/sci/ - Science & Math

define just first

Because they're not american.
American christians are fucking nutjobs, while the ones in the Vatican are astronomers and paedophiles.

Because the catholic church is greedy as fuck and thrives on opulence.

>>2496606
>astronomers and paedophiles
So typical Europeans, then?

Fucking little boys though.. kinda gay.

>believes in an afterlife

aaaand it's gone. Oh well.

>>2496634
doesn't believ---oh nevermind
I give up

>>2496630
Opinions.

There are actually good religions around, Taoism and Shintoism for example.

If everyone in the world where Taoist, shit would be utopia like

>>2496648
If everyone in the world followed a single religion (any fucking religion), they would be self-contained utopias. SELF-CONTAINED.

>whether they be innocent babies (abortion)

>>2496648
Shinto spirits are fucking creepy.

>no birth control
>not even condoms for AIDS riddled Africa
yup, makes perfect sense.

>>2496664
You browse 4chan and things still creep you out?

>>2496668
AIDS is a perfect alternative to condoms when it comes to population control.

>>2496648
Taoism is deluded

>>2496681
>Implying AIDs is faster than reproduction

>>2496668
Don't forget, condoms actually cause AIDS!

Because, like, latex rubber causes abiogenesis and makes the fucking HIV virus form right fucking there.

Wait. God is the only one who can create life from non-life. Condoms also create life from non-life.
>Mon visage

>>2496668
Whether it's aids or starvation, those people are gonna die anyway. If AIDS never existed in Africa, there would be another 40 million+ people living there.

>>2496600

Rowan Williams would like a word with you.

>>2496714

He looks episcopalian, is he episcopalian? You know they're all becoming Catholics now; don't you?

>>2496721

Are you Catholic? They had some mass conversion campaign that completely failed from what I heard.

>>2496695
in western countries, you'd be right.

if a baby is born with it in subsaharan africa with little to no medical infrastructure, it's a pretty good population control

>>2496741

Really? I never knew we had campaigns like that.

The Crusades were pretty cool though, preserving civilization is a thankless task.

>>2496751
>The Crusades were pretty cool though

What are you talking about? We lost, remember? Losing sucks.

>>2496751
Don't forget the Reconquista

oh it's this thread again
get your own board!!
→/x/

Also doesn't believe in condoms or IVF treatment.

Because it's official doctrine is that the bible is not the infallible word of god, it's just a book written by followers of god. The Church itself has the final say, because it is the descendant of Jesus' Church.

So they get to chance their minds when it becomes obvious that they were wrong. Other religions have to either ignore the new evidence, or rationalise it beyond all recognition. Either way they are doing science wrong and religion wrong.

>>2496758

Not for the first couple hundred years, also I blame the Venetians.

>>2496767
The pope said condoms are fine, but it shouldn't be used as an excuse for immoral behavior like premarital sex

An example would be a married couple where the husband or wife has HIV/AIDS or another STD and doesn't want to infect the partner.

I don't have a problem with not liking IVF. I think it's pretty depressing when you think about how many orphans are out there who would love to be adopted and won't find a home because of IVF.

>>2496770
but the catholic church created and financed most of the basis on which modern science is based...

>>2496696

Oh, look. Somebody is using some old misquoted shit.

Don't forget that genetics were theorized by a Catholic monk.

>>2496789


THOSE FUCKING PEAS

>>2496783

I'm saying the Catholic Church is better, in theory at least, than any of the churches that have the bible as the final word on the matter. And it is because it has means in place to change their theories to fit the facts.

Oh, and all that shit with Galileo? Indirectly caused by the Reformation challenging the authority of the Church.

If you ask me, they went too easy on Protestantism, they should have burned them all at the stake when they had the chance. Imagine how the world would be now without all those retarded fanatics who take the Bible word for word.

>>2496784
Okay, what's the correct meaning in context?

1 Timothy II
2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
2:2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
2:8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Can I just say right now, that I love being Catholic?

>>2496794

Well that's both obvious and pointless to say: the Catholic Church doesn't hold the Bible as the final matter on everything, and so it makes no sense to compare it to Churches that do whilst leaving out all other Churches.

>>2496799

That women should be silent, covered up and subservient if they want to get into the Kingdom of Heaven, which is a metaphor for "if they want to live a good life".

>>2496784
"a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem".
>increase the problem

HURF DURF

>>2496784
>Implying "Condoms cause AIDS" isn't a widespread mindset cause due to poor education from missionary workers trying to spread their faith.

http://afraf.oxfordjournals.org/content/108/432/353.full

>>2496810

My response was to
>>2496783
>but the catholic church created and financed most of the basis on which modern science is based...

Which implies that I implied it wasn't. I am aware of the churches contribution to modern science. The problem comes when somebody decides that a particular idea or doctrine is right regardless of evidence, like most of the bible itself for example, or any one of a number of catholic doctrines.

The Catholic church persecuted Galileo for suggesting the Earth revolved around the sun.

Pic related. It's why it confused and angered them.

>>2496821
>no mention of catholicism
>it's all south african mud monkeys

>>2496825

I guess that's fair enough. I thought you were implying it was the best Church because of that fact whilst ignoring other Churches. My bad.

>>2496826

No no no, the church was fine with it. Galileo was just a dick.

>>2496827

Who are Catholic, you fuckwit.

>>2496832
*ahem* ...

>>2496826
Please see >>2496796

Well you see, /sci/, we believe,
Let me put it like this...

There are Jews in the world
There are Buddhists
There are Hindus and Mormons and then
There are those that follow Muhammad but
I've never been one of them

I'm a Roman Catholic
And I have been since before I was born
And the one thing they say about Catholics is
They'll take you as soon as you're warm

You don't have to be a six-footer
You don't have to have a great brain
You don't have to have any clothes on
You're a Catholic the moment Dad came!

>>2496857

amen. You know, Catholic means universal.

>>2496859
>Catholic means universal.

Except when it comes to people who aren't Catholic.

>>2496870

They aren't catholic, yet

Idiot.

Islam is the most scientific religion.
They came up with the first theory of evolution for fuck sake.

>just wars

are you serious?

>>2496873
You heard it here, folks!
Catholicism: The Procrastinator's Religion

>>2496874

Yeah those sandnigger fucks who are trying to destroy civilisation are some scientific motherfuckers.

>Hmm maybe we revolve around the su--

BURN HIMMMMMMMMMMM!

>>2496883
>Implying you're not a prejudice idiot who knows nothing

>>2496879

HEY, we're getting to it. You don't even know man.

>confusing several thousand extremists with a religion of around 1 billion people
>civilisation

Get the fuck off of /sci/ you blundering dunderhead. Foxnews.com is that way --->

>>2496882

>>2496884

U LIBERAL, SCUM?

>>2496874

That's why they are a shining beacon of moderninty and free thought.

>>2496888

that's the correct spelling of civilisation in many countries you philistine.

>>2496887
Sure, that's what you guys said about 2000!

>>2496893
>>2496893

Sure it's a valid form of spelling..that isn't the point...

>>2496894

Well when you have to contend with so many heretics using humane means, it takes a while.

>>2496890
No, dictatorship all the way.

Just saying Islam is a pretty scientific religion and muslims have done a lot of scientific shit.

Also while some dont realise it, they can accept evolution without conflict to islam, also the big bang and how the universe formed and planets is pretty much described in the quran.

>>2496895

You're moms a valid from of spelling

>>2496899
If those theories are already depicted in the Qaran, why did everyone point out that they're in there many years after the fact?

Oh wait, it's because they're picking, choosing and interpreting specific verses to match the theories.

>>2496901

No, it isn't.

The valid form of spelling for that phrase is "Your mom is"

You should head on back to the old farm. No need to talk here with city folk and rattle up your noggin.

>>2496903

Because the Catholic church changes it's interpretation of their "sacred texts" or completely ignores them so their faith makes sense once they've been proven wrong. Look to examples of them changing their opinions on the earth being the center of the universe rather than the sun and them flip-flopping on their "Earth is flat" stance.

>>2496909

False. This place is called /sci/, and we don't care much for cerebrally insufficient cunts and their highly misinformed/distorted perception of reality.

>>2496912

Hense, "universatility"

>>2496915
Science and grammar aren't the same thing. Many scientists fuck up their sentences when they're not writing a formal paper.
Look at their fucking lab notes and see how well they treat the english language.

>>2496915

Sorry BRAH, didnt realise /sci/ was SRS BUSINESS.

Please, continue being a 4chan hero.

>>2496912

Everybody knew the fucking Earth was round since a guy called Eratosthenes measured it's circumference. Get your shit straight.

>>2496912
A bit like scientists, yes?

>>2496902
>Do the unbelievers not realise that the heavens and earth used to be one solid mass that we exploded into existence? And from water we made all living things. Would they believe? [Qur'an 21:30]

>The heaven, we have built it with power. Verily. We are expanding it [Qur'an 51:47]

>What is the matter with you, that you are not concious of gods majesty. Seeing that it is he that has created you in Diverse stages? [Qur'an 71:13-14]


Those are just a few sentences of many which run along side modern science theories today.

Im not pro-islam really, im an athiest, im just trying to prove that its dam more scientific then catholicism.

>>2496929
And? That doesn't change the fact that their original stance was that the earth was flat. We all know the Earth is round, you're not telling us a exciting new profound truth in science.
I don't give a fuck that it was proved round, my whole point was the church changed their stances on it when they were proven wrong. Just like they do for everything else, like everything the OP said.
Jesus christ, think for at least a second before you post.

>>2496934
Only uneducated nitwits thought the earth was flat because it looks flat from a human viewpoint when you look to the horizon.

>>2496600
>it was theorized by a Catholic priest

No it wasn't. He coined the phrase in mocking because he thought the idea was so laughable.

>>2496938

nah man, that's just your interpretation

>>2496944

so much hurr

>>2496937
What does that have to do with anything we were talking about? You're trying to draw attention from the important part of the conversation by spouting out stupid bullshit.

>>2496931
That's not scientific at all. Again, if Islam was so scientific compared to Christianity, why didn't Muslim scientists develop the theories for the Big Bang, Evolution and whatnot? This is still a case of the religious cherrypicking verses that line up with scientific evidence.

>>2496947

whatever man, now you're just being defensive.

>>2496944
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

>Evolutionary thought, the conception that species change over time, has roots in antiquity, in the ideas of the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Chinese as well as in medieval Islamic science. However, until the 18th century, Western biological thinking was dominated by essentialism, the belief that every species has essential characteristics that are unalterable. This began to change during the Enlightenment when evolutionary cosmology and the mechanical philosophy spread from the physical sciences to natural history. Naturalists began to focus on the variability of species; the emergence of paleontology with the concept of extinction further undermined the static view of nature. In the early 19th century, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed his theory of the transmutation of species, the first fully formed scientific theory of evolution.

>As the universe was ultimately perfect, the great chain was also perfect. There were no empty links in the chain, and no link was represented by more than one species. Therefore no species could ever move from one position to another. Thus, in this Christianized version of Plato's perfect universe, species could never change, but remained forever fixed, in accordance with the text of Genesis. For humans to forget their position was seen as sinful, whether they behaved like lower animals or aspired to a higher station than was given them by their Creator.
Prove that
>accepts the Big Bang as a valid theory, in fact it was theorized by a Catholic priest

is true

>>2496934
Flat fucking earth never was part of the church doctrine and none of the church doctors has ever taken it as such. Clement, Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Isodore, Albertus Magnus and Aquinas. All of them took the Earth as round.

You get your fucking shit straight.

>>2496951
Your saying because its in the Qur'an as the word of god and not human theories that it doesnt count and scientific theories

Well shit nigga you must believe in god, but i dont, so i know that shit was actually written by whoever wrote it, and whoever wrote it was theorising the big bang and evolution.

Also Muslims did theorise the first version of evolution.

>Other influential Muslim philosophers include al-Jahiz, a pioneer of evolutionary thought and natural selection

>the Afro-Arab writer al-Jahiz, wrote in the 9th century. In the Book of Animals, he considered the effects of the environment on an animal's chances for survival, and described the struggle for existence

>Al-Jahiz's wrote in his Book of Animals: "All animals, in short, can not exist without food, neither can the hunting animal escape being hunted in his turn. Every weak animal devours those weaker than itself. Strong animals cannot escape being devoured by other animals stronger than they"

Also
>In the 13th century, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi explains how the elements evolved into minerals, then plants, then animals, and then humans. Tusi then goes on to explain how hereditary variability was an important factor for biological evolution of living things:

>"The organisms that can gain the new features faster are more variable. As a result, they gain advantages over other creatures. [...] The bodies are changing as a result of the internal and external interactions.

Do i have to quote more and more or will you understand that islam is very scientific now?

>>2496965
Herp.
>‘ … Catholic Church condemned Galileo in 1632 for his heretical notion that the earth was a round globe hurtling through space about the sun, its effort to maintain the traditional Ptolemaic, flat-earth system was already doomed. The age of exploration was more than a century old, and men were roving all over the planet without falling off the edge.’

>>2496967
That's just one of thousands of sources I pulled up in two seconds.

>>2496938
Lemaître does the dinosaur in his grave.

>>2496967
You are gettings your evidence off wikipeda so its just bullshit because anyone can write it.

Next

>>2496967
If you were to quote Newsweek, you could as well bring something from the Daily Mail.

>>2496972
You can't even bother to google what I said before you try to cover up your ignorance, huh? It's not from wikipedia, as two seconds of search would have shown you. It's from an article called "The flat-earth myth and creationism" by J Bergman.
But I know that 2 seconds of googling is too much work for you to not make yourself look retarded. Because if it wasn't you would have known long ago that you were wrong about what you said about their stance on the Earth.
So, what's the point of you coming to /sci/ if you're incredibly ignorant but don't want to change it?
You must just be a horrible, horrible troll.

>>2496975
HAHAHA You fucking faggot u mad

>>2496975

You know, for the purpose of discussion, you're the troll here.

You're intentionally injecting your arguments with poorly based statements.

You trying to invalidate the argument you represent?

Whatever that is...

>>2496938
Holy fuck, you are so retarded it hurts.

http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_lemaitre.html

And, by the way, it was actually atheists who criticized it because it was "creationism bullshit".

>>2496975
Actually, if you read just a bit ot this book, you'd know it actually works against your silly notion that the church staff was composed entirely of flatlanders.


"According to the standard myth, the Church taught the flat-earth theory for most of its history, a cosmology that most Christians once accepted for theological reasons.
When scientists empirically demonstrated that the earth is actually spherical the Church strenuously resisted and persecuted those brave scientists who advocated this new unbiblical view. Schadewald even claimed that ‘flatearthism has been associated with Christianity since the beginning. Many of the Fathers of the Church were flatearthers.’21 Antitheistic biologist, Massimo Pigliucci, argued that, for ‘most of Western history, Christians have espoused’ both geocentrism and flat-earthism.22"

[...]

"The story that Christians believed in a flat earth until Columbus’ time, and for some time thereafter, began as part of a fictional story that was elevated to historical fact by late 19th-century Darwinists who used it primarily as a means to ridicule Christians.33 The spherical shape of the earth was known to the ancient Greeks, who even made some good estimates of its circumference and, contrary to the claims of the flat-earth myth perpetuators, was never
lost. One well-known example is Eratosthenes who measured the earth’s diameter fairly accurately in the 3rd century bc.30"

>>2496979
No thats not how a troll works.

>>2496600

They're not bad, on a whole.

It's the baptist and other Christian mutant religions you have to watch out for.

I live in the bible belt, there are 186 churches within 100 miles of me.

It's fucking horrible and I hope all these people die.

"Christian theologians, almost without exception, likewise accepted the fact that the earth is a sphere. The only two Christian writers known to have advocated a flat earth were a 4th-century heretic, Lactantius, and an obscure 6th-century Egyptian Monk, Cosmas Indicopleustes.34 Later,these two obscure and uninfluential writers were used as the prime evidence to prove that the flat-earth view was accepted by the Church as a whole—or at least by large parts of it.
The myth that the Church ‘condemned as heretics all who claimed that the earth was round’ was ‘invented by two fabulists working separately: Antoine-Jean Letronne, an anticlerical 19th-century Frenchman, and Washington
Irving.’35 The 19th-century American writer Washington Irving was actually the first major promulgator of the flatearth
myth. In his very unreliable biography of Columbus, titled History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher
Columbus (1828), Irving wrote that it was the flat-earth believing churchmen who vehemently opposed Columbus’ plan to travel to the Indies on the grounds that his ship would fall off the edge of the earth while attempting to sail across the Atlantic.35
In fact, those who opposed Columbus not only knew the earth was a sphere, but also had a good idea of how large it was—and this was the major reason why they opposed Columbus."


Congratulations.

>>2496972

When are you living? 2003?

>>2496600
That's just marketing. They are as science hating as anyone else.

sage. reported.

>>2496993

Of course it is.

>>2497002
No lol.

A troll PURPOSELY tries to piss people off.

Hes just doing it inadvertadly by being an idiot.

>>2497002

Successful troll is successful.

Suppose what your faith has said is essentially correct. Suppose there is a universal mind controlling everything, a god willing the behavior of every subatomic particle. Now, every particle has an anti-particle, its mirror image, its negative side. Maybe this universal mind resides in the mirror image instead of in our universe as we wanted to believe. Maybe he's anti-god, bringing darkness instead of light.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html

Ignoring the fact that condoms are, in part, responsible for a change in mindset which encourages illicit premarital sex, along with multiple partners, thus exacerbating the AIDs crisis in Africa, the Pope seems to be on the right track in another sense, also.
Article related.

Also, /sci/ fucking sucks. I'm Catholic and I come here for science related stuff, not hurr durr atheism versus religion threads. Additionally, I wish all you purported /sci/entists would really evaluate what you apply your beloved scientific method to. Your rationalism extends only far enough to cover others beliefs while conveniently excluding your own. If you have to talk about religion on a board dedicated to science, then at least research and get your facts right like any good scientist would do.

How can you not see the massive hypocrisy? In no way do I mean that to be an insult. It is utter incredulity.

>>2497072

There is no empirical evidence for the existence of god. Therefore, he has as much chance of existing as any random hypothetical entity, like a unicorn, or a bug-eyed alien space turtle. That is to say, an infinitesimally small chance, that of a finite number divided by infinity.

You mad, christard?

>>2497072
> Ignoring the fact that testosterone is, in part, responsible for a change in mindset which encourages illicit premarital sex, along with multiple partners

ftfy

>>2497118
unicorns exist i seen one

>>2497123

lol people claim to have seen god, and cold fusion. Evidence please.

>>2497122

huh, whose mindset?

Fucking take English class again.

>>2497135
didn't understand did you? let me spell it out

condoms have fuck all to do with the fact that people have irresponsible sex with multiple partners.

it's a myth put about by christians.

we evolved to have irresponsible sex with multiple partners. always was the case and always will be.

>>2497118
There is no empirical evidence for the existence or rigor of logic, math, heuristic principles (which science uses in ample amounts), and many other non physical things.

However, if you approach the idea with an open mind, there are many things that would point to a Creator.

Additionally, the probability of both evolution and naturalism being true is extremely small (inscrutable, perhaps).

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God. You do not accept it, obviously, and I do not necessarily fault you for it. I do, however, fault you for your intellectual intolerance. Combine that with the New Atheists arrogance, and you have a most toxic combination.

>>2497152
plenty of empirical evidence that logic math etc works.

trouble is, by their criteria empirical evidence isn't enough.

so you got a bit confused on that one, didn't you.

>>2497155
lrn2inductive

>>2497152
> Additionally, the probability of both evolution and naturalism being true is extremely small (inscrutable, perhaps).

you should read how that claim has been debunked multiple times, yet still it's churned out on the creationist websites

>>2497159
you didn't read my post did you?

i was pointing out how induction (sci not math kind) isn't enough.

empirical evidence exists, but induction isn't enough to turn empirical evidence into fact.

jesus, i had stupid people.

>>2497152
Huge double standards of what constitutes evidence here

Science is hokum because a bazzilion tons of evidence doesn't equal fact (an arguable philosophical point, it's true).

But god exists because you can "open your mind to him" or some such nonsense.

Apply the same standards of argument to both propositions and we'll talk, until then quit wasting our time.

John Paul II was a pretty cool pope, and realised that the church had to adapt to the times or it would become obsolete.

The current pope, on the other hand, is a dick.

>>2497178

How do you figure?

>>2497130
Dude i was taking the piss

>>2497178
lol no

he was a conservative

john XXIII was the liberal pope

>>2497160
Not creationist at all. Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism is still being debated.
>>2497172
Nobody said science is hokum. I believe in science. I just won't restrict my knowledge to facts acquired solely through the scientific method. Read Aquinas if you'd like a Catholic perspective on science.

>>2497152

mathematics and logic are not empirical claims, they are systems of deduction based on self-evident axioms.

Mathematics and logic uses proof instead of evidence, and is hence MORE rigorous than science.

now, the claim that something exists is an empirical one. The higgs boson, for instance. Deities fall into the same category. This is why NOMA is bullshit; true non-overlapping magisteria are science and ethics, where the statements dont even have any relation to each other.

Here though, we have a huge lack of evidence for the existence of a god, and a huge stack of evidence for godless natural mechanisms of phenomena once thought to be supernatural (the weather, movement of the planets and the stars, origin of species, disease and so on.)

Also, I must get a copy of the christard dictionary:

Arrogance: the property of disagreeing with me and doing so without feeling ashamed, the sin of pride, self esteem.

>>2497204

Aquinas lived BEFORE science.

Also, evolution is a perfect example of naturalism at work. It is completely without supernatural baggage. (Yes, genetic mutations ARE random.)

Thanks to the operations of hyperspace, and thinking about it ALOT. Steven Hawkings has turned on his heels from promoting the big bang and is now claiming infinite time.

From a historical perspective. We've gone to fucking-origin-physics-ground-zero.

So the fact that Big Bang was originally theorized by a Catholic priest (which it wasn't, you twat.) Is now rendered irrelevant. douche :3.

The only unjust war we are fighting is against the idiots who don't do their homework. asshole.

Orthodoxy makes more sense.

>>2497206
>Mathematics and logic uses proof instead of evidence, and is hence MORE rigorous than science.
but logic cannot prove to itself that it works, as doing so requires logic, which hasn't yet been proven.

so all we have is evidence that logic works

ITT: Faggots that don't keep upto date with news. The catholic church advocates condoms

http://health.newsplurk.com/2010/11/church-urged-to-take-pope-lead-on.html

>>2497287
so how did you interpret "condom ban could be partially lifted" as advocacy for condoms?

do you know what the words "could" and "advocacy" mean?

are you actually retarded?

>>2497287
Typical religious reaction; >>2496619 SMBC hit that one right on the head.

>>2497298
is a web-comic more pathetic or less pathetic than writing slash fiction?

>>2497305
Depending on the comic, they may be one and the same. Most are less though (based strictly on anecdotal evidence).

Although I'm really not sure what that has to do with religious institutions being ass-backwards and then pretending to be on top of things as soon as they finally switch their incredibly outdated stances.

>>2497287
pope said condom use is possibly acceptable for gay male prostitutes (since reproduction isn't an issue)

hmmm outright advocacy there

>>2497297
How do you interpret 'Use condoms to stop the spread of aids' as not advocating?

Do you know what the word 'retarded' and 'faggot' mean?

>>2497312
>possibly
Great job there, Catholics - you finally might be considering that your crusade against condoms was fucking retarded.

>>2497313
>campaign against condoms for over 20 years
>finally say "well maybe it's okay in a few specific circumstances"
>act like you're advocating condoms
I really can't understand how Catholics are okay with this shit.

>>2497269

Logic is constructed around axioms. It is *constructed* to work. You cannot get a false conclusion from a valid argument and a true set of premises.

How is this a problem?

Here are some axioms.

1. The principle of the excluded middle: either a statement is true or its negation is. Double negatives cancel out.

2. Principle of contradiction: contradictory statements cannot both at the same time be true

3. Idempotency of entailment: if you have a true statement, it is true for multiple instances, not just one

4. Commutativity of conjunction: a and b = b and a

>>2497310
because the comic is some nerd's slash fiction about science.

At any rate, this conversation about condoms is pretty hilarious. Secularists pin the entire fate of the african continent on a milimeter of latex; when that fails in south africa and other countries, they blame the bishop of rome, rather then have a discussion about sodomy, prostitution, promuscuity and other vectors by which the disease is actually spread.

>>2497353
You've apparently got a very different definition of "slash fiction" than I have, and you still haven't said anything about the content of that particular comic.

>Secularists pin the entire fate of the african continent on a milimeter of latex
Quite an exaggeration there. The reality is that condoms are extremely effective at preventing the spread of HIV, and the Catholic church has put quite a bit of effort into combating their adoption. In addition, various religious institutions have taken to lying about their effectiveness.

>when that fails in south africa and other countries, they blame the bishop of rome
The existence of HIV is not the fault of any individual our group, and its continued spread in Africa could be at least slowed by widespread adoption of condom use. I've never tried to pin any of this on the Pope, but the church has most definitely played a role in encouraging their members not to use condoms regardless of the circumstances.

>rather then have a discussion about sodomy, prostitution, promuscuity and other vectors by which the disease is actually spread.
Those aren't the only vectors, and even in those vectors condom use is extremely effective. Religious opposition to them isn't the cause of anything, but it does hinder a solution.

>>2497340
> constructed to work

well this sure sounds like a proof

you cannot *prove* that logic works, to do so requires logic, which would be circular reasoning. isn't this obvious?

and there are many other problems and controversies with logic

read some more ffs

>>2497377
Logic is only controversial to creationists who are incapable of dealing with reality.

>>2497383
don't be a tard. your slavish acceptance of logic is almost as bad as the religionists' slavish acceptance of dogma

i suggest you read controversies in logic section in wikipedia as a starting point. plenty of atheists there. w. v.quine and nietzsche for instance.

>>2496600

Because it's the hugest and therefore must satisfy a vaster range of people with different believes.

Also mind you. On the outside it seems they try to be logical. After a while you realize they aren't that rational at all.

>>2497417
Right, discussion over exactly what logic is and what it entails proves that it's untrustworthy garbage, and we need to open our minds up to accept the glory of God.

>>2497374
What am I supposed to say? It is a outsiders view of science, a fantasy. That same conversation could take place between any new theory and the scientific mainstream. The ongoing dialogue between the church and theories has been with different theories. Many theories that the church rejected subsequently science has discarded.

It's basically the english major fantasy of Science in a lab-coat pooping out a magic-substitute for him.

As for your reply... you don't exactly disagree with any of points. Cheers on your condoms, i'm sure the next 20 years will be magically different. Its strange that in countries such as Uganda which are majority catholic are able to stem and reduce the incidence of HIV, while nations such as South Africa are not. It would almost seem like your cheerleading has more to do with your own bigotry than any sort of concern for the african people.

>>2497450
yeah right

god of the gaps right there

there are doubts about A so i'll just jump straight to total acceptance of B hurr durr

>over 150 posts

I hate you sometimes /sci/

>>2497469
"Slash fiction" is a genre of fanfiction where characters of the same sex are thrown into romantic relationships with each other. SMBC is far from scientific, but I don't see any analogy to slash fiction.

As for the rest of it... are you seriously going to claim that proper condom use isn't effective at preventing the transmission of HIV? That's just factually incorrect.

I disagreed with your points - your characterization of my views, and the effective ways to combat HIV. If you seriously think Uganda is successfully fighting against the virus because of their faith, you're an idiot, and comparing their situation with South Africa's is pretty ridiculous. Uganda is primarily monogamous while South Africa is suffering a lot of social problems and has an incredibly high occurrence of rape.

>It would almost seem like your cheerleading has more to do with your own bigotry than any sort of concern for the african people.
Oh wait, I just got trolled. 10/10

>>2497469
Protip: Uganda's efforts against AIDS emphasized usage of condoms to prevent the spread of the disease, and they've been doing it for over 20 years.

>>2497507
>> If you seriously think Uganda is successfully fighting against the virus because of their faith, you're an idiot,>>
>>. Uganda is primarily monogamous>>
>> while South Africa is suffering a lot of social problems and has an incredibly high occurrence of rape>>

oh man, lol. So you don't think monogamy and religious tradition have any thing to do with one another?

>>2496696

Implying the HIV virus is a form of life... viruses are non living

>>2497507
protip: its the third line of defense, which is reasonable. The first two are reducing disease vectors such as sodomy and promoscuity. New atheism does not want to comment on these vectors, as they are seen as civic virtues of the highest calibre in their new moral order.

>>2497533
nope. america is very religious and very promiscuous, china is not terribly religious but pretty monogamous

so we have two big-ass countries as counterexamples to your proposition

>>2497537
>HIV virus
>Human immunodeficiency virus virus

>>2497554

>hurr durr, Im a faggot who cares about being grammatically correct on 4chan, the armpit of the internet

>>2497545
Apparently you have a very casual acquitance with statistics. Or will you next be noting that China has high levels of tea-consumption as well, and decide that is caused exclusively by their religious expressions?

While this is rather ridicolous (having to demostrate that beliefs and marriage structure are related), an easy way would be look up the incidience of american polygamy, and see if there are locus on mormons or muslims. Or age of first marriage and church attendence in america. Or hundreds of other intelligble ways to check the self-evident concept that ideas and actions are related.

>>2497561
>armpit of the internet
>not the asshole of the internet
>confirmed for soft-spoken fag

>>2497609
what? you just went full retard.

you, or the person i was responding too, posited a causation between religious countries and lack of promiscuity. i poited out a lack of correlation in two countries

now we all know that correlation does not imply causation

but lack of correlation certainly *does* imply lack of causation, as correlation is necessary but nor sufficient to show causation.

but i guess you can't do statistics

>>2497653
Do you think the muslim minority in China is more promsicious or less than the general population of china, captain GED?

>>2497653
you cant even spell so fuck off idoit

>>2497653
do you think religion might be one factor that influences culture, and there may be others? Does such a complex idea ever startle you while shooting spitwads in homeroom?

>>2497672
i have no idea.

that's the difference between you and me, i don't make all these handy assumptions to back up my position.

i've heard that black baptist christians are among the most promiscuous americans. but i haven't seen a study, so who knows.

>>2497609
> ideas and actions related

sometimes yes, sometimes yes in counter-intuitive ways, sometimes no: we are full of akrasia.

maybe you're basically reducing it to "of course they are related, it's common sense", while claiming it is verifiable, shows your tremendous acquaintance with statistics

>>2497685
> does religion influence culture?
of course it does. but it is a huge leap from saying that to knowing exactly in what way and how much it influences culture.

i mean, looking at the bible, who the fuck would have guessed about paedophilia?

>>2497674
> you can't spell, idoit
> idoit

>>2497685
it's a reasonable hypothesis that the confessional may influence people to be more promiscuous, but i've not seen any evidence.

>>2497713

You got trolled.

>>2497761

that's what people always say after they've been caught being idoits.

>>2497761
>Make stupid post
>Get told it's stupid
<LOLITROLLU!!!!!!!

>>2497772

I'm new to this thread, so I don't think so.

The Orthodox church in Russia is the same on all 4 points.
u mad?

Want to talk about religion, lets talk about religion in a scientific manner.

This is a guy who got a Carl Sagan award for promoting science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNSe4Ff57n4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8GFQRAlDmE

>>2497782

Wasn't me, you fucktard.

Religion threads belong in /x/.

>>2496833
Catholics are only about 7% of the population in South Africa

>>2496912
A flat earth had been debunked before Christianity even came along, at least with scholars. Whether the general person knew/cared is another thing.

Geocentrism was never a part of the Bible, though it was seen as a support for some of the other beliefs. But the Catholic church has/had a lot of beliefs that can easily be changed as we gain a greater understanding of the universe, without conflicting with the divinity of God or what is in the Bible

Riddle me this:

I impregnated a virgin against her will with myself so she could give birth to me. Then I had myself killed as a sacrifce to myself so I could save humanity from myself and the sin I condemned them to. The reason I condemned them to sin was because they ate an apple which made them able to distinguish between right and wrong. For some reason I expected them to understand that eating that apple was wrong before they even knew the concept.

Who am I?

>doesn't believe in capital punishment or unjust wars
>is religious
youre the exception buddy
also evolution is a fact. the reason why we cantget rid of the common cold is because it keeps evolving.

>>2497980

You are no one OP, but through Christ you will have eternal life.

>>2497980
the most loving person i've evar met!

>>2497986
All good Catholics are opposed to abortion, the death penalty and unjust wars.

Not all wars, mind you. But they should only be a last resort.

>>2497996
Tell me then, what would make a war just?

Okay so let me see if I understand correctly.
Most catholics are republican right?
And republicans believe in the Iraq war and the death penalty.
So most catholics side with the side that represents what they're agaisnt?

>>2497998
Self defense or in defense of an innocent country.

>>2497996
actually, abortion, death penalty, and wars are all kind of gray areas. abortion as a form of birth control is of course bad, but its not as bad as infanticide. The death penalty is something no longer necessary in the west, as supporting criminals does not place an undue strain on the rest of society. In Somalia, for example, people who not be expected to maintain and supply murderers indefinately.

>>2498008
Catholics are in the middle. It doesn't fit into either of the major US parties.

Democrats support abortions, which is abhorrent.
Republicans support the death penalty, which is equally abhorrent.

>>2498013
abortions aren't necessarily abhorrent. only in specific circumstances.

politically they are usually pro-labor, wealth redistribution, etc, but they are not so comfortable with bankrupt materialism and shabby personal ethics of the marxist left.

Democrats support freedom
If abortions were illegal people would find ways of getting them either way.
The function of the government is to mantain a stable society, not control what people do with their lives.

>>2496874
yeah, actually, Islam was the best religion in terms of forward thinking
fucking invented numbers
science science errywhere
usually non-violent, never killed women or children
were cool to the citizens of the countries they occupied etc

>>2498033
Hindus invented the numbers before Islam even existed.
Islam was started by a man who conquered everything he could, raping and killing everybody who defied him along the way
Cool if you liked Sharia law

>>2498030
The freedom to murder isn't a freedom at all

By the way, abortion in its modern sense (being available all around the country and labeling it as some kind of required service) was conceived by early 20th century Eugenicists (mainly Democrats) who wanted to cull the population growth of blacks.

So enjoy your racism, Adolf.

>>2496600
Reasons why catholicism fails

From a religious point of view:

In the Bible, God said do not worship or pray to anyone in heaven but Him. Why do catholics worship a 100 saints including mary?

From a non-religious point of view:

If Catholicism is true, religion is true. If religion is true, God is true. If God is true, he is omniscient. If he knows everything, he knows the future. If he knows the future he knows what everyone is going to do. If he knows what everyone is going to do, the people doing it have no free will or say in their destiny. If people have no free will, judgement is unfair. At the end of time, God judges all. This is unjust.

If you can say that the universe can't appear out of nowhere, you can NOT say God appeared out of nowhere

>>2498064
So, people who take part in abortion are Eugenici--

Nevermind. 0/10

>>2498065

saged for heresy.

>>2498065
Catholics don't worship saints. We venerate them for their piety and devotion to God, nothing more.

lol wtf?
Sure the medical procedure of abortion is new, but before that people just did things to induce miscarrages.

>>2498065
Prescience does not imply determinism. God isn't extrapolating from the present - the future IS present for him.

>>2498070
People who get abortions are victims of the propaganda the eugenicists have successfully spread.

People who fight for the "right to choose" are the evil ones

>>2498087
>>2498087
of course prescience (if infallible) implies determinism

example: god has seen how the dice i am about to throw will turn out. so are you telling me the dice roll is not pre-determined and i could roll anything?

>>2498077
Why? God specifically said nothing in heaven is of any concern to men other than the Trinity. We know archangel Michael is pious, but he doesn't need veneration, or idols built in churches.

>>2498087
any refuting of my earlier arguments much mean either of the following

a. God is not omniscient
OR
b. Free will does not exist (judgement is unjust)

>>2498099
There's a difference between reverence and respecting someone and worshipping them.

>>2498087
if the future is present to god, whatever that means, then the future has happened to god, and so it has happened, and so it is determined.

>>2498105
under what category do the idols of the saints in churches go into then?

still does not answer the question of free will

Dude nobody is a fan of abortion.
When people get them it generally sticks with them you know.
But I think it would be better if we focused on giving people of all ages access to contraceptives so they would not have to get to that point to begin with.
Sadly there will always be horny stupid people who can't be bothered to put on a fucking condom or take a pill.

>>2498108
>>2498099
>>2498065

This guy's got me convinced.

It's the old omniscient, omnipotent and free-will argument over again. The reply is usually "it is out of our understanding", which we all know is bullshit. If it makes no logical sense, you can't claim divine exemption or something.

fuck this abortion shit.
It isn't a goddamn person.
Even if it is human, and alive, I don't see the problem with killing it.

also postin in a troll thread

>got somebody preggo and feels guilty

>>2498123
How can the universe be both infinite and expanding?

Some things our mind just can't comprehend

>>2498163
Not to feed a troll thread, but...
some people hypothesize that the universe is like the surface of a 4-D balloon. The balloon grows, so from our perspective space-time is stretching out but not from any central point in 3-D space. It expands from each point simultaneously hence the accelerating expansion we witness.

>>2498099
how is free will possible with just naturalism? The only way for it not to be the result of history is for to be just random.

>>2498186
then the universe isn't infinite which goes against everything science teaches us

>>2498204
it's infinite in one of two ways:
1. It's expanding faster than the speed of light, so as far as we know it's impossible to find the edge, thus for all intents and purposes it is infinite in size.
2. It might even loop back onto itself like the balloon analogy I used.

PERSONOFOPPOSITETOWHITECOLOUROFSKIN

>>2498195
events of the present are effects of the past. and events of the present are causes of the future. if God exists, this is not valid, as he knows that seeming causes that stem of prior effects, are predetermined and carried out as plan.

>>2498195
it's not if naturalism is deterministic, but that's a big if

>>2498236
every atom reacts with every other atom in a predictable way. whether we can predict it is another thing.

if a God exists, He/It would be the only one possible of predicting that. He would also be the only way that anything unpredictable could be added to the system

>>2498353
>He/It would be the only one possible of predicting that.
>He would also be the only way that anything unpredictable could be added to the system
self refuting, would he be able to predict it or not?

Chatolicism is not as bad as other religions but it is far from reasonable. Also, they have never been explicit on big bang and evolution, they merely handwaved them.

Plus, they are full of mysticism and superstition.
The last decade in italia has been a joke, with the crying virgin Mary statues and father Pio?s images appearing on walls etc.

Not to mention the fact that they swim in gold while talking about humilty, oppose preservatives, protect pedopriests and much, much more.

>>2496600
Abortion is fine. If you even get picky about the morality of it, law here in America sorted that out. There's a time frame before it's considered it's own individual in which it has no right to life or protection.

As for the age of the earth. Well, Catholics are as progressive as they need to be to fit into an area. But their official stance is still the bible, their non official stance is that they cherry pick whatever the fuck they want and don't give a shit about consistency and hypocrisy, which is part of their daily lives anyhow. As long as you're doing what they want you to they generally don't give a shit what you're doing. Until it makes life difficult for them to do whatever they want, they don't care.
tl;dr Catholics use religion to control people/power and basically as a get out of jail free card both in real life and for their conscience.


>>2496606
Catholics are very predominant in America. They're the largest single sect of religion in America by a very large margin.

>>2498398
Pope Pius XII, declared at the November 22, 1951 opening meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that the Big Bang theory accorded with the Catholic concept of creation.

It was also first theorized by a Catholic Priest

In an October 22, 1996, address to the Pontifical Academy of Science, Pope John Paul II updated the Church's position, recognizing that Evolution is "more than a hypothesis" - "In his encyclical Humani Generis, my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines."

the catholic church is the Whore of Babylon

get out of it while there is still time

>>2498698
They're the largest sect, but still a minority. The various protestant churches are much larger when totaled together

>>2498698
Oh and to clarify, I don't mean they cherry pick what they want exclusively as a belief. They'll choose to ignore one thing one hour and then use it the next if it works for them. They're not above picking and choose and then repicking and choosing per circumstance, hell they'll do it in the same argument if you give them the opportunity to both use it and then retract it for a new point so long as you don't point out that they're trying to still use the same axioms given by their prior cherry picking alongside pretending they didn't even do it. They actively know that's what they're doing too, they aren't fools. They just want you to agree with them so they can get whatever it is they're looking for.

>>2498744
I'd say they're the largest single unified sect, but as per comments, you can quickly understand the conclusion that really isn't any unity at all really, so long as they each one wants something different that's how they'll go and use whatever they can get to back that argument or take a soap box stance.
The only real unity they give a shit is that their denomination is correct, without regards to any actual claims. Else they'd be in something else.

>>2498751
So you mean their views evolve as the facts change?

PREPOSTEROUS

they all do
it's the fundamentalists and extremists that fuck up religion's reputation

>>2498809
it's not a healthy evolution of opinion as they are presented with new data. Scientifically minded individuals do that.

Churches and the religious often go through mental gymnastics to fit new, irrefutable information into their predetermined worldview. The Church is doing the exact same. They denounce things, despite the overwhelming evidence, until the public sees them as so backwards and bumfuck stupid that they have little choice to do anything else but publicly accept the things they once denounced.

Such is the hypocritical and pathetic trail that organized religion will forever walk.

>229 posts and 25 image replies omitted.

...WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU /SCI/

...this thread has been here all day.. it shouldn't even be here!

>>2496826
>The Catholic church persecuted Galileo for suggesting the Earth revolved around the sun.
>Pic related. It's why it confused and angered them.

Bullshit. The pope at the time was Galileo's fucking childhood friend[1] and gave him the thumbs up to study Copernican theory. Galileo book had two main characters (no one cares about the third):
Salviati argues for the Copernican position and presents Galileo's views directly, calling him the "Academician".
Simplicio keeps the traditional views and the arguments against it because that's simple and he's stupid.

It was a miracle he didn't have his head cut off and the church's only mistake was apologizing for it later on.

>[1] He revived his project of writing a book on the subject, encouraged by the election of Cardinal Maffeo Barberini as Pope Urban VIII in 1623. Barberini was a friend and admirer of Galileo, and had opposed the condemnation of Galileo in 1616. The book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was published in 1632, with formal authorization from the Inquisition and papal permission.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

>>2498924
actualy, that is exactly how science works.

Ever hear of the Millikan oil drop experiment (lol why am i even asking, no you haven't.) Go hop over to the university of wikipedia and look it up, you should find it interesting.

>>2498967
I don't think you necessarily understood what I said.

It is healthy and scientific to adapt and change your views as new discoveries are made. However, the church and religious organizations pervert this adaptation; they resist it until there remains no social incentive to resist, and then they accept it with open arms saying it was Gods work all along.

>>2498065
>read this faggots

>>2498966
You forgot to mention one point:
The Pope, who was his friend, asked that his view (geocentrism) be included.

Galileo agreed, but he named the character Simplicio (which you said). It basically means simpleton.

So he called the Pope a simpleton and people wonder why he was excommunicated

>>2498993
>ignore all the times the main instrument of science and progress was the church
>name a handful of things where they disagreed, as did many others at the time
derp

>>2496770
An important point, and one of the main differences between Islam and Christianity.

>>2498967
>Churches and the religious often go through mental gymnastics to fit new, irrefutable information into their predetermined worldview

It wasn't until Brownian motion the show to be only possible with atoms only a 100 years ago before physicist acknowledge the validity of John Dalton's atomic theory and to throw out the completely continuous view of matter. Even long after chemistry discovered volumes and volumes on atomic bonds.

Broglie "matter/particle<->wave duality" theory was rejected simply because "particles are not waves."

Mathematicians killed other mathematicians back in Greece for just suggesting that √2 is a real number.

√-1

Hell, real physicist with Ph.D just a hundred years ago though "rocket can't work in space because there is nothing to push against"

>>2498967
>Churches and the religious often go through mental gymnastics to fit new, irrefutable information into their predetermined worldview

It wasn't until Brownian motion that showed to be only possible with atoms only a 100 years ago before physicist acknowledge the validity of John Dalton's atomic theory and to throw out the completely continuous view of matter. Even long after chemistry discovered volumes and volumes on atomic bonds.

Broglie "matter/particle<->wave duality" theory was rejected simply because "particles are not waves."

Mathematicians killed other mathematicians back in Greece for just suggesting that √2 is a real number.

√-1

Hell, real physicist with Ph.D just a hundred years ago thought "rocket can't work in space because there is nothing to push against"

>>2498966
Also, if the church accpeted his theory, they would have been in more shit, because it said the sun was the center of the universe.

I'm a pantheist. Works for me.

Also there is Taoism and Buddhism that work well too.

>>2499027
honestly being reluctant to accept the new theories being peddled is a good idea, or you end up doing stuff like David Reimer, where a psychologist cut off a kids balls to show that "gender was only hormones/culture". Turns out he was pretty fucking wrong.

>>2499051
Taoists don't still reject education and scholarly thought, do they?

>>2498065
God exists outside of time.

lrn2theology

>>2499059

Ha, yeah probably does. Taoism is an odd mix of all eastern philosophy, but if taken in small doses, and not taken so seriously, the philosophy can be useful.

I only ever mention it because people for some reason really latch onto it, but if you show them Buddhism after their trip on taoism all of the sudden Buddhism seems understandable.

>>2496696
Technically speaking, viruses are not considered to be "life."

Christians: 10E1,000,000
Dumbtheists: -5

>>2498065

It's always funny to hear this argument... calling God unjust for his judgement...

It's God. It doesn't matter if you are happy about they way it does things.

>>2499138
no it's more senseless that unjust. how can you claim to judge someone, when you know what they are already going to do, and it was your decision that they do it.

>>2496668
africa did not have aids, it is man made sir.

>>2497118

yes there is , the bible got it's Genesis story from another ancient text probably thousands of years before it. You know what civilization it was. everything in it is word for word what the genesis story and book of enoch is.

U MAD

Basically the Catholic Church is becoming the center of all truth and ethics for humanity.

>now they see how/why The Church is the The Church

>>2499169
It doesn't matter who knew what when, it only matters that everyone gets what they truly deserve, and with God we know that will happen.

bump

>>2498065

>If Catholicism is true, religion is true. If religion is true, God is true. If God is true, he is omniscient. If he knows everything, he knows the future. If he knows the future he knows what everyone is going to do. If he knows what everyone is going to do, the people doing it have no free will or say in their destiny. If people have no free will, judgement is unfair. At the end of time, God judges all. This is unjust.

>define "Catholicism is true"; teaching, existence, principal?
>define "religion is true"; teaching, existence, principal?
>define "God is true"; teaching, existence, principal?

English is very imprecise by it's nature. If you start fucking with wording and imprecise/multiples meaning you can get to very incorrect statements easily. Formalism in Math/logic is not there just to kept out dumb people you know.

>omniscient
>he knows everything

This is extremely subjective and up to interpretation. Knowing absolutely everything would mean the set of his knowledge containing all sets of knowledge which in itself is a contradiction by the very nature of omniscient. Knowing everything that can be known or knowing all non-trivial thing are equally valid interpretation for all knowing and more commonly used.

>he knows the future
>knows what everyone is going to do

Again knowing the future could mean anything. The most accepted view is knowing all possible futures and their various probabilities. Hence He knows the future but free will is killed off. An example from quantum mechanics and wave functions in superposition. You can know everything about the wave function but not knowing anything concretely until it fully collapses.

>>2500508
>*Hence He knows the future but free will isn't killed off

If the Catholic church accepts evolution, it's only because of the pressure science can bring to public opinion and against religious dogma.

If a Catholic priest proposed the Big Bang theory, it's only through the critical analysis of other scientists that it gained wide acceptance, not the "teachings" of the Catholic Church.

If the Catholic church doesn't "teach" that the earth is only 6,000 years old, it's only because of the pressure science can bring to discredit Bishop Ussher's calculations.

If the Catholic church doesn't believe in killing people (at least since it's last execution for heresey in 1826), then why does it ban abortion to save a mother's life?

If the Cathollic church opposes unjust wars, why did it tacitly approve Mussolini's war against Abyssinia? In the words of one high prelate:
“The war against Ethiopia should be considered as a holy war, a crusade (as Italian victory would) open Ethiopia, a country of infidels and schismatics, to the expansion of the Catholic Faith.”