[jank]

Originally Posted by robindch

Not amongst atheists or gays, it's not.

Give yourself a big pat on the back Robin, while you can smear indignation on the "others"

[Zombrex]

Originally Posted by koth

That link doesn't support the argument that the Catholic church was always opposed to slavery. In fact the opening paragraph, it says that the church had no firm stance on slavery until 1965 where it finally said that slavery is wrong without exception.

Well you know in fairness to the Catholic Church they had a lot of other things to sort out that were a lot more important than slavery. The first Ecumenical Council decided that gentiles didn't need to be circumcised (important questions that needed clarification).

It is no surprising that it took them 20 other Ecumenical Councils, and over 1900 years to get around to the trivial matter of slavery. I mean what colour robes priests wear don't just sort themselves out.

[ISAW]

Originally Posted by Gbear

It's irrelevant what religion says on anything. It doesn't matter whether it justifies slavery or not or weather god was vengeful or demanded daily hugging. You shouldn't be basing your morals on anything that's 1500+ years old.

we base science on Greek philosophy that is 2500 years old.

[Doctor Jimbob]

Originally Posted by ISAW

we base science on Greek philosophy that is 2500 years old.

Scientific texts change to reflect our changing knowledge. Religious texts do not.

[ISAW]

Originally Posted by Doctor Jimbob

Scientific texts change to reflect our changing knowledge. Religious texts do not.

Wrong! there is ample tracts of thological discussion on almost everything. ensoulme, ayrianism, nesrtorianism etc; *The anti nicean fathers have a long list of things discussed at that time.
Augustine of hippo was a person who I think held heretical views - Manichaeism and changed them;
iraeneus on Heresies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_...-Called_Gnosis
details a good deal of different thoughts of that time.

And those anti nicean tomes are only from the first two centuries of christianity.

Scientific texts also have a "received view" or "paradigm" which remains for centuries until changed or updated.

[robindch]

Originally Posted by ISAW

Scientific texts also have a "received view" or "paradigm" which remains for centuries until changed or updated.

WTF?

Its mutability in the face of new evidence is the whole point of science.

[ISAW]

Originally Posted by robindch

WTF?

Its mutability in the face of new evidence is the whole point of science.

The church have changed their opinion too as i pointed out.
There is little central dogma.

Do you believe that science can prove logic and reason is wrong?
so therefore it has some dogma?

also what to you mean by "it" i.e "science" what is it?
And why is changing the central reason for science given reason does not change?

[robindch]

Originally Posted by ISAW

The church have changed their opinion too as i pointed out. There is little central dogma.

Which suggests that its claim to be the voice of their deity's unchangeable voice is somewhat dodgy.

Originally Posted by ISAW

Do you believe that science can prove logic and reason is wrong?

Given that the scientific framework is based up on logic and reason, I'm unsure about how you might think it could.

Originally Posted by ISAW

And why is changing the central reason for science given reason does not change?

Because the facts available to science change as humans develop and build more and more accurate devices to help evaluate one scientific theory against another.

In structural terms, form is science and is not open to debate, content is facts and these are open to debate.

You're welcome to apply the word "dogma" to the idea "If this explanation doesn't work, then change it", but it would be peculiar to do so.

[Gbear]

Originally Posted by ISAW

we base science on Greek philosophy that is 2500 years old.

I should clarify - what I meant was that the age of it doesn't infer any value.
You shouldn't practice the morality of something just because it's 1500 years old and called the Bible (or the Koran etc..).

There needs to be some merit in the idea and luckily, that's mostly what we do. Otherwise we'd be regularly beating (or killing) our children and the most trivial of offences would result in death, as per various holy books and as is still done in some Muslim countries.

Why religious people use the bible as a source of morality on subjects like sexual preference, contraception etc, and proclaim that by doing so they are following the word of God, yet completely ignore the very same word of God when it comes to the big chunks of the bible (you know what you are Leviticus!) that are really very awful indeed, I will never understand.

[ISAW]

Originally Posted by robindch

Which suggests that its claim to be the voice of their deity's unchangeable voice is somewhat dodgy.

not really; some scientists believe in underlying unchangeable universal laws of physics for example. Is that "dodgy"?

Given that the scientific framework is based up on logic and reason, I'm unsure about how you might think it could.

Theology is based on the same logic and reason.

Because the facts available to science change as humans develop and build more and more accurate devices to help evaluate one scientific theory against another.

As do the facts available to Christianity.

You're welcome to apply the word "dogma" to the idea "If this explanation doesn't work, then change it", but it would be peculiar to do so.

[/quote]

How about "there are universal laws of physics"?
Are you happy to accept such beliefs as acceptable to science?

[ISAW]

Originally Posted by Gbear

I should clarify - what I meant was that the age of it doesn't infer any value.

so if something is tried and tested and known to work even in the absence of religion e.g. the family as a basic unit of society we should not say that has any value?

You shouldn't practice the morality of something just because it's 1500 years old and called the Bible (or the Koran etc..).

who claimed anyone does?

There needs to be some merit in the idea and luckily, that's mostly what we do. Otherwise we'd be regularly beating (or killing) our children and the most trivial of offences would result in death,

what is so wrong about slapping children ?
i dont think it results in death.

as per various holy books and as is still done in some Muslim countries.

and atheist Marxists also killed people; but apparently do it it is because of the Bible and their belief but oif atheists do it it is because of anything but atheism.

Why religious people use the bible as a source of morality on subjects like sexual preference, contraception etc, and proclaim that by doing so they are following the word of God,

Biblcal fundamentalists might but most Christians would not claim the Bible has rules non cloning.

yet completely ignore the very same word of God when it comes to the big chunks of the bible (you know what you are Leviticus!) that are really very awful indeed, I will never understand.

Well then you are fairly ignorant of christianity and it appears of the bible. It isnt biblical fundamlentalism; and the need to follow leviticus was updated later on by Paul; it is mentioned in the Bible.

[CerebralCortex]

Originally Posted by ISAW

what is so wrong about slapping children ?

Would you like it if I slapped you? I'd love to oblige!

[robindch]

Originally Posted by ISAW

How about "there are universal laws of physics"?
Are you happy to accept such beliefs as acceptable to science?

You're still not getting the difference between the form of science and the content of science.

However, you seem more interested in simply disagreeing with everything that people say, rather than actually engaging in dialog, so have a read of my previous post again.

[swampgas]

Originally Posted by ISAW

not really; some scientists believe in underlying unchangeable universal laws of physics for example. Is that "dodgy"?

Theology is based on the same logic and reason.

Science is built on observable evidence, and what can be repeatedly demonstrated by independent experiments. Science is internally consistent.

Theology is a joke because it starts with a whole bunch of dodgy conclusions and then uses a sort of pretend logic to justify them. Theology is "pre-science" and it shows.

More tellingly though, there is only ONE mainstream version of science, across multiple nationalities, cultures, languages and (dare I say it) religious beliefs.

There are umpteen incompatible versions of theology out there, because it's all untestable waffle.

And theology didn't put a man on the moon either.

[recedite]

Originally Posted by ISAW

In spite of a stronger condemnation of unjust types of slavery by Pope Gregory XVI in his bull In Supremo Apostolatus issued in 1839, some American bishops continued to support slave-holding interests

Can you clarify for us which types of slavery are just and which are unjust
1839 seems very late for a European to be joining the abolitionists?......in any case the British Navy had already destroyed the African slave trade by then, so his half-hearted condemnation was a bit pointless.