoted by chunt (Genesis 1:2 I see no relation between the Bible and exploitation of the planet. One of the definitions of subdue is "to bring under cultivation" and someplace being under the dominion of somebody means only that that somebody rules the place (which I hardly think anyone would disagree) but not that the place should or must be exploited. Additionally, I don't know if religious people actually believe this, but if they think that everything is a creation of God, I don't understand why they would preach that you should exploit some creations but not others.

Personal responsibility is not something taught by the church

I'm sorry, I don't want to be a pain, but isn't this the exact message the Pope is sending? Isn't he saying that we should avoid "reducing existence to a feverish race to possess the most possible", i.e., take responsibility for what we do acknowledging that existence is more that possessing things?

Well, maybe that's just me... Votes: -5

The message may be the correct one but it is the word of the alcoholic or smoker speaking not to drink or smoke, in analogy.

During the highest power of the Roman Catholic Church, it stemmed on and supported the pillaging of the 'New World' by the 'Conquistadors' (espanol: conquerors). It has supported and still also adamantly works against contraception - a concept in its own right that drives overpopulation which leads to the very same increasing need for possession - more land, more resources, more extinctions, more ecosystem destruction. Again, I'll raise up (only slightly) the American idea of 'manifest destiny' which had religious underpinnings about the so-called 'god-given' properties of our nation.

So, while the message is good, the messenger is a wolf in sheep's clothing - a hypocrite. Here you have the RCC, sitting in the magnificent opulence of Vatican city, spoils of wars, tithes, and pillagings for more than a thousand years, telling the rest of us how to be stewards and protectors of planet Earth and how selfish we are. I don't think so.

And, no, the church does not teach 'personal responsibility'. It teaches that after you fuck up, you are guilty and need repentence. You are 'responsible' for your actions only in as much as you shouldn't do bad things as dictated by the doctrine but if you do you need to be forgiven after the fact. May I remind you that I grew up a devout Roman Catholic (from an Italian family nonetheless - mother's maiden name is Paradisi) and didn't give it up until I was more than 20 years old. Votes: +3

The pope sayeth: "Is it not true that inconsiderate use of creation begins where God is marginalized or also where his existence is denied?"

I'd ask where his evidence for this, inspired by a supreme being (the christian god), disguised as an innocuous question, statement can be found. The pope is irresponsible at best by making this statement as it encourages "believers" to blame non believers for the ills of the world. Religion is actively divisive. If the pope's primary concern is with the environment then it would probably be best to try and unite rather than to divide. No?

"If humans are the final authority on Earth, then humans can only be good, caring or compassionate according to their own will and not because goodness, care and compassion are values to seek."

What? I think I know what you're saying but please clarify. The pope is a human being and is widely considered to be the final authority on earth.

"Isn't he saying that we should avoid "reducing existence to a feverish race to possess the most possible","

This from a *man* living in city that reduced it's existence to a feverish race to possess the most possible, is totally unapologetic about it, defends itself at all costs and is still attempting to do the very thing it preaches against from what I can tell.

"I may be wrong because I don't know much about the Bible,"

Read the bible if you're going to take a position on it. I apologize if you find that condescending but I believe it to be good advice.

"Let's face it, people are only disagreeing because it is a religious authority that is saying it."

LOL! Not even close my friend. LOL!

Votes: +5

I have seen evidence that believing in an afterlife can lead people to ignore all responsibility for the devastation they wreak in the here and now, because, after all, they have a reservation in "heaven." Votes: +3

or you'll be SORRY!---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...annel_page Votes: +0

Seems we're talking about different things.

The message may be the correct one but it is the word of the alcoholic or smoker speaking not to drink or smoke, in analogy.

Then, I don't why you're acting like you disagree with me. I only said that I kind of agree with what the Pope said. It really doesn't matter where it comes from. Shall we start doubting evolution because, all of a sudden, the Catholic Church agrees with it? Votes: -3

Because it was to whom it was directed not the message itself. As if the RCC has had no role in this but only those not of the 'faith': "where his existence is denied", "relationship with the Creator weakens", etc. and so on. In other words, to paraphrase Ratzie:

"People who don't believe in god are the ones destroying our planet. Moi, what? We (faithful in Christianity and the RCC especially) are great stewards of the planet."

To quote Penn Jillette, "Bullshit!"

In other words, to be even more direct, materialists and materialistic societies (like the USA to an extent) are responsible (or irresponsible). While I agree that industrialized, materialistic societies have a great responsibility in the state of the planet, it is not by their lack of faith in some bronze age deity. Has the pope examined the religiosity of the USA, especially in the Christian direction? His reasoning is at fault. In the same accusation, by the grace of something or other, he excuses religious people (of a particular faith obviously) because they know better and are good stewards of the planet. I'd say that if you look at the most obese people in the USA they would probably tend to be more of the religious bent, consuming veraciously. That doesn't square with his statement at all. Votes: +2

Look. I know I'll come out as a bad guy because apparently you can only succeed in here if you viciously decry your "enemy" instead of telling the truth (proof: I got low-rated-hidden just because I said I agree with part of what the Pope said), but I think it is pretty lame to say the Church or the Pope is a hypocrite for doing what everybody else in the world did. Come on?! Pillaging!? This is a summary of the History of the World. If this is hypocrisy then no one, no government nor agency or whatever can say any good thing, because we are all only here because somewhere in the past a gang decided to kill another one or take their property. Guess what?! It's hypocrisy to say that the Church/Pope is a hypocrite.

And how is it hypocritical to be against contraception? Gee, those guys believe you should only have sex to procreate. So why would they support contraception? For them, you shouldn't even be having sex!

The Church may have supported a lot of bad stuff in the past, but also, in the past, it was the one who created hospitals, universities (as we know them), great scientists, basis for science, etc. I don't see anybody granting that...

Seems like the problem is that everybody in here grew up with history teachers who only said the bad things about the Church and never mentioned the good ones. People never bother to go do some study (why bother, "we" already have a prejudice against the Church). And you can see this by what people say in here. They have been so brainwashed, that they don't even remember recent history or common facts... Examples?

And, no, the church does not teach 'personal responsibility'. It teaches that after you fuck up, you are guilty and need repentence (sic).

Then what is personal responsibility but being accounted and convicted for a wrong doing that you DID? The whole Penal Code is based on that. The Law can't prevent people from committing crimes. Why should the Church have such power? (God on earth bullshit?!... Really?!...)

The pope sayeth: "Is it not true that inconsiderate use of creation begins where God is marginalized or also where his existence is denied?"
I'd ask where his evidence for this statement can be found.

Gee, I don't know. Maybe communist Russia, or China, or Cuba? How about North Korea? Vietnam? They all supported religion and God, right?!

This from a *man* living in city that reduced it's (sic) existence to a feverish race to possess the most possible.

Dude, if you can find the Vatican in a map, I'd already be amazed. What the hell are you talking about?! Coca-Cola makes more money than the Vatican! Know what? Screw Coca-Cola. OPRAH makes more money than the Vatican!(or at least I've been told).

"Let's face it, people are only disagreeing because it is a religious authority that is saying it."

LOL! Not even close my friend. LOL!

Oh really?! Could you please then tell me why are some people saying that the Pope is a hypocrite? Or better yet, could you explain what "This from a *man* living in city that reduced it's existence to a feverish race to possess the most possible" means, but basing your argument on the sole fact that it is a religious authority who is talking?

Gee, I'm disappointed. I came here because someone told me that people in here were educated and talked about the issues at hand, instead of false claims and reactions, just to hide a hatred for religion (regardless of what it does or says). Votes: -7

Wow, just, Wow. So, you are a Christian, DanSilva?

The - Pope - Is - A - Hypocrite. That is a fact not a biased statement.

It took the RCC only 500 years to exhonerate Galileo Galilei for being scientifically and factually correct after he was twice dragged before the Inquisition (only scarcely avoiding the 'truth methodologies' - torture - and finally being confined to his house until death). Of course, Bruno didn't fair as well.

And considering the nearly 7 BILLION humans on the planet, most of which we cannot actually support (without scientific breakthroughs), contraception is an amazingly great idea. And it also might prevent the transmission of veneral diseases and HIV/AIDS (which the RCC denies!). You're not sounding very intelligent with the contrary argument.

Vatican city is in Rome, Italy, European continent, Earth. Unlike many idiot Americans, I know where most places are (and there is always Google Maps).

Finally, the explorations and exploitations of the Spanish were done in the name of the RCC, with priests in tow to convert the native populations (that survived the plagues, murders, and slavery that ensued). Up until the USA sort of wrestled most of the western territories (and Florida) from Spain in the mid 1800s, Spain owned everything in the Americas from half of what is now the USA (California, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Texas, Florida territories) to the tip of South America except a couple small French and Dutch territories.

I'm sorry. Your arguments here are fallacious. The pope's intimations are that non-believers are the cause of these problems. George W. Bush/Dick Cheney. Should I continue at all? ANWAR? Plunder, exploit, plunder, invade, plunder? God-fearing Bush/Cheney? Really? Stop being stupid. Votes: +2

"Dude, if you can find the Vatican in [sic] a map, I'd already [sic] be amazed. What the hell are you talking about?! Coca-Cola makes more money than the Vatican [sic]! Know what? Screw Coca-Cola. OPRAH makes more money than the Vatican!(or at least I've been told). "

Already be amazed then and do you believe everything that you're told? Rhetorical. If the CEO of Coca-Cola came out and said that people who drink Pepsi were the perpetrators of the worlds' ills I'd have the same types of feelings, that he's an idiot. The topic refers to pope Ratman not Coke and certainly not the grand ol' Orprah.

"Oh really?! Could you please then tell me why are some people saying that the Pope is a hypocrite?"

Because it's clear that he is.

"Or better yet, could you explain what "This from a *man* living in city that reduced it's existence to a feverish race to possess the most possible" means, but basing your argument on the sole fact that it is a religious authority who is talking? "

Please refer to the topic in question and see my above reference to Coca-Cola. The Ratman lives in vatican city which is within the city of Rome, both of which have stayed to themselves, never bothered anyone, never oppressed anyone....... puhlease.

"Gee, I'm disappointed. I came here because someone told me that people in here were educated and talked about the issues at hand, instead of false claims and reactions, just to hide a hatred for religion (regardless of what it does or says)."

I despise all deceit not just the pope's. You are seeing something that is not there.
Votes: +3

I suspect he makes a comment, which is sorta sensible, has a few drinks, then decides to add something to the discussion.
Then, he has a few more drinks, and adds incoherent ramblings.
When he regains consciousness, with a hangover, and realizes there's no way to delete anything, he'll have regrets.

I doubt the pope will have any regrets, tho.
Votes: +2

So, you are a Christian, DanSilva?

Is that a question or an assertion? Because if it is an assertion, don't try to apply for the Million Dollar Challenge, your psychic powers are way off. I'm as much as a christian as you are (raised in a christian environment). And if it's a question, what made you think that I'm a Christian? The fact that I that the truth, sometimes, is on the Church's side.

It took the RCC only 500 years to exhonerate Galileo Galilei for being scientifically and factually correct

Galileo was exhonerated on scietific basis and for teaching false and unproved theories as the truth. Exactly like darwinists towards ID people. The only difference is that due to other circumstances this kind of thing was a little more serious than today. And what do you mean by he being correct? This guy used to think that the Earth was not the center of the Universe because of tides. He thought that if the Earth was standing still in the center, the waters could not move. Since they did... And he endorsed Coppernicus heliocentric theory, but the Sun is NOT the Center of the Universe. And if he was right only on the idea that the Earth goes around the Sun, he didn't present any compeling evidence for his theory nor peer reviewed or double blind studies proving his point. It was only hundred of years later that with compeling evidence his theory was proved.

contraception is an amazingly great idea

Totally agree with you. I'm not contrary to the argument. Stop labelling me and imagining what I 'said' and actually read what I did 'say'. Contraception is good, but it is a very different subject to call the Church/Pope hypocrite because they are against it, when it is very coherent with their ideology that you should only have sex to procreate. Honestly I find it very moronic and ridiculous for people (religious I guess) to disobey the Church when it comes to having sex, but suddenly feel the moral need to obey it when it comes to condoms.

Finally, the explorations and exploitations of the Spanish were done in the name of the RCC

What about the good things that the Church did? Do you even know any?

Your arguments here are fallacious.

What arguments? I just presented you facts.

Give it up?! Is that what you say to people you don't agree with or only to the ones you can't give an honest evaluation of the things said and give a decent answer?

For example, start with this: 1. It is said that the Church is hypocritical for being against contraception. So tell me, why is it hypocritical, if the Church thinks that you should only have sex to procreate? 2. Tell me how much money the Vatican makes each year (last 3 or 5 years) and tell how much money does Coca-Cola made in the same period. 3. Is it false that every country that condemned religion and/or God sent their population to misery and never cared about the environment? 4. Isn't calling the Pope a hypocrite condemning the guy because he is a religious authority, i.e., he is right but he is the last person who should say it? Votes: -4

You should really clean up your head because you keep confusing things and I'm starting to get dizzy.

You say that the Vatican swims in rivers of money, and for that the Pope is a hypocrite. I tell you that Coca-Cola makes more money than the Vatican and you reply that you were talking about the Pope being a hypocrite for something he says about perpetrating evil. Either he is a hypocrite for telling people to do what he doesn't do or he is a hypocrite for having to much money while condemning material possession. You argued for the second and I said you were wrong. You haven't countered, you only changed your argument.

You then say that this case has nothing to do about rejecting a message based on the person who is sending it. I show you that this can't be the case because calling the Pope a hypocrite is exactly saying that the message is correct but he is the last person who should send it. You confirm that the Pope clearly is a hypocrite. How is that countering what I said?

You ask me to refer to the topic in question yet you can't even make up your mind about what that is. Is the Pope a hypocrite because he has too much money? Is he a hypocrite for what the Church did in the past? Is he a hypocrite because countries did bad things in the past and said they were doing it under the name of the Church? Or is he a hypocrite because he is a hypocrite? Name your case and you will get your answer. Votes: -4

You are almost right, you just mixed up the order.
I read some comments and drink a little because they are a little too much.
Aside all of them, I say that I kind of agree with the message.
After I read the replies, I have a few more drinks.
Suddenly I realize that I'm only still here because I'm completely drunk.
When I come to my senses I understand. My huge headache show me that I was arguing with kids and not adults. Votes: -5

Well Dan, You have me at a loss. But most certainly not at your display of the "facts". Enjoy the rest of the comment section. Votes: +3

You say that the Vatican swims in rivers of money, and for that the Pope is a hypocrite. I tell you that Coca-Cola makes more money than the Vatican and you reply that you were talking about the Pope being a hypocrite for something he says about perpetrating evil. Either he is a hypocrite for telling people to do what he doesn't do or he is a hypocrite for having to much money while condemning material possession. You argued for the second and I said you were wrong. You haven't countered, you only changed your argument.

Whether or not Coca Cola and Oprah make more money than the Vatican is a non-sequitur. Oprah and Coke are not saying the things the Poop is. He is indeed a hypocrite. If the CEO of Coke were saying the same things, he'd be a hypocrite. Votes: +2

Now really, come on! Atheism and destruction to the environment? And the guy wasn't drunk when he said that? Wow.. Votes: +2

For technical and scientific information, some depend on the church and the pope.
WTF?

For advice in sexual matters, some depend on the church and the pope.
WTF?

It's difficult to understand the reasoning of some.
Votes: +5

There's no doubt that some of the things the pope says are correct.

Even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then.

Votes: +5

Oprah and Coca-Cola make money.

The pope and the church do not make anything, no product, nothing at all. They cannot prove that they have ever gotten anyone into heaven, or that heaven even exists.

They collect money, a lot of it from poor people who can ill afford it, and the men (no women) at the top live a life of luxury. I've seen the vatican, and the pope's summer castle in Gandolfo.

Votes: +5

A double-blind study of the Earth going around the Sun??

You should be on the Comedy Channel. Or a warm-up act for the pope. Votes: +4

Joey Ratzinger is just another ranting mouth moving humanity 10 steps backwards everytime he opens his mouth. Religion is poison and catholocism is hemlock. Votes: +2

I was up early this morning, and the local news carried sound-bites of a speech the pope made during a retreat/"apostolic visitation" he made this weekend. The speech was about the horrors of totalitarianism, bowing to unyielding authority which appeals to ancient traditions, and the dangers of an absolute monarch who despite benevolent intentions inevitably becomes a dictator.

How is that different from the Papacy over the centuries? Votes: +4

I believe this is called "projection" in the psychology field. Lotsa that going around. Votes: +0

I was up early this morning, and the local news carried sound-bites of a speech the pope made during a retreat/"apostolic visitation" he made this weekend. The speech was about the horrors of totalitarianism, bowing to unyielding authority which appeals to ancient traditions, and the dangers of an absolute monarch who despite benevolent intentions inevitably becomes a dictator.

How is that different from the Papacy over the centuries?

Or how is it different from the concept of a god, the ultimate dictator? Votes: +1

I think it goes beyond Projection, CasaRojo, it sounded like a complete psychotic break -- consider that the Vatican State is one of the few absolute monarchies (albeit non-hereditary) in existence today. But then, the popes claim to be the sole legitimate human representative of Jesus the Christ on earth, and to be able to speak infallibly in his name, so there's a bit of delusional thinking right there. I'm not certain I could speak infallibly for my cat, let alone a deity. Votes: +1

You're absolutely right STL (you'd be STD if you were StarTrekDize. I'm glad that it doesn't and you are not). The popes DO project alot of BS based in *total* delusion. Yes, it's sick, very very sick. The pope needs a couple bottles of pills. BIG pills. BIG reality pills. Can't a bunch of us band together and have him committed? Not that it would necessarily be beneficial to him but I'd feel a whole lot better. My cat says hey to your cat. Votes: +0

The British know what to do with someone that thinks they should have absolute power given to them by God. The last king that said that was King Charles 1. They cut his head off. Votes: +1

The British know what to do with someone that thinks they should have absolute power given to them by God. The last king that said that was King Charles 1. They cut his head off.

But they didn't learn their lessons. They should have given up on monarchies right then and there. Votes: +0

But they didn't learn their lessons. They should have given up on monarchies right then and there.

But they did. After Cromwell and his son ruled, they realized their mistake and went back to King Charles 2. Today the sovereign are figureheads, which is the rightful role of King and Queen. Maybe it should be the rightful role of the pope. Anyone who has any authority to speak for Catholics (or any other religion for that matter) should be elected by the people. You can say what you like about our politicians however they are elected by the people or something close to that. Votes: +0

A double-blind study of the Earth going around the Sun??

You should be on the Comedy Channel. Or a warm-up act for the pope.

The only thing wrong you could find in all I said about Galileo was a joke that I made based on the things usually said by skeptics? Congratulations! Votes: -2

If you wrestle with a pig, it doesn't matter if you win or lose. Either way, you're all muddy.

Your "arguments" are incoherent and inconsistent. It was a good joke about a double-blind study of the Earth's motion, so I stand by my statement that you could open for the pope on Comedy Central.

Votes: +1

"And if he was right only on the idea that the Earth goes around the Sun, he didn't present any compeling evidence for his theory nor peer reviewed or double blind studies proving his point."

This is a very poor argument to use in whatever point you are trying to prove. Galileo made a significant discovery -- that Jupiter had moons. This clearly refuted the concept that everything orbited the Earth, and provided compelling evidence for his theory.

Peer review and double blind studies are irrelevant to this issue of course. Science is always objectively proven based on the protocols and methodologies at available at the time. This is what makes it provisional and what makes it non-dogmatic. It does not make it any less powerful or compelling.

You seem to be trying to rationalize some viewpoint that is not quite clear Dan. It is a fact that religion and science have been at odds for centuries, and Galileo (and Bruno before him) are prime examples. I know many try to put a good face on the issue by insisting Galileo was not tried for science but a lack of faith, but the situation is analogous to saying Dalton Trumbo did not go the jail for being a member of the Communist Party but because he refused to admit it to Congress. Grown-ups know better. Votes: +1

First of all, what is Dnish Dsouza? Is that the ancient warrior spirit that appeared in "What the Bleep do we know?" dressed as a fat chick?

Secondly, the point I'm trying to make about Galileo is that he is much more of a myth than anything else (only because he confronted the Church). The only thing he was right about was the fact that the Earth goes around the Sun (and he couldn't provide compelling evidence for that), all the rest was wrong. The Sun is not the center of the Universe and is not stationary. Tides are not evidence for the movement of the Earth. Additionally, at the time he should have behaved more like a scientist and presented his ideas as a new theory subject to confirmation instead of imposing it as the truth. Just an analogy (with all the flaws that it has) After 150 years you don't believe a guy who says that he found something irreducibly complex that could not have arisen from chance (as proof against darwinian evolution), why should people after 1000 years believe a guy who saw moons on Jupiter and for that claimed that the Sun is stationary in the middle of the Universe?

I'm not trying to rationalize anything. I'm just trying to show things as I see them, instead of believing in myths (religious or atheists). For example:

It is a fact that religion and science have been at odds for centuries.

This is nothing but a myth. If this was so, why were major discoveries in various scientific fields made by religious men? It may be true for some religion and for some specific field of science, but not as a general rule. Galileo and Bruno were much more than just a "science and religion" issue. Votes: -2

Hey man, no need to depreciate yourself. I don't see you as a pig. You seem alright...

And could you please indicate what are my "arguments"?

I wouldn't like to open for the Pope. His jokes are pretty lame. There's a big chance I'd be funnier than him. Votes: -1

Thanks for the reply Dan.

I see that demonstrating that your premises are false has no effect upon you. As Adam Savage of Mythbusters made famous, you are "rejecting my reality, and substituting one of your own."

But I am intrigued by one of your observations: "After 150 years you don't believe a guy who says that he found something irreducibly complex that could not have arisen from chance (as proof against darwinian evolution), why should people after 1000 years believe a guy who saw moons on Jupiter and for that claimed that the Sun is stationary in the middle of the Universe?"

In this statement you achieve a density of confusion I have not seen in quite awhile. You evidently believe:

a) There is a standard of "irreducible complexity"
b) Someone has met that standard
c) Evolution is controlled by "chance"
d) Rejection of the false information in (a,b,c) based on the scientific method is justification for the Catholic Church's rejection (and punishment) of Galileo's scientifically valid, if incomplete, information.

You obviously read, but you do not comprehend. Is it a filter you use, or is it a matter of facts being unable to connect into a coherent logic? Whichever, I hope this is a temporary condition you can overcome, as you seem like a nice enough person.

Should you wish to correct your confusion, I, or others here can recommend a number of helpful resources. Wikipedia is always a good start.
Votes: +2

Wikipedia is always a good start

Well, not really. Votes: +0

Yes, true. Same difference. Portugal was as much the military, exploration arm of the RCC as Spain back then. They always had missionaries as well. Even the idea that Portugal and Spain were ocassionally under the same rules bolsters that assessment. So, while I concede on your point, my point remains the same. Votes: +0

I missed your response the last time I came here, but if you ever wondered...

Whether or not Coca Cola and Oprah make more money than the Vatican is a non-sequitur.

It is only a non-sequitur because you did not understand what I meant. What I was trying to show (if you decide to look it up you will understand) is that the Vatican does not makes "lots of money". If only one person such as Oprah can make more money than a whole sovereign city-state, it shows that the Vatican does not make lots of money as claimed and, for that reason, cannot be a hypocrite (at least not regarding money). You understood that both Coca-Cola and the Vatican make lots of money, but the former makes more than the latter, which as shown, is mistaken.

Thanks for the heads up though. I'll try to be more literal the next time. Votes: -2

Can you see Russia from your house? Votes: +1

But I am intrigued by one of your observations

I think you missed my point.

It is not an observation. It is an analogy. I'm trying to pass along an idea which clearly you didn't grasp.
I'll try to break it down again.

For the last 150 years the darwinian explanation for evolution gained prominence and became the most used theory to explain how living species came to be what they are today. After only 150 years living with this theory, one guy comes up and say that the darwinian explanation can not explain the evolution of some biological "devices" (I don't remember the term he uses exactly) because, for him, they clearly show that natural selection through random processes could never arrive at such "device". This "device" could only appear through an intelligent designer. Naturally, THIS GUY should be the one to provide evidence for his theory, which, by the way, he honestly think he has provided such evidence. But to a big part of the scientific community, what this guy thinks is evidence is not enough to support his ID theory. Would you like to see this guy teach this stuff to your children as the TRUTH? I'm guessing NO. Remember, this happens only 150 year of darwinian theory of evolution. Now back at Galileo time, the geocentric theory was around not for 150 years but for more than 1000 years. And for more than 1000 years the geocentric theory was very accurate for agriculture, navigation, constructions (temples, etc.) and a whole lot of other fields. Then comes Galileo and accepts Coppernicus theory of heliocentrism (which today is proved to be also false) and decides to prove it by saying that there are moons on Jupiter. The scientific community at the time did not accept Galileo's observation as sufficient evidence for his (and coppernicus) theory (which again is false) because it could not explain a whole lot of other situations that were clearly explained by the geocentric theory or, at the very least, his theory could not be a "theory of the gaps". Nevertheless, before the scientific community could confirm his theory, he started teaching it as the TRUTH (again his theory was heliocentrism not solely that the Earth goes around the Sun). Would you like to see this guy teach this stuff to your children as the TRUTH? If you said NO to the first question, I really don't understand why you would have a different answer to this one. But, then again, we should never underestimate the power of belief...

P.s. If that's what Adam Savage said, I would stop paying attention to him. There is no such thing as MY reality. There's only ONE reality. Only the perception of it may change. Votes: -2

It is only a non-sequitur because you did not understand what I meant. What I was trying to show (if you decide to look it up you will understand) is that the Vatican does not makes "lots of money". If only one person such as Oprah can make more money than a whole sovereign city-state, it shows that the Vatican does not make lots of money as claimed and, for that reason, cannot be a hypocrite (at least not regarding money). You understood that both Coca-Cola and the Vatican make lots of money, but the former makes more than the latter, which as shown, is mistaken.

Thanks for the heads up though. I'll try to be more literal the next time.

I understood what you meant. You brought in the irrelevant comparison to Coke and Oprah. Just because they may make more money than the Vatican doesn't mean the Vatican doesn't make lots of money. Therefore it's a bogus argument.

Oprah is one person, but she has thousands who work for her. So she herself is not making all that money, people help her to do so. She was certainly the driving force, but it's still completely irrelevant as to whether the Vatican has lots of material wealth which serves no purpose other than to place the Pope, and the RCC, on a pedestal. Votes: +1

CC (Coca Cola) or RCC (Royal Crown Cola) which do you prefer?

I like pie! Votes: +0

Which hat was he wearing? My favorite is the camauro: http://www.catholicpressphoto....efault.htm Votes: +0