Holy shit (no pun intended). As much as I hate organized religion, I'm pretty impressed. Does Catholic guilt promote a green agenda? Maybe Palin and her Pentecostal, anti-science witch doctors can learn something from this? Probably not.

On another note, why did "ze Germans" donate these? Like the Vatican couldn't afford it? Please.

Also: Note to Americans-->This German speaks perfect English. Got education?

johnnyabnormal

I'm afraid my God fearing parents have completely offset all their plans...

[lubbockstar.com]

sfokevin

I always assumed they just powered everything on little boys tears.

djdare

"[Making] the Vaitican the first zero emissions State in the world"

That's certainly an interesting way to look at it. I'm glad PB is taking a lead on environmental issues for the Vatican, and it's good to see Christians beginning to recognize that protecting the Earth is an Christian value.

weatherman

Let me get this straight, it's a mortal sin to pollute now, and the Vatican has been running on pollution? Yup, that's the Catholic church for you.

------------------------
[gregstechblog.blogspot.com]

MacAttack7388

@djdare:

hahahaha

50% chance u will get disemvolved tho :[

tenio

@MacAttack7388: Sure, but it was only made a mortal sin recently. And besides which, a mortal sin can be confessed and absolved. The church is built upon the fact that people are fallible, and sin is an unavoidable fact of human existence. They're not claiming to be without sin.

Pope John Peeps II

@johnnyabnormal: viral ad campaign?

djdare

They're fighting pollution while protecting child molesters?

Poon

@sfokevin: well done sir

djdare

@Poon: I believe they are covered by persecuting gays as a theological offset for all that overblown molestation stuff...

sfokevin

@djdare: You mean, on the part of ze Germans? Hey, smart move as long as it wasn't coordinated by Raffaelo Follieri!

johnnyabnormal

@sfokevin: LOL. That would be true, were it not for the molestations being homosexually oriented. Male priest -=> Male (boy) victim.

Only the Catholic Church could invent to Solar powered hypocrisy. Amazing.

Poon

@johnnyabnormal: Note to Germans-->WWII

sfokevin

@sfokevin: Note to Vatican: Buy me some of those Igloo Satellite Cabin Modular Homes and some solar panels.

johnnyabnormal

@gothamdarkknight: I'm actually not sure about the specifics, being a vile, secular, hell-bound, atheist demon myself...but doesn't the bible pretty much sum up environmental policy with (paraphrased) "Everything was put here for you, use it as you see fit and then we'll float you all up in a rapture when it goes to shit." ?

johnnyabnormal

They just want to appeal to experimentalists, the church is still just a bunch of douche bags.

ppeetteeyy

@weatherman:
So Christians don't care about the Earth? nice...

I don't recall any passage in the bible that says
"thou shalt protect the earth"
or
"thou shalt defile the earth".

Enviromentalism =/= Religion (exept the hippie versions)

gothamdarkknight

Actually many Christians have been keenly aware of their responsibility to be good stewards over the Earth and have been doing their part to use it's resources in a responsible manner for some time now. We just don't toot our horns about it that much.

Mac007

The Bible actually says we're all to be good stewards of all that God has given us including the Earth. A good steward is a person employed to manage another's property. All of creation belongs to God and one day he will ask us for an account of how well we managed it. That's a scary thought no?

Mac007

@Mac007: I think people being shitty to the environment transcends religion. You don't need religion to know laziness, dishonesty and greed can do a lot of damage.

johnnyabnormal

@gothamdarkknight: Not what I was saying at all. What I was saying is that traditionally (in America in particular) being concerned about the environment has been perceived as part of the "left-wing agenda" and not something the church (of any denomination) has been concerned about. That's changing and it's a good thing, both for this earth and for people to share common values even if they don't share exactly the same faith.

weatherman

Wouldn't the world have benefited much more if they just bulldozed the whole damn place into a nice parking lot instead?

RabbiHarley

@Poon: Net Zero Emission... Net Zero Tolerance... Same Same

sfokevin

@sfokevin: What museum? The Fudge Packers Hall of Shame? 0_o

RabbiHarley

@RabbiHarley: Nah!... They have a kick ass museum!!!...

sfokevin

am I wrong in thinking that the 'carbon footprint' this solar panel made in construction will outweigh its 'green' energy production over the next 25 years? Anyone?

banmojo

@johnnyabnormal: Hmmm, an American hating German? Makes sense - we DID kick your great great granddaddy's ass in WWI, then your great granddaddy's ass in WWII. Shit, we f$#@ed your country up something FIERCE, truth be told. I wouldn't like us much either if I were you.

ps. didn't know y'all had douches in Germany :^)

banmojo

@johnnyabnormal: Actually, the vatican has a yearly deficit. Hospitals, orphanages, schools, etc. in third world countries don't come cheap.

vqro

@MacAttack7388: Anti-Catholic.

I think it's great that the Vatican is going green.

vqro

@vqro: Yet they also hoard trillions of dollars worth of art and relics at the Vatican & teach abstinence in Africa instead of handing out condoms for AIDS. The solar panels impress me and send a good message...but it doesn't wash their hands of the wrongs they have imposed upon the world in the name of their faith.

johnnyabnormal

@banmojo: I'm American. Who's the douche bag now? My point is that a German is speaking perfect English. Americans can barely spell their own name in comparison. You can't rest on the laurels of your grandpappy's great war forever, you know. Americans are getting more and more stupid each passing year, while the rest of the world is passing us by. You're just too complacent or ignorant to notice.

johnnyabnormal

@johnnyabnormal: By "hoard" you mean "own and store", and by "teach abstinence" you mean "teach according to their own doctrine.

You're now in the realm of blaming the Vatican for a) keeping the things they own, and b) doing things in the way their beliefs specify.

In other words, you're blaming them because they don't agree with YOU.

In other other words, you're being a douchebag.

Pope John Peeps II

@banmojo: Yes. You're wrong.

Pope John Peeps II

@banmojo: They can just buy carbon indulgences.

Kaiser-Machead's LEGO WALL-E

@Pope John Peeps II:

By "hoard" I mean, "they are greedy", thus hypocrites. By "teach abstinence" I mean "teach nonsense" since it has never worked in any society and does nothing to stop the spread of AIDS or teen pregnancies.

Now I'm in the realm of speaking the truth a) without fear of religious control systems and b) to show you what a weak point you're making.

In other words, you're barking up the wrong tree because the facts agree with me.

In other words, you = fail.

johnnyabnormal

That's...pretty damn awesome...

Con Seannery

@RabbiHarley: It actually is a pretty cool museum, and your whole scream it from the rooftops stance on removing religion is what most of your group think makes religious types douches, if I'm not mistaken, so you know, there's a bit of hypocrisy...

Con Seannery

@johnnyabnormal and Pope John Peeps II: GENTLEMEN! CALM DOWN!

Con Seannery

@tenio: I'll put down $50 on not...

Con Seannery

@Kaiser-Machead's LEGO WALL-E: Ha!

johnnyabnormal

@Pope John Peeps II: By the way, I also find it rather amusing that this criticism is coming from someone who's own avatar makes fun of the pope.

johnnyabnormal

@Con Seannery: Shorry, shir. Shometimesh I get shilly wish my commensh.

johnnyabnormal

@ppeetteeyy: More likely they are betting someone may see a reflection of Mary on one of the panels and KA-CHING solar pilgrimage!!!

sfokevin

What about all the mental shit that they produce?

>>

winsucker

"200 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent to 70 tons of oil" and how many Hail Marys?

WesTheYeti

A trilions of dollars (exaggeration???) worth of art and relics??? These have been gifts to the Church over 2000 years. You want them to have an auction? Keeping them in the museum allows all people to see them, not just some rich douche bag with enough money to buy. You can say the same thing about any museum. And since when is a Church in charge of dispensing condoms. You're just a hater.

SampadaEquestridomus

How much money can I pay them to get this sin off of my company?

aliskaba

@undefined: How absolutely naive. Having "treasures" (in this case art items of a mostly religious nature, that just happen to be valuable because they were created by famous artists) = greed. You obviously are unaware of the many billions that are spend on charitable works. Do you think the Pope has those works in his living room? Either you're simply naive or simply hypocritical. Teaching abstinence = teaching nonsense? Matter of opinion, silly. You're just the typical uninformed Anti-Catholic.

vqro

@SampadaEquestridomus: The Pope recently emphasized that idols represent a "delusion" that distracts man from reality, that is, from his "true destiny" and "places him in a kingdom of mere appearances". He also called for "A crusade against greed". The Catholic church has PLENTY of money and art that they hoard. Don't even try to tell me I'm exaggerating... The Vatican has large investments with the Rothschilds of Britain, France and America, with the Hambros Bank, with the Credit Suisse in London and Zurich. In the United States it has large investments with the Morgan Bank, the Chase-Manhattan Bank, the First National Bank of New York, the Bankers Trust Company, and others. The Vatican has billions of shares in the most powerful international corporations such as Gulf Oil, Shell, General Motors, Bethlehem Steel, General Electric, International Business Machines, T.W.A., etc. At a conservative estimate, these amount to more than 500 million dollars in the U.S.A. alone.

So yes, as proven above, the Catholic Church are extremely wealthy and a bunch of f@cking hypocrites. Looks like you're the "hater"...but of the ugly truth.

johnnyabnormal

truly the opiate of the masses.

Parapraxis

@vqro: "Naive"? "Hypocritical"? Anything but. Read my response to SampadaEquestridomus and weep.
[gizmodo.com]
You are obviously unaware of the pain and suffering organized religion has inflicted upon the world in their attempts to control humanity and geographical/material assets. I am not hypocritical to point out how insane and unrealistic it is to pervert nature (as evidence in priests ass f*cking little boys) or the fact that abstinence education doesn't work. News flash for you, that is NOT a matter of opinion. Maybe it's hard for a religious sheep like you to understand these little things called "facts", but they exist and prove abstinence education DOES NOT WORK. You had it half right when you called me a "uninformed Anti-Catholic." I'm actually a very informed Atheist.

johnnyabnormal

That whole "Lets buy a tree to offset our carbon footprint" jazz is total BS.

KLanD

@KLanD: Modern day Indulgences...

sfokevin

@SampadaEquestridomus: You better do some math there buddy. The Church for the first 300 years or so had nothing. People were giving up all they had to help each other out and try to keep things going. They were getting the lion's share of lions and not much else.

Even later, priceless art and relics weren't so much given to the church unless you count at the end of a sword. Also, if your family had been labeled as heretics? Well once the heresy was weeded out (through torture, execution) chances are your property belonged to the church.

In other news, the Vatican is tightening other emissions standards.

[www.theonion.com]

Solaricide

The Vatican will never be 'zero-emissions' as long as all those old geezers are in there.

Does that mean that Catholics can no long do pennance for owning SUV's and still go to Heaven?

I'm still not clear on Mortal-vs-Venial sins and how they can change status like that. I thought those sorts of distinctions were written in stone somewhere.

EricAlder

Well at least one good thing they accomplished.

vgart

They are using black "NanoSolar" Photovoltaics. Type of solar technology aside, the benefit is a smaller footprint, as well as paying for R&D and production for future, more efficient solar panels.

RamonaIckle

So does everything the Vatican says count as pollution? Because it all sounds like garbage to me. The world will be a much better place when these religious fanatics and liars stop holding sway over the ignorant.

I guess science is very convenient for them when it saves them money. So, now they are getting energy from the very same sun that revolves around the planet Earth. I'm sure Galileo would be so proud...

BeautifulAgony

@Con Seannery: Ohh, here it is, I Googled the Museum, it's in the "Robed Rump Ranger" Wing. There's a note that tells Priests to bring their own choirboy and condoms as the Church doesn't provide them....yet.

RabbiHarley

@Solaricide: Black Legend anyone?

vqro

@johnnyabnormal: Well, you seem to be on top of the Vatican's "fortunes". You don't seem to have any awareness of the hospitals, schools, orphanages, women's shelters, etc. that the Church does. The Vatican runs a yearly deficit. Do you believe that the Pope or the Cardinals or Bishops or priests own anything? Do a search about John Paul II's possesions when he passed away.

vqro

@johnnyabnormal: Wrong. Although you think you have the *facts*, you actually don't. Firstly, it turns out that the incidence of priest sexual abuse is not higher in proportion than that of the *general population* (that includes atheists like yourself) and not higher than any other religion ([www.csmonitor.com]). Of course, most of the uninformed will parrot the sensationalist propaganda of the (mostly pro-Protestant) American press because they're too lazy to do some research and blaming Catholics for everything is in style. Now tell me... where in the canons of the Church, or in its encyclicals, or in the catechism is there anything about "perverting nature"??? What you'll find is things about love, charity, joy. Blaming the Church because of the (admittedly evil) actions of a *few* priests is like saying all Americans are pricks because GW Bush is a prick. Not fair and not wise. And I'm not a sheep, no matter how many times you say it. There's a difference between an institution and the individual members of an institution. I agree that abstinence education may not work, but abstinence does! The Church does NOT go into anyone's bedroom to stop them from having sex. But it's got to be true to it's doctrines, whether the majority of society believes it them or not.

You should not hate or be filled with anger against something because *some* members of that something are evil people. You would end up hating everything, every country, every institution. Do some research and think about things carefully. You'll come across as a person of reason and wisdom.

vqro

@vqro: Two things: People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Suppressing what is natural only backfires. Nature always wins. You'd have to assume I lack any common sense to claim that abstinence on the part of priests doesn't contribute to their well documented abuses of children. Plus, their pathetic attempts to hide it from the public.

Secondly, I don't "hate" people. But I do hate belief systems that are based upon fairy tails masquerading as truth. I don't deny that religion has done some great things, but does that outweigh the ugly things done in the name of religion? I think not. In my view, charity does not make up for racism, misogyny, genocide, greed, hypocrisy, brainwashing, anti-science, etc. To be honest, Catholicism doesn't frighten me as much as Evangelicals do. At least the Pope can recognize climate change as reality.

johnnyabnormal

@johnnyabnormal: But you insist on misrepresenting the *facts* and that's the problem. The Church advocates celibacy *outside* of marriage but this is because of how it sees marriage (as a covenant). It's not an arbitrary anti-nature, anti-sex decision. On the contrary, it encourages a loving, intimate and (believe it or not) sex-filled life *once married*. Because priests are not supposed to be married (a discipline (not doctrine) of the Western but not Eastern Rite Catholic Churches - married priests do exist) they are expected to be celibate. AND, if you would only take the time to do *objective* research, you'd find that priestly celibacy has NEVER been proven to impact the incidence of priest sex-abuse. The proportion of priest abuse cases, once again, do not exceed those of the general population (or other religions, save maybe Islam). And herein lies the crucial distinction because what it says is that priests are just as human as you and I. And, yes, *a few* commit heinous acts like non-priests, secularists, atheists, politicians, social workers, etc., etc., etc. So, coming full circle, you could argue against the celibacy issue but then you'd be arguing against other institutions as well. There's governments (the U.S., for example, where I happen to live) that consider sex with someone under 18 to be a crime. Yet someone can argue that "America* is "suppressing what is natural" because most people are sexually mature and lose their virginity *before* the legal age of consent (stats say over 65% by age 16)? So now to be consistent, you would have to set yourself against the U.S. government and accuse it of the same "crime" against humanity because it is "suppressing what is natural". The same applies to your insistence that Catholicism has done horrible things to mankind. If you were to look at how many Iraqi *civilians* have been killed by U.S. forces (over 500,000), then to be fair and consistent you would have to say that any American even uttering the words "freedom", "liberty", etc. is a hypocrite because of the horrible "crimes" the U.S. has commited in Iraq. Bottom line: there's a difference between what an institution teaches, advocates and condones, and what *individual* members of that institution do or say.
Your dislike of Catholicism is your prerogative and even your view of it as a belief in fairy tales, however just because you hear the words "misogyny", "genocide", "racism", etc. associated with it, doesn't mean the Church is actually misogynist, racist or supports or tolerates genocide. You would find that it's quite the contrary on all points. So I would throw your statement back at you: "people are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts" when it comes to what Catholicism is about, teaches or does. The fact that the Vatican is trying to do something about their carbon foot-print is a good thing. Your tirades are basically parroting the typical black legend ideas of Catholicism's arch-enemies (Chick, Boettner, Hunt). Yet, as most people, you do so without knowing that you do and attribute these ideas to having "common sense" and being "common knowledge". It's what you've/they've heard, you see. But most people don't know enough about Christian history, much less ecclesiology. So these things are just what's easiest to believe and never mind accurate historical analysis. Catholic Church doesn't allow female priests. Oh, that means they're msogynists. CC doesn't dispense condoms in Africa. Oh that means they're racists and also against sex. Well, not so. Restaurants don't dispense condoms but you wouldn't say the same thing about them. Bottom line... things aren't as black and white as most people think they are and there is a lot of disinformation out there. It's healthy that people have their own opinions but that they at least base them on accurate historical facts, not black legends, not wikipedia articles or stories in the media.

vqro

@vqro: FYI: I'm not basing my opinions about religion on any of the things you just mentioned. I also never said the solar initiative they are taking is bad...in fact, I praised it. I also never linked racism to what they do in Africa either.

Regarding Iraq, we all know this war has nothing to do with "freedom" of the Iraqi people. The Americans are not hypocrites, but are guilty of ignorance. They are quite oblivious of the real situation because the information is suppressed on many levels. Yes, I am American too. What you need to understand is that I believe religious people should keep their beliefs to themselves and stop imposing it upon others through public policy...like abstinence education that fails, or legislation banning gay marriage, fake science creationism, etc. You want to be religious? Fine. Stop trying to convert me and my family.

By the way, the restaurant analogy is weak. A restaurant does not brainwash people. Some dispense condoms as well.

As far as "what is natural"...you only reinforce my argument. Even though the laws dictate sexual activity age limits, people are still having sex. So, nature wins. It is physically impossible for a man to not release, no matter how pious they are. Sperm production does not pause for the holy. It's like saying you're not going to take a shit in the name of God. You also don't need marriage to have intimacy, depth or understanding in a relationship. Marriage is originally a economic arrangement, if you do your "objective" research.

Related to priests and celibacy, a friend of mine joked once that Jewish people are very smart because their priests were allowed to be married, thus passing along their genes. Generally, the smartest men in a community are the priests, so he implied that Catholics bred out the smart people from their societies. :)

If you really want to know why I dislike religion, I haven't even mentioned it. I think the most deadly aspect is this: Once you get people to believe without evidence, you can get them to believe almost anything. It conditions the mind to accept without questioning. It doesn't take a genius to see how this applies to politics, distortions of truth, flat out lies, mob mentality, denial of reality...the list goes on. More than half of the American population believes the Bible as literal fact. We also have a extremely close presidential race right now. They are linked, and not in a beneficial way for the advancement of humanity. I understand the origins of religion, but it holds us back in modern times. We no longer have to make up stories to explain the unknown.

johnnyabnormal

@johnnyabnormal: I'm am totally FOR the separation of Church and State. Religion has no business interfering with public policy. I'm also against converting people. They are either drawn to a church/religion or they're not. My comment on restaurants dispensing condoms was not weak. The point is that a Church is not responsible for and should not be required to dispense condoms. And it should not be judged as evil because it doesn't. Also I disagree that religion is about brainwashing or that having a religion makes you an ignorant robot who can't think for himself (the bible says "carefully study to show yourself approved"). Go back through history and look at the greatest minds... most were NOT atheists! In fact being atheist requires that you also - to use your phrase - "believe without evidence" because there is absolutely no evidence that god does not exist. In fact an atheist has less of a leg to stand on because Logic principles dictate that you *might* be able to prove a positive (i.e. god exists) but you can NEVER prove a negative (i.e. god does not exist). So the general self-satisfied secularist attitude that religious folk are simple-minded is unwarranted and unreasonable (the "you believe in fairy tales" argument can be made on either side). And so is the attitude that atheists are enlightened tolerant individuals. Einstein himself said: "The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer."

vqro

@vqro: ""I'm am totally FOR the separation of Church and State.""

We agree!

"I'm also against converting people."

Ah, but young children are always been converted.

"And it should not be judged as evil because it doesn't."

Never said this was "evil". It just doesn't make sense to teach a failed program in place of condoms. One stops aids and pregnancies, the other does not. The ideology gets in the way of real progress.

"Also I disagree that religion is about brainwashing or that having a religion makes you an ignorant robot who can't think for himself"

Yet, everyone is born a Atheist. Religion is the exact opposite of intellectual curiosity and humility...religion claims to have all the answers with none of the proof. It is based completely on fiction.

"Go back through history and look at the greatest minds... most were NOT atheists!"

They were not Christians either. Some of the biggest human progress in mathematics, architecture, agriculture, physics, astronomy, etc. predate "Jesus". In fact, the oppressive, religious dark ages caused a massive stagnation in the progress of humanity. If you want to get historical, Christianity's stories of Jesus, floods, etc. are totally ripped off from other culture's religions.

""believe without evidence" because there is absolutely no evidence that god does not exist."

This is the oldest fallacy in the book. You should no better than to repeat it, because it only makes you look a fool. You cannot prove or disprove a negative, pure and simple. You can't prove I am not god, debating with you right now. Being unable to disprove a negative does not justify believing fiction as fact.

"In fact an atheist has less of a leg to stand on because Logic principles dictate that you *might* be able to prove a positive (i.e. god exists)"

That's some awfully flawed logic. Atheists have science, facts, reason, adaptability, reality, proof. Religion fails in all of these categories. There's something to be said for someone who doesn't invent wild stories when they can't figure something out. Like I said before, the imagination of primitive man served well to quell the frustrations and fears of unanswered questions in the past. We have no need for these shackles in modern times. The unknown should not be feared, and fiction should not replace fact.

"So the general self-satisfied secularist attitude that religious folk are simple-minded is unwarranted and unreasonable (the "you believe in fairy tales" argument can be made on either side)"

Not simple minded, but misinformed and miseducated...often from birth. And no, the "other side" cannot claim Atheists believe in fairy tales. The religious have a monopoly on this.

"And so is the attitude that atheists are enlightened tolerant individuals."

I never made that claim. Both believers and non-believers can be the extremes of both.

"Einstein himself said: "The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer.""

Einstein also said:

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

---->I could go on, but you can see quote clearly that parading Einstein around in the name of religion falls flat very quickly.

johnnyabnormal

@johnnyabnormal:
"Atheists have science, facts, reason, adaptability, reality, proof."
I beg to differ on the "proof". Science is (sometimes) just another religion with *theories* and *hypotheses* (conjecture) in place of fables, for the "unanswered questions" that is (Big Bang, etc.). Coincidence (and even evidence of something) is not *proof*. That's not to say that there aren't any proofs, of course. Some things have definitely been proven. However, science and religion are not at odds with each other for the most part. And spiritual people do not fear the unknown as you say. You've got a warped view of what religion is. It's not about controlling people, instilling fear, fostering ignorance or oppressing. That it tries to answer certain unknowns with explanations that are not scientific does not mean it opposes science. That it teaches what is "right" and what is "wrong" does not mean it's trying to oppress people. All parents do that with their children! even athiests. How do you explain to your children that it's not ok to steal? Where do you derive the idea that it's not ok to steal or fight or even kill? Animals do it all the time, why not us? When all is said and done, even athiests have a "religion".
Naturally I was not using Einstein to support religion. You do read way too much into things. The point is not all intelligent people are athiests. If science is the only thing that is true, why would a man who can come up with the theory of relativity *not* be atheist?

vqro

@vqro: Wow. Ok, I need you to read the following definitions carefully:

Science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experiment and evidence.

Theory: A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

Now re-read your last entry, you will see how tenuous it really is. Like I said before, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Here are some facts:

- Science is not religion and are in fact opposites. One invites adaptability and further understanding, one claims to have it all figured out and is infallible.

- Einstein was a Atheist (if you want more proof, I have it)

I welcome further debate, but if you try to exaggerate or distort common, accepted definitions, then we are not having the same discussion.

johnnyabnormal

@vqro: You got me there... OH SNAP! I better turn in my A in World History.

Wait... I'm not talking about a stereotypical (monty pythonesque) Inquisitional Spain! I'm talking about Germans (some of my ancestors actually) getting their tongues nailed to tables and then killed for being "heretics."

I for one agree about the huge amount of health care and human rights work the Catholic church does. I work in a Catholic hospital owned by Benedictine(?) sisters, and appreciate the work they do.

As for fortunes?

I live in a town that has one of it's main streets named after a priest that donated hundreds of thousands of dollars (about a hundred years ago (adjust for inflation)) of his HUGE wealth to build the church/school on its corner. He's buried there in an elaborate and decorative tomb.

Solaricide

@Solaricide: My point is that it was not RCC policy. That there are evil and corrupt *individuals* even in religious groups is obviously not a surprise to anyone. But it's like saying that America is corrupt because Bush (or Clinton, depending on your political preference) is corrupt. I got an A in WH too. :)

vqro

@johnnyabnormal: Your hostility and rancor is getting in the way of your comprehension skills. You're not paying attention to what I'm saying... you're merely responding with generalized, knee-jerk, canned responses and you're contradicting yourself. Thanks for the definitions but I didn't say science was *a religion*. You're saying that religions invent "fairy tales" (stories with no proof) to explain the unknown. I'm telling you that science has hypotheses (conjecture with no proof) to explain the unknown. You state that because I believe my religion (RCC) I'm "a religious sheep". What would I call you for believing scientific hypotheses?

But let's see how scientific you are:

"Yet they also hoard trillions of dollars worth of art and relics at the Vatican "
How do you know it's trillions of dollars? Are you a curator? Have you actually seen, counted and appraised what they have both on display and not? No. You're just assuming. So much for "facts" and especially "proof".

"[Abstincence] has never worked in any society and does nothing to stop the spread of AIDS or teen pregnancies."
Are you prepared to prove that the rates of AIDS and teen pregnancy is the same in Muslim communities (where abstinence is *coerced*) as in the rest of the world? Let me tell you... if you actually do the research you'll find that abstinence DOES prevent AIDS and DOES prevent teen pregnancy. So far you don't appear very scientific at all.

"everyone is born a Atheist"
Just how do you know that? Can you reach into the minds of infants? children? Has any scientist offered proof of what you stated? That you believe it is one thing. But proving it is another. How is your statement different from the claim that there is a Hell? No different. Zero proof either way. However, I'm sure you'll insist that you are right.

You yourself agreed that

"You cannot prove or disprove a negative, pure and simple."

So now if all your trusty "science, facts, reason, adaptability, reality, proof" tell you absolutely NOTHING regarding the existence or inexistence of a supreme being, how can you possibly speak in absolutes, all the while assuming that you're the one who's right? Is *that* scientific? No it's not.

Do you agree that there's a chance that God exists? Given that you have no proof either way, regardless of how you feel about it, you have to agree that there *is* a chance. Logic insists that there is a chance. And where is the atheist equivalent of Aquinas' 5 proofs to show that God does not exist? There aren't any.

Atheism is not a religion. However, you're faced with the same epistemological problem as a religious person. You have to have "faith" that God does not exist (because you definitely don't have proof). Just assuming that you're right is not enough.

Now... does science have the answers to everything? No. Are there gaping holes relating to the origin and destiny of the human race, the cosmos and everything else that science can't explain? MOST DEFINITELY. In fact, there are many things for which science doesn't have a clue and is constantly revising itself (string theory, quantum physics, antimatter, etc.). What you have is an imperfect system. When it works, it works beautifully. But there's a lot of unknowns left. So *your* theory may not be any better than that of religion. You can be nitpick here and there and yes you'll find lots of things that are totally whacked out in *certain* religions (many Evangelical denominations are in fact anti-science) but you can't discount certain things (such as the belief in a Hell) when you have no proof otherwise.

To be honest, your posts have a lot of opinion and very little science (proofs):

"Catholic Church are extremely wealthy and a bunch of f@cking hypocrites"
"[Religion] is based completely on fiction"
"[Christians are] mininformed and miseducated... often from birth"
"everyone is born a Atheist"
"[Abstincence] has never worked in any society and does nothing to stop the spread of AIDS or teen pregnancies."

When all is said and done, you're no less presumptuous than that bible-thumping Evangelical telling you you're going to hell if you don't repent right now. You're just as convinced that you're right as he is and you have as little proof about your beliefs regarding God and other claims as he's got about his particular theology. You're a science book-thumping atheist saying religion has done awful things. Hey guess what... secularists are guilty of equal or worst crimes against humanity. So you can get off your high horse. You also assume that atheists are somehow more enlightened than theists.

Here's some questions for you: Why would an intelligent person ever go from non-belief to belief in God? And if everything tends towards chaos (entropy), why is there order and beauty in the world?

vqro

My last response to you was in no way "hostile" or full of "rancor". Although your response appears to be full of exactly what you're accusing me of. My last response was seeking a confirmation that we were using the same vocabulary in the same context. I am paying very close attention to what you are saying. There's nothing "knee-jerk" or "canned" about my responses. They are my own words and I'd like to see you prove any "contradiction" because so far you have failed to do so in your previous comments.

The reason I included those definitions was because you kept alluding to science and atheism in religious terms. In your current response you do it as well. It almost seems as though you can't believe why anyone would NOT believe in religion, which also explains your reactions to my words. This makes perfect sense, because the religious often believe religion is infallible. It encourages a narrow mind which cannot accept anything but what you have been taught to believe: A fake reality without any evidence or room for challenge.

So! Let's dive in. If I'm correct, you're trying to say that science is just as clueless as religion? Is that you're best defense? You're saying science is "all conjecture" with it's fancy hypotheses and theories? Seriously, this is so laughable it's not even funny. To try and put them on equal footing regarding any definition of reality is just absurd. Let's compare the two:

Science attempts to apply some of the following criteria:
1) Skepticism of unsupported claims
2) Combination of an open mind with critical thinking
3) Attempts to repeat experimental results.
4) Requires testability
5) Seeks out falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis
6) Uses descriptive language
7) Performs controlled experiments
8) Self-correcting
9) Relies on evidence and reason
10) Makes no claim for absolute or certain knowledge
11) Produces useful knowledge

Pseudoscience and religion relies on some of the following criteria:
1) Has a negative attitude to skepticism
2) Does not require critical thinking
3) Does not require experimental repeatability
4) Does not require tests
5) Does not accept falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis
6) Uses vague language
7) Relies on anecdotal evidence
8) No self-correction
9) Relies on belief and faith
10) Makes absolute claims
11) Produces no useful knowledge

For extra measure, let's take a look at the scientific process:

Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

-->Religion has none of this!

So, back to our discussion: Yes, you do believe in "fairy tales" or colorful mythology. Why do I say this? Because you cannot prove a single word of it. There are thousands of religions saying thousands of different things, yet they all think THEY are the ones who have the correct version. Yet, if you insist on comparing science with religion, science does not have this problem at all.

When you said, "You state that because I believe my religion (RCC) I'm "a religious sheep". What would I call you for believing scientific hypotheses?"
What should you call me? A intellectually curious realist who's mind is not constrained by religious ideologies? I'm sure you can think of something less flattering.

On we go... So next you challenge "how scientific" I am by insinuating that I can't possibly be correct about the Vatican's worth because I'm not a "curator"? Because I have not "seen, counted and appraised what they have both on display and not". Really, it's not something you need to do in person. On this thread I clearly explained about their investments and the banks which they do business with. Follow the money yourself if you don't believe me.

Regarding abstinence, you claim I'm "not scientific" because I have said it is a failure? You also hint that I might be unprepared to prove this? If you have the time, read this:
[www.mathematica-mpr.com]
There are MANY studies who have reached the same conclusions. Probably one of the more hilarious results of abstinence education is the large increase of teens having unprotected oral and anal intercourse. = FAIL.

Moving on, how do I suppose everyone is born a atheist? Because nobody was born a Catholic, a Hindu or a Muslim. These stories and books are taught and read, pure and simple. Just like you don't know a book you haven't read or a story that you've never been told. You don't have to "reach into the minds of infants" or any of that nonsense. It has nothing to do with a comparison to the belief of "hell". It is proof through deduction. Learning is like water being poured into a glass, the glass being your brain. Yes, I do insist that I am right about this, unless you can find me evidence of someone being born with the Bible already memorized.

So then you say, "So now if all your trusty "science, facts, reason, adaptability, reality, proof" tell you absolutely NOTHING regarding the existence or inexistence of a supreme being, how can you possibly speak in absolutes, all the while assuming that you're the one who's right? Is *that* scientific? No it's not."

That "absolute" would be this: I'm 99.999999999999999999999% sure there is no god. That actually, is VERY scientific of me to say. There are also plenty of logical fallacies regarding the impossibility of the existence of a supreme being. I'm sure you've probably heard them all: Circular reasoning, appeal to ignorance, argument from adverse consequences, bandwagon fallacy, composition fallacy, confirmation bias, straw man, red herring, etc.

Your insistence that there is a chance "God" exists could be applied to almost anything imaginary or fantastic, such as my telling you that I created the heavens. Could you "prove" otherwise? Nope. You couldn't prove to a child that Santa doesn't exist either, yet some children grow up into adults that don't believe in imaginary beings.

Regarding "Aquinas' 5 proofs": The fact of the matter is they are not proofs. The five "ways" include a great deal of fallacy: 1, 2, and 3 are essentially the same argument. Perhaps in Aquinas' time motion, causality and existence were viewed distinctly, but with today's knowledge we can view them all as cause and effect issues. Things can be caused to be put in motion, plus things can be caused to come into existence, etc. Thus #2 covers 1 and 3.

The first issue, and it is a glaring one, is that of induction. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are all arguments of induction. Induction is where you take a specific set of examples and then generalize a conclusion. The problem with this is that the conclusion is not necessarily true, based on the premises. To put it another way, a conclusion derived from induction is not proof of anything. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are all inductive arguments. Aquinas as taken a set of observations (observed causes have preceding cause, including motion and existence - things acting toward a specific end have a guiding intelligence) and has derived generalized conclusions (all causes must have preceding causes, including motion and existence: all things acting toward an end have a guiding intelligence).

For 1, 2 and 3, Aquinas draws out the conclusion to a logical contradiction: There cannot be an infinite regression of causes/motion/existences. Under normal circumstances, this would be it. Aquinas as essentially disproved his own argument via reductio ad absurdum. Instead of recognizing this, he proposes a solution by defying his initial premises. To explain away the potential infinite regression of causes, he proposes the existence of a "first cause" and "uncaused caused" despite the fact that this violates his premise that all things must have a cause. He offers no reason why this "first cause" is an exception to the general rule he has established. 5, however, does not contradict itself and remains consistent, yet it is still fallacious, even when ignoring the problem of induction. It is fallacious because it begs the question. Aquinas has said that all things moving toward an end must be guided by intelligence. Since things other than humans are not intelligent, they cannot be guiding themselves toward and end and must get this guidance from elsewhere. This may be from humans, as an arrow shot by an archer guided to a target or from something else. For all things not driven by human intelligence he says is driven by God. This is begging the question because it assumes that all things are being driven to not only an end, but in such a way as to achieve "the best result". Aquinas offers no reason or support why we must assume that all things are acting toward a specific end and are acting in such a way as to achieve a "best result". It very well could be that things are simply acting to no end and thus guided by no intelligence at all.

Way #4 is a bit trickier in that it muddles a bunch of different concepts. Aquinas has said that we find in objects varying degrees of certain attributes, and that there MUST be a maximum to that attribute. If one thing can be hotter than another, then there exists a hottest object. What Aquinas muddles here is that there does exist maximum values for certain attributes, such as heat. There is an absolute zero and there is a theoretical maximum temperature, there is a maximum velocity and a minimum velocity. But this does not mean all attributes have a maximum nor does it necessarily mean that there are objects that possess this maximum value for that attribute. There are numbers greater and lesser than another, yet no greatest or smallest number. The qualities he tries to apply this to are goodness, nobility, perfection, etc. These are abstract concepts that are not tied to physical values. This means they are more like numbers than they are like temperature and velocity. There is no reason for us to believe that there are maximal values for any of those. Even if there did exist entities that contained an attribute to its maximum quantity, there is no reason to say that there can be only one. He falsely proposes fire as the hottest object and the cause of all others, yet he doesn't propose that only one fire exists. So even if there is a maximal goodness or maximal nobleness, why must they all rest in a single object?

Now we come to the label issue. Aquinas' arguments propose that certain entities must exist and that these entities are all God. This is a clear-cut case of equivocation. Even if we give Aquinas the benefit of the doubt, he has offered no reason why the entity called God as a result of the first three arguments is the same as the entity Called god as a result of the fourth argument or is the same as the entity called God as a result of the fifth argument. Simply giving them the same name doesn't make them the same entity. Furthermore, he does not link any of these depictions of God to the Christian God he was attempting to prove. Just because he proves there was a creator doesn't mean he proves that creator was the same God that gave his son to save humanity. If you want to prove the existence of an entity, you have to prove each and every attribute that entity is alleged to have. To summarize, Aquinas' conclusions are not conclusive at all, as they rely on textbook examples of induction. The contradictions that arise from his first three arguments should demolish those arguments yet they don't and instead Aquinas' proposes a solution which only further contradicts the premises he laid out to begin with. His fourth and fifth arguments make unfounded assumptions regarding the nature of attributes and the ends toward which things act. To round it all out, the arguments taken together equivocate the nature of God. Aquinas simply relies on the reader to assume that each "proven" entity is one and the same, and furthermore represents the Christian God, without providing support.

Moving on again: "You have to have "faith" that God does not exist (because you definitely don't have proof). Just assuming that you're right is not enough"
Requiring proof of the existence of any "God" is not "faith". Again, you're twisting common definitions of these words. Regardless, there is no shame in being comfortable with the unknown. I am a proud and happy atheist because I will never have to doubt that what I believe might be fiction.

"Are there gaping holes relating to the origin and destiny of the human race, the cosmos and everything else that science can't explain? MOST DEFINITELY."
Not really. Especially on the subject of human origin and evolution. Although, if comparing science to religion on these matters, science still bests your myths with proven knowledge while not creating outlandish fiction to define the unknown. Would you like me to explore the "gaping holes" within the Bible?

"What you have is an imperfect system. When it works, it works beautifully. But there's a lot of unknowns left."
There's nothing "imperfect" about science not explaining all the "unknowns". Science wins again, compared to religion which is rife with fiction, contradictions, lies, half-truths, etc.

So now you take issue with "lack of proof" of my opinions, regarding:

"Catholic Church are extremely wealthy and a bunch of f@cking hypocrites"
"[Religion] is based completely on fiction"
"[Christians are] misinformed and miseducated... often from birth"--->Not specifically Christians!!
"everyone is born a Atheist"
"[Abstinence] has never worked in any society and does nothing to stop the spread of AIDS or teen pregnancies."

Yet, I have proven over and over how these points are true. Teaching against greed, promoting generosity + being obscenely wealthy and hoarding priceless objects is hypocritical. Made up stories are fiction. Teaching those stories as fact is miseducation. Being born without religious brainwashing makes a infant without religion an atheist until convinced otherwise. Abstinence has been overwhelmingly be proven in numerous studies to be a failure.

"you're no less presumptuous than that bible-thumping Evangelical telling you you're going to hell if you don't repent right now."
That made me laugh really hard. I'm not threatening anyone with anything for not agreeing with me.

"secularists are guilty of equal or worst crimes against humanity."
Crimes against humanity often transcend religion + this is a flawed point: Secularists don't commit atrocities in the name of a "God". Their lack of believing in a "God" doesn't drive them to war. Comparing the genocide that religion has wrought on mankind to that of anything "in the name of Atheism" = FAIL.

"You also assume that atheists are somehow more enlightened than theists."
Well, either could be as dumb as a bag of hammers...but in theory, yes: I do think someone who doesn't believe fiction as fact is more enlightened.

"Here's some questions for you: Why would an intelligent person ever go from non-belief to belief in God? And if everything tends towards chaos (entropy), why is there order and beauty in the world?"
Pretty simple: Humans can be emotionally weak and grasp for a mental security blanket during hard times. I would ask you conversely, why would anyone lose faith? As far as entropy, order and beauty? Creationists like to argue that life couldn't have naturally developed from non-life because of entropy. Essentially, they claim that order and complexity, the reduction of entropy, cannot occur naturally...but this argument simply doesn't work.

First, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which limits the ability of a natural system to have a decrease of entropy, only applies to closed systems. When a system is open and can exchange energy with the outside, then that open system can have a decrease in entropy and an increase in order. The most obvious example of this is a living organism. All organisms run the risk of approaching maximum entropy, or death, but they manage to avoid this by drawing in energy from the world: eating, drinking, and assimilating.

Second, whenever a system experiences a decrease in entropy, a wider price must be paid. When a biological organism absorbs energy and grows (thus increasing in complexity) work is done. When work is done, it is not done with 100% efficiency. Some energy is always wasted and some given off as heat. This means that in the larger context, overall entropy is increased even as entropy decreases locally within an organism. Thus, the Second Law is not violated. To get back to "beautiful"? That is in the eye of the beholder. To leave you with a wonderful quote:

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
- Douglas Adams

johnnyabnormal