/lit/ - Literature

all religions are antagonistic to one another. they're antagonistic to the absence of religion as well.

>>1470374
"For the issue Hochhut poses is not the attitude of the Pope to the mass-murder of human beings, which the Church does not condone—or even the mass-murder of Jews, to which the Church would also take exception—but rather the murder of masses of Jews with the intent of annihilating the entire Jewish people in order to bring about the extinction of Judaism. The call for the obliteration of Judaism was not something grafted upon Christianity as a result of some historical development, something which Christianity is capable of overcoming and even rejecting...The relationship of Christianity to Judaism is unlike that of other religions or faiths, whether pagan or Islamic, which deny the Torah of Israel and would nullify it. Christianity does neither, but claims that it is Judaism and there is no Judaism apart from it...Christianity regards itself as the legitimate heir of Judaism, and the heir cannot take possession of the inheritance while the testator is still alive."

Because of this, Leibowitz claims, the Church becomes caught up in a dilemma in which the annihilation of the Jewish people is necessitated but cannot be accomplished because a principle of the Church is not to shed blood. Hitler resolved this dilemma; "The task which the Church itself was not permitted to carry out was undertaken by another agent".

In his second essay (http://books.google.com/books?id=m...6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false the first and last two pages are missing), Leibowitz expounds on this theme in more depth, explaining precisely how Judaism and Christianity differ. I highly recommend you read the essay before responding to this post. Some interesting and relevant passages:

"[Goethe's] thoughts on this subject were summarized in the sentence: "Christianity stands in far greater opposition to Judaism than to paganism."

>>1470390

...it is only fitting to contrast the highest symbol of faith in Judaism with that of Christianity: the Aqedah versus the Crucifixion. Thus Abraham is told:"Take now your son, your only one that you love...and offer him there for a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall tell you." It is a test in which human values and even divine promises...are shunted aside before reverence for God...and love of God. The Christian symbol is that of the deity who sacrifices his only son for man...God fulfills man's need for salvation.
If true, the ramifications of what Leibowitz says are very great. Some preliminary questions should be asked:

1. Does Leibowitz characterize the essences of Judaism and Christianity correctly?

2. What are the commons of Judaism and Christianity? Are the two religions only superficially related, or do they have some deeper connection?

3. Can they be reconciled, peacefully or otherwise?

Undoubtedly there are other questions and concerns that arise. So, what are your thoughts and responses to these allegations and criticisms?

Religion is not a suitable topic for polite conversation.

Oh. And learn to summarize and cite properly, you dumb nigger.

>>1471789

>Non-religious
>in a separate category from atheists

>>1471817
>Thinks being non-religious and being an atheist are the same thing

>>1471873

Atheism: Disbelief in, and denial of the possibility of, a God or Gods.

Sounds like non-religion to me.

>>1471877
>Atheist => Non-religious
Does not mean
>Non-religious => Atheist

lrn2logicplx

>>1471877
Ah right, so if I'm following your logic, because Atheists are non-religious, all non-religious people are Atheists yes?

>>1471885

If you're not religious, it stands to reason that you do not believe in anything divine.

If you do not believe in anything divine, you are an atheist.

Sure, there's strong (considered) and weak (unconsidered) atheism. I am a strong atheist. A newborn baby is a weak atheist. But we're both atheists.

>>1471893
>If you're not religious, it stands to reason that you do not believe in anything divine.

nope.jpg

>>1471895

Give me an example of a non-religious person who believes in something divine.

>>1471899
Someone who believes in a God, but does not prescribe to any religion.

>>1471902

That's religion. It's just not organised religion.

>>1470396
Actually, he betrays a deep misunderstanding of Christian (particularly Catholic) thought. To wit, Christians wish all to *become* Christian, not to eliminate non-Christians.

Further, the scurrilous lies about Pope Leo XII cannot even be considered by reasonable people - the state of Israel, after all, acknowledges Pope Leo XII as the man responsible for saving as many as 800,000 Jews from the Holocaust

>>1471899

Faithlessness = Atheism.

It's very simple, but I think there is an immature reluctance on the part of people who do not have any faith to identify themselves as atheists because of the imagined negative connotations of the word.

I think of this attitude as a state of self inflicted subjugation.

>>1471912

Who, apart from mad fundies, believes that "Atheist" has any negative connotations?

Because you all seem pretty knowledgeable, I'll ask you.

What is the term for someone who has never considered the existence or non-existence of any god at all, and has no interest in the affair one way or another i.e. someone who has, for whatever reason, no expierence of the concept of a God? Are they agnostic? Or does agnostic imply that you've made an active decision not to make a decision?

>>1471912
>immature reluctance on the part of people who do not have any faith to identify themselves as atheists because of the imagined negative connotations of the word.

I guess we just imagined how the word atheist has been used pejoratively for centuries.

>>1471917

"Weak Atheism" is a term I have heard.

>>1471912

>Faithlessness = Atheism.

Nope. Atheism involves actual denial of the existence of (a) god, Faithlessness just involves not accepting his existence as a fact.

>>1471914

Trust me bro, some irreligious people hate the word atheist because they believe atheism is an aggressive anti-theistic position because of the scrutiny and anger directed towards atheists like Professor Dawkins.

>>1471917
Some would say Apatheist, but that's a modern term. It used to be known as pragmatic atheism and carried just as many, if not more negative connotations than other forms of atheism.

>>1471925

It sounds like you're coming at this from a Christian perspective. Confirm/deny?

>>1471927

Those people are wrong.

Atheist =/= Antitheist, and practically anyone with any real interest in the subject knows that.

>>1471924
But doesn't Atheism imply that you're aware with that which you don't believe in? I mean, if I wasn't aware of the concept existence of internet, you wouldn't say that I didn't believe in it, you wouldn't say that I didn't believe in it, because to imply that you don't believe in something seems to imply that you are aware that its existence is posited at all... doesn't it?

>>1471934

Strong Atheism: Knowing that there is religion, and so not agreeing with it out of opinion or knowledge.

Weak Atheism: Not knowing that there is religion, and so not agreeing with it out of ignorance.

>>1471921

Pejoratively by christians wishing to deter people from being more confident in their disbelief.

>>1471917

Weak atheist.

>>1471927
"Trust me bro, some religious people hate the word atheist because they believe atheism is an aggressive anti-theistic position because of the anger directed towards religious people by atheists like Professor Dawkins."

modified

>>1471941

I have never seen the word used in that context. I won't deny that it happens, I'm just saying that I have never experienced that.

>>1471943

Here is a very good example.

Have you ever seen Professor Dawkins us subjective or emotional arguments when debating religion?

He is a man or reason and science and just because he refuses to respect your beliefs does not mean he refuses to respect you as a person.

>>1471939
Really? Huh...
Seems a bit simple, but I'll accept.

>>1471948

http://www.thestar.com/article/349380

>>1471929

what does that mean? Am i christian? No. Went to sunday school as a kid though. I'm not atheist either though.

>>1471959

Do you have faith in anything supernatural?

>>1470396

I typed out a long and very detailed response to all of your questions before anyone else responded, but then decided to not to post because we're both fucking idiots.

pic related, as always.

>>1471964
i don't believe in supernatural things, but i don't believe in the lack of them either. I would say i'm open to the question, but in reality I don't care what the answer is so i think that would be a misrepresentation.

>>1471972

You're trying so hard to create this illusionary position distinct from atheism that you are beginning to make no sense, and you gave me three contradicting answers.

Do you have no belief in the supernatural? Do you believe the supernatural may exist? Do you not care?

I'm beginning to think the latter is true, and you just don't want to choose any position because

a) you don't want to commit yourself to a faith but you are simultaneously reluctant to join in with what you see as an aggressive atheist movement.

b) you really do not care about your place in the universe beyond the simple and domestic, free of intellectual responsibility

c) you feel you are superior by distancing yourself from the debate.

>>1471987
He's taking a post-modern view; fuck the epistemological, focus on the ontological. There is nothing fictive about this.

>>1471987

for me, "believing" not something you can choose to do. Or maybe it is for some people, but i can't just sit down and say "ok from now on i believe in god" or "ok from now on i believe that there is no god."

It's not a rational decision based on evidence, if it was it would be knowledge, not belief. I don't know how one comes to it, but i haven't yet, so i don't believe. Sometimes i envy those who do, though.

But you are right that i think the debate is somewhat silly for the very reason i mentioned, if a conversation or a logical argument can change somebody's mind on this, whatever they had wasn't actual belief.

>>1472004

Actually it is based on probability.

The probability that there is a supernatural entity which could create himself, then the universe and yet leave no evidence of his existence is exceedingly low, and thus I believe no such entity exists.

Belief in anything is an assumption based on probability, when the probability is high enough it is practical and reasonable to believe.

For example, the probability that my plane will crash next week when I fly to prague is very low, and so I go on that flight.

>whatever they had wasn't actual belief.

What they had was faith, belief without evidence where no amount of evidence or probability could change their beliefs.

>>1472025
>Actually it is based on probability.
>Belief in anything is an assumption based on probability, when the probability is high enough it is practical and reasonable to believe.
Lets all go around making generalisations to try and make a point on the internet.

You have ignored his points here:
>>1472004
Where he rejects the notion of the usefulness of an epistemological argument. You are continuing to argue along these lines. It's pointless.

>>1472041

Well fuck post-modernism.

Science works, get over it.

>>1472058
Talking to a scientist dude. Still:
>>>/sci/

>>1472058

>science
>pulling probability estimates of things you have no way of knowing anything about out of your ass
>making untestable statements about things without any evidence

i don't think you know what you're talking about

>>1471951
Oh, really? He has stated that religious people are incapable of rational thought; that when religious people teach their children their beliefs it is a form of child abuse. Heck, just google "dawkins ad hominem" and you'll find philosophers taking him to task for his weak and and ad hominem quotes

why do i get the impression that this is a stormfag from /new/ who's sad because his board is gone?

>>1472025
"Faith" in the context of religion does not mean 'belief without evidence'; that is an invention of atheists from a Douglas Adams joke. "Faith" means 'allegiance to and devotion towards"

>>1472065
i don't think calling the event of an inconceivably powerful being willing itself into existence and creating the universe without leaving a trace of itself unlikely is "pulling probabilities out of your ass"
science is an immensely more probable worldview

>>1472065

You think the chances of a supernatural being existing is 50/50?

And the burden of proof doesn't lay with me.

>>1472083
allegiance and devotion imply belief in the existence of the thing you're devoting yourself to (which also happens to have no evidence for its existence)

>>1472086
The whole idea of there being a burden of proof for such a question is idiotic. It is unknowable.

>>1472083

Actually it does mean belief that isn't supported by material evidence but instead on authority or culture.

>>1472076

>religious people teach their children their beliefs it is a form of child abuse

I agree with this, and there is evidence to suggest that it is true. Just youtube "Jesus Camp".

>>1472099
if i told you there's a invisible intangible undetectable unicorn orbiting the planet should you just accept it as an "unknowable question"?

the burden of proof lies upon the one asserting the existence of the entity

>>1472099

How do you know that? We have not yet hit a limit in our knowledge, there is no celestial roadblock through which mathematics and physics cannot understand pass.

>>1472077

I've been on /lit/ for sometime.

>>1472076
>>1472101
Oh Dawkins also says this:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/118
"Being fondled by the Latin master in the Squash Court was a disagreeable sensation for this nine-year-old, a mixture of embarrassment and skin-crawling revulsion, but [...] as soon as I could wriggle off his knee, I ran to tell my friends and we had a good laugh, our fellowship enhanced by the shared experience of the same pedophile. I do not believe that I, or they, suffered lasting, or even temporary damage from this disagreeable physical abuse of power. Given the Latin Master's eventual suicide, maybe the damage was all on his side."

>>1472085

he's making up probabilities for something he knows nothing (and, explicitly, CANNOT know anything) about. That's pulling probabilities out of his ass, regardless of how much is views happen to agree with yours.

>>1472111
No, the burden of proof simply lies with the person trying to convince someone to change their mind. The burden of proof lies with the evangelist be they christian or atheist.

>>1472092
A claim of 'no evidence' is pretty extreme. From well-documented miracles (such as the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima) to Plantinga's modal version of the Ontological Argument it is pretty easy to demonstrate that belief in God is rational and that discussions of evidence boil down to 'nuh-uh' vs. 'uh-huh'

>>1472113
>>1472111
If I told you there was some single magical method which could understand everything, would you believe me? Oh, wait... shit.

>>1472114
>priest fondles little kids and later kills himself
>one kid says he didn't mind and it helped him make friends
where are you going with this?

>>1472111
except, i'm not asserting the existence of this inconceivably powerful supernatural being, i'm asserting that you can't determine an absolute "probability" of it existing. You're just using "probability" as a word for how convinced you personally are.

>>1472120
The choice to be rational is irrational.

>>1472125
The entire article is about how sexual abuse isn't that bad, but religion is ZOMG FUCKING EVIL

>>1472119

>Miracles

>>1472114

I don't see how this is relevant.

>>1472117

How do you know we cannot know?

>>1472133

I hope your joking. (I haven't read the argument.)

>>1472101
Ah! But several studies [use google] demonstrate that children raised religiously commit less crime, are less likely to use drugs or tobacco, are in less physcial fights, perform better in school, and are less likely to catch an STD. Further, religious adults are less likely to commit crimes, live longer, are healthier, and have a higher quality of life.
Since these are facts as discovered by scientific studies that adjust for income, race, etc. doesn't this imply that raising a child atheist is *demonstrably* bad for them and, thus, abuse?

>>1472120
>documented miracle
what's more likely: that this is wishful bullshit like thousands of other false miracles people constantly perpetuate?
or that everything we know about the universe is wrong?
>Ontological Argument
silly wordplay proves existence of supernatural entity with pure armchair logic? i don't think so.
you know no one takes that argument seriously, right?

>>1472130

You can't determine an absolute probability for anything.

You get as small a margine of probability as you can get and you believe it, and that's how science works and it's been working pretty well so far.

>>1472138
>some average-joe religious people do less bad stuff
so we should perpetuate an anti-intellectual organization that has caused more historical death than any other idea in history and still fuels bigotry hatred and war to this day?

>>1472139
>silly wordplay proves existence of supernatural entity with pure armchair logic?
>Doesn't understand what ontological means

>>1472144
>determine an absolute probability
No you can't. Every measurement has error bounds.

>>1472139
During the Miracle of the Sun the same unexplained phenomenon were seen by thousands of people, including skeptics, reporters, and scientists. The refutation is typically 'mass hysteria'.
Uh huh. I am completely convinced that if a skeptic was watching people across a field act funny and then the peasant next to me said 'look, the sun is moving' me, the reporter, and the scientist would share a hallucination. That is much more reasonable than 'science can't explain it'

As for the Ontological Argument, there is a quote 'many people insist that it is a word game and there is something wrong with it, but is 1,200 years no one has been able to figure out what the error is" plus - you don't know modal logic, do you?

>>1472139
>or that everything we know about the universe is wrong?
How so a miracle is by definition an exception to the laws of nature, so the only thing that would be wrong about our knowledge of the universe would be the existence of a being capable of interceding on the laws of nature.

>>1472149
actually i do
i don't see your point though because you didn't make one
please enlighten me as to how the name of the argument ensures that it's something more than wordplay and pure armchair logic as your post implies

>>1472147
First, does your back hurt from moving those goalposts so damn far? and second, religion PALES in comparison to Communism as far as 'an ideology made me kill, durr' arguments. And since Communists are atheists,m this makes atheism more deadly by far, doesn't it?

>>1472155
Do you not realize how big of a deal it is to break a law of nature?

>>1472155
Miracle is whatever definition you want it to be. It gets used to describe things that aren't exceptions, things we view as incredibly unlikely. But sure, define it like that, if it makes you feel better.

>>1472156
use formal logic to demonstrate what is wrong with the Ontological Argument as formulated by Plantinga or Godel. You'll be famous!

>>1472161
People all use ideologies to justify what they already want. Doesn't matter of its secular or theistic you can justify anything with any ideology.

>>1472144

but this particular probability is based on nothing. There's no evidence to back up that it is "incredibly small" or whatever you said. That's just, like, your opinion, man, you don't think it's likely so you translate that into probability. That's not science.

Why the hell is this a race between science and whatever else anyway? When did science ever announce that there is no god?

>>1472161
>religious murder & death pales in comparison to communism
communism (actually, you're probably thinking of totalitarianism, which still hasn't come close to the death toll of Christianity alone) has not killed more people than religion.

>>1472156
If you understood what the word meant, which you don't or this post wouldn't be being written, it's saying it's useless to have the debate does God exist or not? That is an epistemological position based on absolute knowledge. Instead, we can take an ontological position, say it's a stupid question to ask because 1. We can't know right now and 2. What does it matter either way?, and then we can start looking at what we can know, what we mean by knowing, what we mean by existence...

>>1472167
Here's something even better (you can prove almost anything with this ontological bullshit):

The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.

The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.

Therefore, God does not exist.

>>1472153

Just because we can't explain something doesn't mean we should automatically decide that it was influences by supernatural causes, and there are many rational explanations from what happened in 1917 from retinal distortion from the intense light to sundogs.

Also, please remember that not everyone reported seeing the "sun miracle", including some believers.

Even a religious scientist who was there at the time conceded that it was probably natural phenomenon.

>>1472180
babby's first philosophy

>>1472170

So you think that it's 50/50?

The chances of a supernatural entity with all the ascribed attributes of God existing is just as likely as him not existing? His existence would contradict all the laws of natural science.

There is no evidence that there is not an invisible teapot orbiting earth right now. is there a 50/50 chances that there is?

>>1472171
You, sir, are an ignorant dolt. The Crusades, Inquisition, Wars of Religion, and the Witch Trials of Europe all combined over the course of about 1,000 years killed about 6 million people, all told, certainly no more than 8 million (I direct you to Wikipedia and its entries on these topics that will lead you to scholarly works in your local university library)
Communism in the 20th Century alone killed about 100 million people. Even if we round down to 80 million that means that Communism in one century was at least 10 times as lethal as Christianity in 10!

inb4 'oh, Communists killed for all sorts of non-Commie reasons so you can't blame them, but Christians only kill for God'

>>1472191
>So you think that it's 50/50?
He's saying you're retarded. 100% retarded

>>1472187
I think you missed the point. It's a parody meant to expose the idiocy of the ontological argument.
Or maybe you didn't miss the point but couldn't think of any way to respond.

>>1472187

It's meant to be ludicrous, it's a satire of the ontological argument.

>>1472191
>His existence would contradict all the laws of natural science.

how so? He's supernatural, natural laws don't apply to him. That's like saying that when i smoked weed in Amsterdam i was breaking the law in New York.

>>1472180
Failure of terms - you attempt to claim that the greater the level of imperfection the the greater the excellence - this is self-contradictory and would get you a C in Philo of Science 155

>>1472200

>>1472204

The very existence of the supernatural conflicts with the natural.

>>1472204
>>1472202
>Doesn't understand ontology
>Forms a shitty argument, gets called out
>It's a satire
>You don't get it

>>1472195
>The Crusades, Inquisition, Wars of Religion, and the Witch Trials
>Complete summary of religious bloodshed
no. here's a better one, but still by no means complete. religion is a direct or indirect cause of nearly every war in the history of humanity.
http://www.theskepticalreview.com/JAHPoliticsDeathToll.html

>>1472218

I hope you're not serious.

It's a pretty well known piece exposing the stupidity of the ontological argument, I think it's in one of Dawkin's books.

>>1472216
no.

>>1472216
the existence of the supernatural is *demanded by* the natural. The origin of the universe is, *by definition*, supernatural. Big Bang? Occurred before natural laws as we understand them existed, ergo - it supernatural. hell, technically human consciousness is unexplainable by natural science (none of this emergent materialism nonsense, now) so our ability to debate is, technically, supernatural

>>1472208
>greater imperfection = greater excellence
not what it says. here's what it says:
The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
>>1472218
>futurama
>greentext only
I guess it was the latter.

>>1472228
>It's a pretty well known piece exposing the stupidity of the ontological argument, I think it's in one of Dawkin's books.
>Dawkins can into philosophy
Oh my God, that man is an idiot! What can you expect from an ivory tower Oxford Biologist?

>>1472228
Dawkins knows less about philosophy than my 9 year old knows about genetics. Dr. Ward has a 3 page takedown of Dawkins' attempted refutation of the Ontological Argument that is one of the funniest things I have ever read. Going to Dawkins for philosophy is like going to a Creationist for evolutionary biology. "The God Delusion" was so chock full of logical fallacies that it should be required reading for Philo students as a warning

>>1472235

We still don't know what caused the big bang, whether there was another universe before it or not.

Anyway, natural doesn't begin and end at our understanding, it is only bound by itself.

>none of this emergent materialism nonsense, now

Please don't try and patronise me. Your consciousness is the result of the intricate tapestry of neurons which reside in your brain. When you die, your brain dies and you loose consciousness.

There is nothing supernatural about it.

>>1472248
Sir, I find emergent materialism to be patronizing *me*. Tell you what, define 'consciousness' in a philosophically internally-consistent manner that does not conflate with natural law and we'll continue

>>1472241
>>1472239

He didn't create it, you unbearable aspies.

He was quoting an Australian philosopher called Douglas Gassking.

Anyway, this is irrelevant. Even Aquinas didn't agree with the ontological argument

>>1472241
Any link to that take down?

>>1472258
>Even Aquinas
Of course Aquinas didn't, he knew God existed. Newton would have rejected ontology for similar reasons.

Frankly, you can't expect us to follow every half baked piece of crap that gets put out there. So don't start getting pissy.

>>1472265

Aquinas criticized the ontological argument for the existence of God, as did Kant.

And I don't criticize anyone for believing in God prior to Charles Darwin.

>>1472279

wait, so you equate "believes in God" with "thinks the christian bible is correct on all counts"?

>>1472279
Oh, I see. You think we're talking about THE ontological argument for the existence of God. When in fact the whole thing was "We live in a post modern world, where epistemology has given way to ontology, where there are no universal truths...etc. etc.". Essentially, you were out of your depth in the discussion, and imposed what you wanted us to talk about on it.

So, back to the matter: Whether or not God exists is a dumb question, we should move on to better questions.

>>1472287

Not at all, but lack of explanation for the seemingly harmonious and abundant nature of life on earth would be a very compelling argument.

>>1472289

Postmodernism is dead.

>>1472299
As opposed to your modernist views?

>>1472258
1) Name check Dawkins
2) Dawkins gets pwned
3)Name check someone else and change the subject

>>1472279
>>1472265
aquinas objected to the Ontological Argument because it really isn't about proving the existence of God - the Ontological Argument is about showing the belief in God is as rational as disbelief. As an Aristotlean, Aquinas thought that the existence of God was self-evident due to the existnece of morality

if your ontology allows for an ontological argument for god, your ontology is crap. dats all folks

>>1472397
I think you may be onto something there.

>>1472365
retarded rationalists will cling to some skeletal idea of rationality just to defend their clearly rational belief against the need of empirical information.

every catholic philosopher ever: lalala get that fucking science away from this rational discussion. im not looking!

>>1472406
that's cause science has no insight into the question of the existence of god, nor into ontology at all.

>>1472406
Galileo?

I mean, the church disliking scientific progress is a total fallacy; they wanted their beliefs grounded in science.

>>1472420
i can't be bothered with figuring out what you actually believe because it's really ridiculous.

>>1472424
facetious claim obviously. im talking about guys like plantinga

>>1472397
someone else who doesn't understand what ontology means.

>>1472456
>retard christian butthurt that ontology is a diverse discussion and tries to prescribe a version of it that only allows his fantasy god to exist peacefully, immune to the reality criticism

>>1472406
Yeah, because we all know that
Luigi Galvani
Augustin Cauchy
Gregor Mendel
Joseph Piazzi
Theodor Schwann
Louis Pasteur
Galileo
Marconi
Pierre Latrielle
Copernicus
and Descartes
were all so anti-science. Just because the Catholic Church runs the world's oldest observatory, promotes evolutionary theory, is famed for its schools of medicine and engineering, promotes basic education througout the world, and uses Aristotlean logic doesn't mean it isn't terrible, terribly anti-science!

But your comments do seem to indicate that the wikipedia entry on Plantinga was too long for your attention span.

>>1472465
>>replying to someone else that rejects any form of ontology that disagrees with his own preconceived notions

>121 posts and 11 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

You gullible fucks.

>>1472279
>Implying Darwinian evolution somehow refutes the notion of God.

>>1472479
It's mostly one guy.

>>1472424
It's a red herring. The Galileo scandal wasn't even about scientific progress. It was university/church politics.