Pope criticises pursuit of wealth

[swtrader]

Quote from mgabriel01:

The popes comments are typical of a guy who wears only the finest clothes, travels in a private jet and lives in a really nice house in the middle of Rome

maybe the church should eat its own cooking and sell off some of those prime properties and give the money to the poor

you're missing the whole point

little people like us, just want nice things

he NEEDS them

funny how the 2 people most known for expecting the average American to 'shift down' their lifestyle (pope and Al Gore) both have their own private jets

they obviously think they're pretty important

 

[jem]

by the way just in case anyone things I am defending the church on that issue - let me say that I do not think John Paul the second was a good pope because of the that very issue.

the world loved the guy - first for contributing to the fall of communism and because he seemed to be a big ecumenical type apologizing to Jews etc...

I think his inaction on the child sex issue disqualifies him from even being considered a good Pope.

I think the new Pope is a completely different leader.

Additionally you have no idea how much money the church has. (nor do i) They have probably paid out a billion dollars to plaintiffs lawyers and its been speculated that the church almost or did bankrupt itself funding anti communist forces in Eastern Europe.

The Catholic Church is also the second largest provider of social services in America. They provide hundreds of hospitals and schools.

If the church did not have the sex scandal I would be telling you all to bugger yourselves. (I am not english but it did sound better than sod) Unfortunately what the Priests and the Bishops did was almost unpardonable.

 

[sprstpd]

Quote from jem:

Saying science can not disprove a Creator is just such a simple, accurate and harmless statement.

This is true but science cannot prove the Creator either. So where does that leave you?

 

[jem]

Quote from sprstpd:

This is true but science cannot prove the Creator either. So where does that leave you?

a person in search of the truth and the light, who knows the difference between scientific understanding and faith. Not unlike many others in that regard.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from sprstpd:

This is true but science cannot prove the Creator either. So where does that leave you?

not only cant science prove a creator it cant find a shred of evidence for one. at what point after centuries of search do we say there is nothing up there?

 

[jem]

Quote from vhehn:

not only cant science prove a creator it cant find a shred of evidence for one. at what point after centuries of search do we say there is nothing up there?

He is your shred of evidence of a designer. Ignore it - deny it - all you want. But the universe looks spectaculary designed and the best minds in physics have to conjecture there are almost infinite universes to combat that conjecture.

And this is only one noted professor who admits the appearance of design. there are others.



http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/23676


With his new book, Leonard Susskind - Felix Bloch professor of theoretical physics at Stanford University - has now decided to step into these waters. Susskind is one of the pioneers of string theory and a leading light in our attempts to understand the origin of the universe and the laws of nature. Like most of his fellow theorists, he is a card-carrying atheist. Nevertheless, in The Cosmic Landscape he expresses sympathy for the intelligent-design view when applied to physics and cosmology rather than biology.

Susskind believes that it is more than dumb luck that the universe is so accommodating to human beings. "Can science explain the extraordinary fact that the universe appears to be uncannily, nay, spectacularly, well designed for our own existence?" he asks.

But does this mean that the religious fundamentalists have won? Must we invoke the existence of a god to account for the gaps in our knowledge? Susskind’s answer is "no" on both counts. As you might have guessed from the book’s subtitle, he argues that while "the appearance of intelligent design is undeniable", science can nevertheless explain it all. Phew! Thank God for that.

 

[sprstpd]

Quote from vhehn:

not only cant science prove a creator it cant find a shred of evidence for one. at what point after centuries of search do we say there is nothing up there?

I agree with you. I was just making a point about jem's logic about science not being able to find the Creator and how illogical that argument is in supporting his own position.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from jem:

He is your shred of evidence of a designer. Ignore it - deny it - all you want. But the universe looks spectaculary designed and the best minds in physics have to conjecture there are almost infinite universes to combat that conjecture.

And this is only one noted professor who admits the appearance of design. there are others.



http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/23676


With his new book, Leonard Susskind - Felix Bloch professor of theoretical physics at Stanford University - has now decided to step into these waters. Susskind is one of the pioneers of string theory and a leading light in our attempts to understand the origin of the universe and the laws of nature. Like most of his fellow theorists, he is a card-carrying atheist. Nevertheless, in The Cosmic Landscape he expresses sympathy for the intelligent-design view when applied to physics and cosmology rather than biology.

Susskind believes that it is more than dumb luck that the universe is so accommodating to human beings. "Can science explain the extraordinary fact that the universe appears to be uncannily, nay, spectacularly, well designed for our own existence?" he asks.

But does this mean that the religious fundamentalists have won? Must we invoke the existence of a god to account for the gaps in our knowledge? Susskind’s answer is "no" on both counts. As you might have guessed from the book’s subtitle, he argues that while "the appearance of intelligent design is undeniable", science can nevertheless explain it all. Phew! Thank God for that.

jem you have been proven wrong on this argument in at least half a dozen threads. when will you be able to grasp that fact?

"Beliefs should be a search for truth and understanding, not denying reality so you can have faith in a compendium of books written by unknown authors over hundreds and hundreds of years complied much later by other fallible men, as 100% literally correct. That is a faith that is truly blind"

 

[IanMacQuaide]

I'm not being cruel or petty, but the Pope is relevant to what?

 

[jem]

Quote from vhehn:

jem you have been proven wrong on this argument in at least half a dozen threads. when will you be able to grasp that fact?

"Beliefs should be a search for truth and understanding, not denying reality so you can have faith in a compendium of books written by unknown authors over hundreds and hundreds of years complied much later by other fallible men, as 100% literally correct. That is a faith that is truly blind"

More emotional illogical crap.

Tell me how I have been proven wrong.

Are you denying Susskind is a one of top physicists in the world?

Are you denying he said that that if there is only one universe we would be hardpressed to come up with a counter for believers who argue that the universe looks designed.

How much plain english do you need. Did you even click on the link. Did you see the discussion about the Nobel Prize winner and his prediction as it is applied to this argument.


I have placed all this information for you within context.

The context is - if there is one universe it looks designed - spectacularly designed. If there are almost infinite universes then we just happen to be one of the universes which support life.

No - on has proven I am wrong because even prominent atheists website now admit as much.

Additionally - I have given you quotes from other highly regarded scientists on this subject.

Prove I am wrong. Oh thats right I must be wrong because your worldview can not be adjusted.