home
RSS
June 13th, 2013
02:15 PM ET

The pope said what? Six stunners from Francis

By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

(CNN) –Pope Francis has challenged his flock of 1 billion Catholics not to be “starched Christians” who chat about theology over tea.

He’s been taking his own advice.

Since his election in March, Francis has delivered sharp and unscripted remarks on everything from homosexuality to atheism to his unlikely election to the seat of St. Peter.

Anyone who bet the 76-year-old Jesuit from Argentina would become Supreme Pontiff likely won a lot of dough, Francis joked on Sunday.

We’re wagering this pope’s got a few more surprises up the sleeves of his white cassock.

Meanwhile, here are six eye-openers Francis has uttered thus far.

1) There’s a “gay lobby” inside the Vatican

Meeting with Catholic leaders from his native Latin America and the Caribbean on Sunday, the pope said that there’s a lot of holy people in the Curia, Catholicism’s Rome-based bureaucracy.

But there is also a “stream of corruption,” Francis said, including a “gay lobby.”

"We need to see what we can do," he added, somewhat cryptically.

Only the pope knows exactly what he means. The Vatican has clammed up, refusing to explain.

Catholic experts believe Francis was referring to a secret dossier presented to his predecessor Pope Benedict XVI that investigated a series of embarrassing leaks from Vatican insiders to Italian journalists.

The dossier referred to a Vatican network of sexually active gay clergy who might have been subject to blackmail, according to Italian reports.

2) All atheists go to heaven?

During a homily in Rome on May 22, Francis said that God redeems everyone – not just Christians, but atheists, as well.

“We must meet one another doing good,” the pope said. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

So, was the pope saying that people can go to heaven, even if they don’t believe in God?

Probably not, say church experts.

Catholicism has long held that salvation is open to everyone – but with a really big caveat. If you know about the church and don’t become a member, the door to heaven is likely closed, a Catholic spokesman later clarified.

Many American atheists say they appreciated the olive branch from the pope, however unclear his remarks may have been.

3) “I didn’t want to be pope”

Meeting with Catholic students from Italy and Albania on June 7, Francis ditched his “boring” speech and instead took questions from the children.

A little redhead in a blue scarf elicited laughter by bluntly asking, “Francis, why did you want to become pope?”

“I didn’t,” Francis answered. In fact, “a person who wants to become pope doesn’t love himself. And God doesn’t bless him,” the pontiff said.

4) Sleepy prayers

In May, the pope shared intimate details about his spiritual life with a crowd of 200,000 people gathered in St. Peter’s Square.

Every day, Francis said, he prays at an altar before he goes to bed. On occasion, the sandman arrives before the end of his prayers, the pope said.

“Sometimes I doze off, the fatigue of the day makes you fall asleep, but God understands,” Francis said.

5) Christians should mind their own beeswax

In some of his sharpest comments as pope, Francis criticized Christian busybodies in May.

“We all chat in church,” the pope said. “As Christians we chat.

“It is as if we want to put each other down,” Francis continued. “Instead of growing, one makes the other feel small while I feel great. That will not do.”

Gossip, the pope said, is like honey. It tastes sweet at first, but large doses deliver stomach aches.

6) Throwing food away is stealing from the poor

The first Latin American pope has made fighting poverty a top priority of his papacy. Scarcely a speech or homily ends without a mention of the homeless and disabled.

On June 5, Francis lambasted a “culture of waste” in which consumerism trumps compassion, people become just another disposable object, and little care is given to those who need help.

“This culture of waste has made us insensitive even to the waste and disposal of food, which is even more despicable when all over the world many individuals and families are suffering from hunger and malnutrition. ” Francis said.

“We should all remember, however, that throwing food away is like stealing from the tables of the poor, the hungry.”

- CNN Religion Editor

Filed under: Belief • Catholic Church • Christianity • Church • Pope Francis

soundoff (1,006 Responses)
  1. Super Catholic

    we Roman Catholics believe in the Papal infallibility of purpose. We do not believe in outright papal infallibility. When the Pope said atheists are redeemed he wrong. Atheists can enter heaven as long as they ask Christ to save them. At that point, they are no longer atheists! That's probably what he meant to say.

    June 14, 2013 at 1:49 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Some people do get confused about the doctrine of Papal Infallibility and that it only applies to ex cathedra statements, of which there have been very few in the Church's history.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:58 pm |
    • Elderly Atheist

      I'll take the soup!!

      June 14, 2013 at 2:05 pm |
    • ME II

      I had assumed that he meant that Atheists are redeemable, not redeemed. And yes, just because it was indelible does not mean it was infallible.

      June 14, 2013 at 2:42 pm |
    • derp

      "That's probably what he meant to say"

      Thanks for clearing that up.

      I was going to believe what he actually said, but I guess I'll just take your word for it.

      June 14, 2013 at 3:02 pm |
  2. DN3

    I agree with the Pope that "heaven" is open to everyone. God is more open minded than the Catholic Church and will not judge against atheists as long as they are good people. A good atheist will make it to "Heaven" faster than a bad Christian.

    June 14, 2013 at 1:41 pm |
    • Zeke2112

      A good atheist and a bad Christian will end up in the same place – in the ground or in an urn. Heaven is an imaginary place created by men who wanted the peasants to be quiet and give up their earthly existence in favor of a promised paradise.

      The sooner we stop trying to save souls and spend more time trying to be good humans, the better off we'll be.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:48 pm |
    • Super Catholic

      God open minded!
      You have no idea who or what God is.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:51 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      Heaven is domain of truth absolute GOD, and HE is the only judge to grant place in heaven based on obeisance to truth absolute in life, none other.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:51 pm |
    • NESTLE FOUNDATION OF OVALT INE

      I think you mean "based on obsession of truth", Islam bot, hurting in head ism.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:53 pm |
    • *

      "obeisance"?

      June 14, 2013 at 5:40 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      *

      "obeisance": a movement of the body made in token of respect or submission.

      June 14, 2013 at 5:42 pm |
  3. This is encouraging

    (from AP – the Archbishop of Canterbury after his meeting with the Pope):

    Welby said the pope's remarks, both in the public speech he delivered and their 30-minute private meeting, showed that "we were absolutely at one on the issues, and equally at one in our condemnation of homophobic behavior and our sense that the essential dignity of the human being is where you start."

    The A of C, of course, is the figurehead for the entire Anglican Communion. Hopefully, the extreme fundie Catholic and Anglican bishops around the world are paying attention.

    June 14, 2013 at 1:40 pm |
  4. Alias

    It finally happened. I have seen jesus!
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/13/dog-butt-looks-like-jesus-photo_n_3436086.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

    June 14, 2013 at 1:39 pm |
  5. smc0047

    I do enjoy how the haters dragged every Catholic crime into what was intended to be a light-hearted look at a light-hearted Pope.

    June 14, 2013 at 1:38 pm |
    • Alias

      If the KKK did a really good comedy skit, would that redeem the organization?

      June 14, 2013 at 1:44 pm |
    • Pluck the KKK

      Maybe if the KKK gave out Turkey vouchers for Thanksgiving they might start making some headway. However, since they refuse to give any vouchers to any blacks, latinos, asians or jews they likely won't have much impact on the new generation of voters...

      June 14, 2013 at 2:11 pm |
    • Alias

      They did try to give away vouchers for ham to the jews once, but the PR was not as positive as they were hoping for.

      June 14, 2013 at 2:31 pm |
    • Well fed Hebrew...

      Ham vouchers you say? No no no! Those were spiral cut honey glazed salted and smoked Turkey hocks, they just looked like ham...

      June 14, 2013 at 4:55 pm |
  6. Bill

    Why do you have to call people con men, be honest? That isn’t very nice.

    June 14, 2013 at 1:28 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      "The profession of shaman has many advantages. It offers high status with a safe livelihood free of work in the dreary, sweaty sense. In most societies it offers legal privileges and immunities not granted to other men. But it is hard to see how a man who has been given a mandate from on High to spread tidings of joy to all mankind can be seriously interested in taking up a collection to pay his salary; it causes one to suspect that the shaman is on the moral level of any other con man. But it is a lovely work if you can stomach it."

      – Robert Heinlein

      June 14, 2013 at 1:30 pm |
    • Bill

      I didn’t ask if that profession had any advantages.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:36 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      Because a con man is none other than a hindu atheist, crook self centered, making things up to hind fool others in violation of truth absolute GOD commandments.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:39 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Bill
      Perhaps there were too many words there, so I'll just paste the bit relevant to your query:

      " it causes one to suspect that the shaman is on the moral level of any other con man."

      June 14, 2013 at 1:41 pm |
    • NESTLE FOUNDATION OF OVALT INE

      STFU Islam troll always a head-hurtin' troll.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:44 pm |
    • Bill

      Aren't you worried about hurting other people's feelings?

      June 14, 2013 at 1:48 pm |
    • The story of possibly three Bills

      Who is "you"?

      June 14, 2013 at 1:50 pm |
    • Bill

      @ The story of possibly three Bills
      Doc Vestibule

      June 14, 2013 at 1:54 pm |
  7. be honest

    the worst crimes were the cover ups of child ra-pe. As a result, more children were abused and those abused coped alone into many times mental illness.

    What a puke pope and religion.

    Sick that any decent person could be part of this filth pit of money and power over children's lives.

    June 14, 2013 at 1:26 pm |
    • 2sc1970

      Don't be to quick at pointing fingers, don't forget that those crimes you're talking about were and are done by pedophiles, and curiously there is a lot o gay priests involved.

      June 14, 2013 at 2:04 pm |
    • Akira

      The gay priests are not the pedophile priests. The cover-ups were of the pedophilic ones.

      June 14, 2013 at 2:11 pm |
    • 2sc1970

      You really have no idea, the similarities between those gay priests and the amount of molested boys are really something to think about. Don't forget those pedophiles were covered by other gay priests.

      June 14, 2013 at 2:27 pm |
    • Wind-Bag, Badger-God and Typist of the Cosmos™

      The RCC is nothing but an international criminal organization. Their covering up of crimes is standard operating procedure.
      To cover up crimes is to partake in them, to enable them, to support and foster them.

      Also, the number of reported crimes in cases of child abuse are always a tiny fraction of the actual number of crimes, so just multiply the number of crimes by a factor of ten or a hundred and you'll be much closer to realizing the total amount of damage caused by these crimes, including secondary effects.

      Nothing less than the total obliteration of the RCC would suit me at this point, no matter how hard the Jesuit propagandist at the top tries to distract from the criminal conduct of his criminal organization.
      It isn't much different than a mafia boss giving flowers to passersby on the street. It fools only the gullible and no one else.

      June 14, 2013 at 3:29 pm |
    • 2sc1970

      Agree.

      June 14, 2013 at 3:38 pm |
  8. lionlylamb

    The Pope and all the Pope's pedomen cannot put God back together again! Long live the memories!

    June 14, 2013 at 1:21 pm |
    • Alias

      God was an egg?
      That explains a lot about easter.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:27 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      Ya, they can do it by renouncing trinity, a fundamental of hinduism, pagan ism, atheism, self center ism of hind dark ages.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:33 pm |
    • NESTLE FOUNDATION OF OVALT INE

      Islam bot head hurts of Hinduism losing connection to reality ism; hurting head ism big time ism.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:47 pm |
    • Wind-Bag, Badger-God and Typist of the Cosmos™

      That is some ism j ism you ism j isming there.

      June 14, 2013 at 3:30 pm |
  9. Vic

    I think it's about time the RCC addressed the issue of Celibacy of Catholic Priests!

    June 14, 2013 at 1:12 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      No, they have no authority to do so, because to be Enoch is a fundamental requirement by hindu Mithra ism, savior ism pagan savior ism, labeled as Christianity. just a new label, but same old hindu corrupted vine.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:18 pm |
    • Akira

      As the RCC implemented the celibacy doctrine, they most certainly can revisit it, Islamabot. And they should, IMHO.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:29 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      Yes, they can do it by renouncing hinduism, pagan ism, atheism, foundation of Christianity, otherwise known as hindu Mithra ism, savior ism of hindu dark ages.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:36 pm |
    • Akira

      Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense. Islam has *its* roots in Christianity, and you are very well aware of that.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:43 pm |
    • NESTLE FOUNDATION OF OVALT INE

      Islam troll hurting in the head, lacking of facts ism.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:46 pm |
    • STFU

      Mohammad is farting in public; he could have been locked up in Indonesia, where public farting is banned under sharia laws.

      June 14, 2013 at 2:18 pm |
  10. bostontola

    Some call this pope a con man, I haven't seen evidence of that. He seems to have a different take on many subjects. The Catholic church historically has changed positions to align better with established science. That's way better than evangelical or fundamentalists who take a more literal and stagnant view toward the bible. As a society, we distinguish 1st degree murder from manslaughter, the churches are also different. In the long run as science fills more and more knowledge gaps, the Catholics will be driven to moral teachings only, not a bad thing.

    June 14, 2013 at 1:11 pm |
    • Bill

      This guy gets it!

      June 14, 2013 at 1:13 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Yep.
      It only took around 300 years, but the Vatican did finally manage to admit that Copernicus might've had a point.
      Now there are vatican astronomers.
      That doesn't negate the fact that not long before then, denial of geocentrism would've merited a visit from the local Inquisitor.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:18 pm |
    • be honest

      con man, is all.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:24 pm |
    • VK

      I agree with you, we need more people like him. With that kind of power!!!!!!!so much humility

      June 14, 2013 at 1:25 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Boston To LA,

      As science sees ever more deeply into the very depths of atomic relativisms and peers ever more outwardly onto the very reaches of outer space, they will come to a conclusion that inner-atomized space and outer-celestial space are more fundamentally similar in cosmological rationalisms than ever thought in past generations.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:36 pm |
    • bostontola

      Lionly,
      You should read "The Dancing Wu Li Masters".

      June 14, 2013 at 1:46 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Boston To LA,

      The Astrophysics of quantum dynamics reaches as far inwardly as it reaches ever further outwardly. There are no more Gods to adore and idolize. Only memories of Godliness will ever survive within our socialized world. They (Gods) are as mortal as is now all Life Manifestations in all mannerisms of spiritually dimensioned spatial relativities. They are no longer immortal and Gods' family generational members do nowadays live and die within their heavenly kingdoms of inter-atomic domains of micro-cosmologies within each and every cellular life formation known and unknown to our minded conscious aware-isms.

      June 14, 2013 at 2:20 pm |
    • Wind-Bag, Badger-God and Typist of the Cosmos™

      @bostontola
      You see a Jesuit propagandist doing his thing and you don't see any evidence that he is a propagandist and a con-man despite being the nominal head of one of the largest criminal organizations on the planet?

      Do you believe in Santa Claus too because you have seen no evidence showing that Santa Claus doesn't exist or doesn't give out presents? Your gullibility is disgusting. Go confess your sins to this con-artist. You are much the Catholic now.

      June 14, 2013 at 3:34 pm |
  11. CGAW

    As always, Pope Francis speaks as a leader by keeping it pointed and real. amazing how people (of all walks of life nad belief) have a problem with someone who tells it like it is.

    June 14, 2013 at 1:04 pm |
    • be honest

      he is a con man,, that's for sure

      June 14, 2013 at 1:10 pm |
    • Zeke2112

      Replace Pope Francis with David Duke and re-read your statement. See the absurdity? That's what we see in your post.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:50 pm |
  12. palintwit

    Sarah Palin believes that early man rode dinosaurs to church every Sunday. Sarah Palin also believes that the Flintstones is an accurate depiction of early man and that the first automobiles really were foot powered.

    June 14, 2013 at 1:03 pm |
  13. Bill

    Why are you all getting off topic? Do you want to hate the Catholics so badly that you can’t praise them for teaching evolution?

    June 14, 2013 at 12:58 pm |
    • Alias

      The catholic church will either evolve, or die off.
      I love the irony!

      June 14, 2013 at 1:06 pm |
    • My Dog is a jealous Dog

      You want us to praise the catholic church because they made it to the 19th century? When they change their backward stance on birth control, I may give them some credit.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:22 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Bill, They teach that evolution is divinely guided for which there is no evidence; however as you say it is better than a literal reading of the bible.

      June 14, 2013 at 2:28 pm |
  14. be honest

    let's see,, cathoholics, kiss dead human bones, pretend they are eating human flesh and drinking human blood.

    Doesn't sound like anything civilized people should be associated with, especially small children.

    June 14, 2013 at 12:41 pm |
    • CK

      That's not very nice.

      June 14, 2013 at 12:52 pm |
    • pope mikee

      You sure know how to put a weird spin on truth, shame you dont use your talents for something more productive instead of pushing negativity. Bless you son.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:05 pm |
    • pope mikee

      When I was young christians meant a group who followed the teachings of jesus, nowadays, the word christians seems derogatory because of all the negativity and ignore reality and push your own narrow mindedness like creationism, Catholics never had anything to do with it.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:08 pm |
    • Alias

      Firstly, kissing what bones?

      Secondly, the christians have a history of descrimination and bigotry. That is why it has become a negative association.
      The KKK was once popular all over the south and midwest. But at some point, people decided they were wrong.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:13 pm |
    • jp

      Kissing bones....aka relics of saints. It happens all over.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:30 pm |
    • Joey

      Yes, obviously the only reason someone would think that gay people are not the same as pedophiles, is because they are gay.

      June 14, 2013 at 3:28 pm |
  15. Bill

    On another blog, someone claimed to work in science. They said, they went to Catholic school from the 4th grade till grad school and not once did his professors mention creationism.

    June 14, 2013 at 12:31 pm |
    • be honest

      there are professors teach 4th grade? News to me. However forth grade is prime catholic brainwashing time. Waiting until college.. well, the brainwashing with fear won't stick as well.

      June 14, 2013 at 12:33 pm |
    • M

      As I recall, the Vatican announced sometime around 1870 that it had no problem with the theory of evolution. I know hundreds of Catholics, and as far as I know not one believes in Creationism. It just isn't on the Catholic radar.

      June 14, 2013 at 12:35 pm |
    • Bill

      There is no such thing as brainwashing in the Catholic faith.

      Let’s give it up for the Catholics. They only teach accepted science.

      June 14, 2013 at 12:36 pm |
    • Chuckles

      ... Yeah, I don't think so. Of course the catholic schools taught creationism, it just wasn't in the science classroom. It was in the bible study class.

      My buddy went to a parochial school and we always laughed about how I went to a hippy dippy feel goodery and he went to the complete opposite. I was telling him once about shi.t we learned about evolution and made a joke that he wouldn't have heard of it because of the whole bible thing. He shot back that of course they teach evolution and they don't learn creationism. I pointed out that he had bible class twice a week and discussed Genesis and he asked what my point was. He disassociated what he was learning in bible study and science so completely that it didn't occur to him that his school was teaching both and that he just separated the two in his head.

      June 14, 2013 at 12:39 pm |
    • be honest

      hell isn't the kind of thing you should be teaching small children about.. It creates fear.. also, as those who brainwash do, they reduce the children – you are all born with a dirty and disgusting sin.

      I say to arrest the pope, bishops and cardinals for crimes against children –> the cover ups. They were far more damaging than the physical abuse.

      June 14, 2013 at 12:39 pm |
    • 2sc1970

      @Be Honest

      You will end up having a lot of gay priests in jail then.

      June 14, 2013 at 12:48 pm |
    • be honest

      you mean pedo protectors, I'm sure. Gay is not pedo.

      June 14, 2013 at 12:50 pm |
    • 2sc1970

      @Be Honest

      If gays and pedos are two different type, then bring forward a good explanation why there is so many gays in the churches and a lot of pedophile activities going on. Do you see any correlation?

      June 14, 2013 at 12:52 pm |
    • Truth Prevails :-)

      2sc1970: There is no correlation. One is a diseased-minded person, the other isn't. Maybe if the RCC would stop with the stupidity of denying what comes natural, the pedophile priests would not prey upon the innocent who happen mainly to be male children.

      "Typologies of Offenders
      The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.

      Over the years, this fact has been incorporated into various systems for categorizing child molesters. For example, Finkelhor and Araji (1986) proposed that perpetrators' sexual attractions should be conceptualized as ranging along a continuum – from exclusive interest in children at one extreme, to exclusive interest in adult partners at the other end.

      Typologies of offenders have often included a distinction between those with an enduring primary preference for children as sexual partners and those who have established age-appropriate relationships but become sexually involved with children under unusual circumstances of extreme stress. Perpetrators in the first category – those with a more or less exclusive interest in children – have been labeled fixated. Fixation means "a temporary or permanent arrestment of psychological maturation resulting from unresolved formative issues which persist and underlie the organization of subsequent phases of development" (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 176). Many clinicians view fixated offenders as being "stuck" at an early stage of psychological development.

      By contrast, other molesters are described as regressed. Regression is "a temporary or permanent appearance of primitive behavior after more mature forms of expression had been attained, regardless of whether the immature behavior was actually manifested earlier in the individual's development" (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 177). Regressed offenders have developed an adult sexual orientation but under certain conditions (such as extreme stress) they return to an earlier, less mature psychological state and engage in sexual contact with children.

      Some typologies of child molesters divide the fixation-regression distinction into multiple categories, and some include additional categories as well (e.g., Knight, 1989).

      For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.

      Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males..." (p.180). "
      (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html)

      June 14, 2013 at 1:15 pm |
    • Know the difference

      There are Pedos everywhere. Look to your own school teachers, who are by and far straight men who molest children. If you don't know the difference, you are either uneducated or unwilling to learn the difference because of your preconceived notions and prejudices of gay people. Grow up, 2sc1970. You are wrong. There are gay priests/teachers/people and then there are the ones who molest children: PEDOPHILES.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:21 pm |
    • 2sc1970

      Those studies could have been written in a way to protect gays, you and i will never know the truth about this. Anyone with a Phd can come up with some studies, but they can also manipulate those studies to fit their needs. Denying this would really means that we would have a narrow mind. But you have to admit that the similarities between the large numbers of gays in the churches and the large pedophiles activities is something that we should take a closer look at and to keep an eye on. Maybe there is a correlation there that previous studies have failed to see.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:21 pm |
    • Know the difference

      Oh, bull, 2sc. Yoou are grasping at straws because you don't like gay people. You can be shown study after study, and you would still deny it because you simply are bigoted. Grow the HELL up.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:25 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      2sc1970
      "Those studies could have been written in a way to protect gays, you and i will never know the truth about this. Anyone with a Phd can come up with some studies, but they can also manipulate those studies to fit their needs."

      Just like the bible then. Written in a way to promote and protect christianity, and we do know most of the truth about this, i.e. that over the centuries thoses texts were manipulated to fit the needs of the current leaders.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:27 pm |
    • 2sc1970

      @Know The Difference

      Before you asked me to grow up, you should start by opening your narrow mind and look at the possibilities here. We're not talking about 25,000 gay priests and only 5 pedophiles. The large numbers worldwide of gay priests and the huge numbers of reported child s e x u a l l y abused are convincing enough to take another look at the possible link there could be between a gay person and a pedophile. What are you afraid of? If you have nothing to hide then you will be open to a new study on this.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:28 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      2sc1970
      "Maybe there is a correlation there that previous studies have failed to see."

      Or maybe you're a bogot.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:28 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      In Santa we trust, more excuses from those that haven't a clue about scriptures.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:29 pm |
    • 2sc1970

      @In Santa We Trust

      Ok then, if i was to say that the Bible is story book are you willing to admit that there is a possibility that there is a link between a gay person and a pedophile that previous studies might have overlooked?

      June 14, 2013 at 1:31 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Remedial Logic 101
      Lesson 1: Correlation is not Causation

      The overwhelming majority of the pedo priests are caucasian.
      Are you scared to look at the facts that prove the correlation between white skin and pedophilia?
      Are you white? You must be a pedophile.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:38 pm |
    • 2sc1970

      Oh come on now, don't get on the racial subject. You're only avoiding to respond in a scientific way.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:42 pm |
    • Joey

      He is doing the same thing you are doing, he just changed gay people to white people to show why your logic is flawed.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:51 pm |
    • Joey

      Most likely a giant pink unicorn farted the universe into existence.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:52 pm |
    • Know the difference

      I am not narrow minded; I uses to be just as ignorant as you concerning the behavior of gays and pedophiles until I learned the difference.
      You were given evidence. You were given proof. You refuse to see the truth; that gay and pedophile are two completely different behaviors. You prefer, instead, to think that these scientific studies were all a part of some grand scheme by gays. Ridiculous.
      There are a plethora of supporting evidence on the net; do a little research of your own.
      Gay isn't pedophile, no matter what aspersions you want to cast on gay people.
      You remain the narrow-minded one. Grow up.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:53 pm |
    • 2sc1970

      Flawed? I haven't seen any study that proves that only white gays who are pedophiles are mostly found in the white population. And if that was the case, then he failed to study why that is. Maybe it's in the genes, maybe some other people races, genes are less prone to be gay. Bo one can really answer this unless thee is a serious study on the subject. It only seem to me that you two are both gay and trying to cover up for yourselves. Or maybe you both are just narrow minded.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:56 pm |
    • Wind-Bag, Badger-God and Typist of the Cosmos™

      @TruthPrevails-)
      A nicely informative copypasta there, but there are only two genders to choose from or be attracted to, and age is a different factor to consider no matter who is attracted to whom.
      Your copypasta seems to imply that anything labeled as "h0m0" or "hetero" or "bi" is to be considered an "adult" attraction between "adults" even though everyone is considered to be born with a particular orientation profile.

      So, how to reconcile the orientation from birth? Well, you can't stand there and say any attraction is between "adults" who are also all over the age of 18, can you? No. Why not? Because the orientation is towards one or both genders from birth.
      So the attraction is there the whole time and is not always age-oriented or age-defined either in the one experiencing the attraction or the type of person they are attracted to – A pubescent 12 year old is going to be attracted to one or both genders and will likely focus on the nearest person at school with that gender(s).
      But your copypasta article acts like only adults can feel that way and only towards adults (over the age of 18).
      That is not a rational scientific outlook or conclusion.
      Attraction is to 1) one or both genders
      and 2) the age of person is not required for the attraction to exist since it is from birth
      and 3)the age of who they are attracted to is a separate thing from the gender-specific attraction they feel
      and 4)simply claiming that any attraction towards anyone under 18 cannot be h0m0 or hetero or bi is total nonsense.

      Therefore, h0m0, hetero, and bi states of attraction can be oriented towards those younger than 18 quite normally for our species because anyone who has passed into puberty has entered into a breeding phase of their development and thus will appear more attractive to others of our species for that very reason.

      As to attraction to pre-pubescent genders, some is gender-specific and some is not, I guess, so it would be more likely to be categorized as a distortion of both the gender-specific attraction and the distorted emotional state that drives such people to feeling that way towards pre-pubescent children.
      And as such things are always going to be harmful to the children, this should be classified as psychopathic behavior or something like that and anyone who seeks to harm the young of our species should be rounded up and executed as undesirable to any free and sane society.

      But this insistence that orientation is only a thing that appears out of nowhere after the age of 18 and is only such when directed at those over the age of 18 is just the craziest thing I've seen on here today. It makes no sense at all.

      June 14, 2013 at 2:03 pm |
    • Akira

      Joey: pass the popcorn. *settles in* This promises to be good.

      2sb: there have been numerous studies; if you prefer to think there's a connection to rationalize what you believe, I suppose that's fine, but it would be erroneous.

      Doc Vestibule is right.

      June 14, 2013 at 2:04 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Joey gets a gold star next to his name for grasping what I was doing.
      2sc1970, I'm afraid that you get a frowny face sticker for failing to grasp the 1st lesson of Remedial Logic.

      Beware the Black Swan Fallcy.

      June 14, 2013 at 2:06 pm |
    • 2sc1970

      @Wind-Bag, Badger-God and Typist of the Cosmos™

      You're the only one here that actually responded with common sense. Thank you for that.

      June 14, 2013 at 2:09 pm |
    • Wind-Bag, Badger-God and Typist of the Cosmos™

      @2sc1970
      Thanks. I have seen some strange reactions by people posting here regarding this issue and thought some clarification is definitely called for. Age is not a gender. Perhaps I should have just kept it at that, but there is a severely emotional reaction in people who are reacting to this issue and it colors their arguments excessively.
      I am also not immune to emotional bias in callling for the execution of those who harm children, but then I guess I'm sort of strange like that.

      June 14, 2013 at 2:20 pm |
    • 2sc1970

      I know how you feel about it, that's the way i feel too. I also noticed that there is a lot of hypocrisy going on form certain people when a subject like this pops up.

      June 14, 2013 at 2:31 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      One possible reason that has been put forward by those studying the situation is that there may be a high proportion of gays in religious cults because they provide a better environment for gays, in that they do not have to cope with the real world (to the same extent as gays and heteros not in a cult) and meet expectations to get married and have children.

      June 14, 2013 at 2:33 pm |
    • 2sc1970

      You may be right, we will never know, unless there's a better study on the subject. But you have not directly answer the question. The question is why there seems to be a connection between the large numbers of gay priests and at the same time there is also a large amount of pedophiles activities.

      June 14, 2013 at 2:42 pm |
    • Wind-Bag, Badger-God and Typist of the Cosmos™

      @2sc1970
      As to the question of pedo-priests, the answers would include the statistical data for the general population versus the statistical variations to be found in sub-groupings, in this case a religious organization, while keeping in mind that such occupations are pedo-magnets, as being in a position of extra trust will always afford unfettered access to children of all ages.
      You can expect, I would think, to find similar concentrations in any child-accessible environment, hence pedo-teachers, pedo-coaches, pedo-boyscout leaders, and pedos working in any place that sees a large number of children appear for whatever reason, like lifeguards or whoever is selling tickets for the swimming pool.
      At variance, then, would be those other occupations that have little or no contact with children, such as geriatric nursing positions versus nursing positions in a children's hospital wing, and so on.
      Also, you should include the greater media coverage of same, toss it all like spaghetti on the wall and see what sticks.

      June 14, 2013 at 2:54 pm |
    • 2sc1970

      I agree with you. It's just that i found very strange that considering on this planet scale reference that the number of gay priests are unbelievable, but at the same time on that same scale you also find that same amount of pedophile activities. It really is something that needs to be studied closely by a group of neutral scientists other than gay scientists themselves of course.

      June 14, 2013 at 3:06 pm |
    • Wind-Bag, Badger-God and Typist of the Cosmos™

      @2sc1970
      If they used proper scientific methods in their studies, their personal proclivities would be irrelevant. But I agree more studies are needed, if only to provide extra proof for those people who aren't good at figuring out what is in front of their faces.
      Lots of people like that all over the place. A wealth of ignorance and fuzzy logic only helps the status quo.

      June 14, 2013 at 3:42 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      2sc, I hate religion and believe the RCC is criminally responsible for child abuse and the continuing cover up of criminal activity. That being said, you haven't shown that the number of pedophiles in the RCC is much different than the general population. If it is, it may be for the same reason that there is a high proportion of gays. That is, religious cults may, or may be perceived to be, "safe" or "good" place for people with "issues" (actual mental or physical, or cultural). But you seem to be on a mission to link gays and pedophiles, despite being provided with data to the contrary.

      June 14, 2013 at 3:52 pm |
    • Truth Prevails :-)

      Wind-Bag, Badger-God and Typist of the Cosmos™: It's a single study but what that study did was show a sampling of results on this. To label all gays as pedophiles is not much different than saying all christians are bigots. It's painting with a very broad brush.
      My biggest issue is thee whole crap that the priests who molest children must therefore be gay. They are two different things and there is not a definitive correlation and until there is one, if ever, there is no reason to justify one.

      June 14, 2013 at 4:29 pm |
    • Wind-Bag, Badger-God and Typist of the Cosmos™

      @HotAirAce
      I think he is requesting more information, not proclaiming any particular ratio as established, but maybe I am reading his posts wrong.

      @TruthPrevails-)
      Well, I hope I was able to sort of clarify things a little in terms of word usage.
      As to blanket statements, there are a few that are actually true, depending on the wording, but I digress yet again...
      The usage of 'gay' only refers to gender, not age, and thus I agree with you, but your single study is containing bits that appear to confuse these things, which is why I posted as I did.

      June 14, 2013 at 4:42 pm |
    • 2sc1970

      @HotAirAce

      The offenders targeting of boys versus girls can be a clue to their s e x u a l orientation,

      June 14, 2013 at 4:46 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Not according to the scientists who have studied pedophilia. . . But do continue on your mission.

      June 14, 2013 at 4:51 pm |
    • Wind-Bag, Badger-God and Typist of the Cosmos™

      @HotAirAce
      Again, I will point out that gender is not age and add that any individual variances should be considered on an individual basis.
      What about those boys who feel like girls trapped in a boy's body?
      How do you describe their emotional and gender-oriented development as they grow older, especially in relation to others?
      Do you call them a pedophile because they want to have sex with other under-age children?
      Or do you wait until the arbitrary age of 18 and then suddenly call them pedophiles then? Or maybe their attractions have also matured so they are now to be labeled "gay" as per your intemperate labeling scheme?
      Age is not gender. And I am leaving elbow room for other psychological diagnoses as well.
      It's not all black and white, young or old, one or the other. People have a mix of things due to our evolution from primates.
      Our brains are primate brains. Individual development further muddies the waters.
      What do you say to those children who are attracted to other children? Do you call them child molesters?
      Do you say they are gay or not? Do you make an issue of age differences between person A and person B?
      And age is often an arbitrary number, like 18 years being considered adult despite all evidence to the contrary.
      I will keep banging this drum. You people are using arbitrary concepts and studies left over from the 70s for cryin out loud!!

      June 14, 2013 at 5:42 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html should/may answer many of your questions and show that many studies are more recent than the 1970s.

      June 14, 2013 at 11:38 pm |
  16. be honest

    I can see it now.. A couple of aliens visiting oour plany thousands of years ago. One nudged the other and said. "Want to play the god/jesus joke here too?"

    June 14, 2013 at 12:26 pm |
    • be honest

      our planet

      June 14, 2013 at 12:27 pm |
    • Chuckles

      First, I think I like calling it Plany instead of planet.

      Second, how great would that be, just a couple of bro-alien types going to rando planets and being like, "I'm god! Love me or I'll murder the crap out of you! Look at me walk on water! Worship me bit.ches! Alright, see you guys later, I'll totally call you guys, really I will *wink*"

      June 14, 2013 at 12:35 pm |
    • be honest

      OK,, I give in,, you said it much better, 🙂

      June 14, 2013 at 12:37 pm |
    • Me

      So who created the aliens?

      June 14, 2013 at 12:41 pm |
    • be honest

      OH,, I see, there had to be a voodoo god to create them because we have no clue otherwise. Take the easy and cheap way out, no thinking required there. Guess I'd have to agree with some who claim they never evolved. Wish they would though.

      Thankfully we didn't take the cheap and easy way out when it came to cures.

      June 14, 2013 at 12:44 pm |
    • Me

      I'm very much open to explanations but "It just happened" isn't all that satisfying either.

      June 14, 2013 at 12:47 pm |
    • be honest

      well guess what,, just happened happens all the time. billions of years and trillions of possibilities. it has to happen sometime.

      June 14, 2013 at 12:49 pm |
    • 2sc1970

      Someone here is watching too much of Star Trek .

      June 14, 2013 at 12:55 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      At least Star Trek doesn't claim to be the truth in the face of evidence to the contrary.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:03 pm |
    • 2sc1970

      What evidence? That we're coming down from monkeys?

      June 14, 2013 at 1:05 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      The Bene Gesserit's MIssionaria Protectiva plants Messiah legends on all of the more primitive planets.
      Sometimes, like in the case of Muad'Dib, it can backfire.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:12 pm |
    • Joey

      Me, how about "we don't know" because at this point nobody does? The fact that we don't know doesn't mean that religious people get to claim god did it despite the complete lack of evidence for any gods anywhere in the universe.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:17 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      2sc1970
      Human descent is from a whole chain of evolution and yes monkeys are there a way back so are rats and fish – ever wonder why so many experiments are performed on rats and monkeys?
      Big Bang also proves that the creation myths are incorrect.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:22 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      In Santa we trust, the only thing you prove is that you haven't a clue what scriptures teach.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:39 pm |
    • 2sc1970

      Rats are still rats and monkeys are still monkeys after all those years, but we are humans not rats or monkeys. Not all religion is biased on God creation. But most religions in today century recognized that there something science can't provide. On a scientific view i would say that the world with all the species and also with the possibilities that there is life on other planets looks like there is a grandiose designed by someone or something with some form of intelligence. Not from monkeys and surely not from rats. There's got to be a better explanation than that.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:40 pm |
    • ME II

      @HeavenSent,
      First, which scriptures.
      Second, text does not teach. Teachers interpret text.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:42 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @2sc1970
      Now that we've covered Remedial Logic 101, we'll move on to A Primer in Evolutionary Biology.

      There are 5 laws in the Theory of Evolution.
      1) Evolution as such.
      This is the understanding that the world is not constant, nor recently created, nor cycling, but is changing; and that the types of enti.ties that live on it also change.
      2) Common descent
      This is the understanding that every group of living enti.ties that we know of on this planet descended from a common ancestor.
      3) Multiplication of species
      This is the understanding that species either split into or bud off other species, often through the geographical isolation of a founder species.
      4) Gradualism
      This is the understanding that changes take place through the gradual change of population rather than the sudden production of new individuals.
      5) Natural selection
      This is the understanding that individuals in every generation are different from one another, or, at least some of them are. In every generation some individuals survive and reproduce better than others. Their genes multiply.

      These 5 laws have been bolsetered by thousands of experiments by hundreds of scientists in dozens of different fields over more than 150 years.
      The great majority of evolutionary biologists find no conflict between religion and science – as long as religion is recognized solely as a sociological adaptation.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:45 pm |
    • ME II

      @2sc1970,
      Humans did not evolve from monkeys, nor rats, but from common ancestors with both.

      Monkeys and rats are just as "evolved" as humans, i.e. anything alive today has been through as much evolution via natural selection as everything else.

      "There's got to be a better explanation than that."

      1) I don't think you understand the explanation that are available, so how can you judge?
      2) This is an argument from ignorance.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:47 pm |
    • 2sc1970

      This is based on logistic analysis. But let wrap it up to a smaller package. Who or what created all this? Who or what created this grand design?

      June 14, 2013 at 1:50 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Darwinian evolution does not seek to address the question of abiogenesis.
      However, if you posit a Creator, you then fall into a loop of inifinite regression – ie: who created the Creator ad infinitum.

      A Candid Conversation between Two Species

      The Man: I am the predilect object of Creation, the centre of all that exists…
      The Tapeworm: You are exalting yourself a little. If you consider yourself the lord of Creation, what can I be, who feed upon you and am ruler in your entrails?
      The Man: You lack reason and an immortal soul.
      The Tapeworm: And since it is an established fact that the concentration and complexity of the nervous system appear in the animal scale as an uninterrupted series of graduations, where are we cut off? How many neurons must be possessed in order to have a soul and a little rationality?
      – Santiago Ramon y Cajal, Recollections of My Life

      June 14, 2013 at 1:53 pm |
    • ME II

      @2sc1970,
      No one knows IF anyone or anything created it, let alone WHO, at least not in any objectively demonstrable way.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:54 pm |
    • Pete

      The most logical explanation is that the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

      June 14, 2013 at 1:56 pm |
    • 2sc1970

      @Pete

      How old are you?

      June 14, 2013 at 1:59 pm |
    • Pete

      47

      June 14, 2013 at 2:03 pm |
    • 2sc1970

      @Pete

      And you're still answering like you would be 12?

      June 14, 2013 at 2:11 pm |
    • fred

      Doc
      "if you posit a Creator, you then fall into a loop of inifinite regression "
      =>Spontaneous creation out of flux or a multiverse resulting from a Quantum Gravitational Phase where pre bang cosmological causation is hung up today also ends win infinite regression. In this regard philosophy and science today end up with the biblical position that existence is eternal with man at the center. One could argue against the center position but, if all known possibilities are eternal then by default we are in the center until another reference point can be established.
      How could anyone argue against intelligent design based on what is self evident?

      June 14, 2013 at 2:12 pm |
    • ME II

      @2sc1970,
      Pete's answer is as valid as any other faith-based answer.

      June 14, 2013 at 2:14 pm |
    • Pete

      FSM is just as likely to have created the Universe as any other god.

      June 14, 2013 at 2:15 pm |
    • fred

      win= with+in..................either in or with works, win does not. Perhaps it was not an error in typing but the perfect Segway to say our eternal position is from with in.?

      June 14, 2013 at 2:15 pm |
    • 2sc1970

      @ Fred

      Very well said. It's nice to see someone who can come up with common sense.

      June 14, 2013 at 2:16 pm |
    • Maybe

      2sc1970,

      Perhaps @Pete has tailored his answer to meet your level. You don't sound much older than 14.

      June 14, 2013 at 2:17 pm |
    • 2sc1970

      LOL, You don't sound much older yourself.

      June 14, 2013 at 2:19 pm |
    • Maybe

      Heheheh. I'm picturing @fred, riding his perfect, angel-wing powered Segway over the rainbow! Wheeeeee!

      June 14, 2013 at 2:21 pm |
    • ME II

      @fred,
      "In this regard philosophy and science today end up with the biblical position that existence is eternal with man at the center"

      1) The science of anything prior to the Big Bang (if that even means anything) is not settled, i.e. hypothetical.
      2) Science does not end up with a biblical position, especially if that position has man at the center. Science has man in no special position.
      3) Your idea of "self evident" appears much different then mine.

      June 14, 2013 at 2:25 pm |
    • Maybe

      2sc1970,

      I carry a keychain that's probably older than you, made for me by my nephew in the late 1970s for my 35th birthday.

      June 14, 2013 at 2:31 pm |
    • Wind-Bag, Badger-God and Typist of the Cosmos™

      @2sc1970
      I see you are making lots of friends today. 😀
      To investigate how our space-time continuum came to be the way it is, a study of cosmology is in order.
      To date, our cosmological knowledge and theories can only be considered reliable past a certain point in the universe expansion – that point where everything was much closer together, but not completely (singularity is not indicated), and as to the initial conditions, we are left with guessing and thought experiments.
      As far as anything supernatural or magical....there is nothing like that in our continuum, so if there was magic beforehand it did not get included in our continuum. We can examine our environment for magic or supernatural events or effects and continuously find nothing.
      This is not a deity playing hide-and-seek, this is a total lack of any magic, deity-caused or otherwise.
      There are also many other logic-derived conclusions we can draw based upon our total knowledge in every scientific field, and none of them include any magic or deities because there is no logical indication that they even need to be considered from a logical point of view.

      Perhaps you are being fooled by the usage of words like "creation", which imply a "creator" whether a deity or something.
      I see the same sort of problem when people use words like "evolve" or "evolution" which implies a particular "direction" or "progression" of things like simpler to more complex, or adapting to things in a "targeted" way, yet actual evolution is neither oriented in any direction nor specifically geared towards any particular expression of genetic material.
      Language is such an impediment to clear discussion, I often wish we were all telepathic enough so misunderstandings did not happen. Alas!

      June 14, 2013 at 2:38 pm |
    • 2sc1970

      Wind-Bag, Badger-God and Typist of the Cosmos™

      No not at all, i was not making reference to some kind of deity. In today science, you can find a lot of scientists who are not religiously driven are now considering the fact that this grand design must or could have been created by some form of intelligence. That is what i was making reference to.

      June 14, 2013 at 3:29 pm |
    • Wind-Bag, Badger-God and Typist of the Cosmos™

      @2sc1970
      I'm not following you here. Do you mean that you believe there are lots of scientists seriously considering "intelligent design" as a viable object for speculation?
      I can only disagree with that since all "intelligent design" arguments have been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked as nonsense over and over again.
      The physics of this continuum are very basic, very simplistic in relative scope. What you call "design" is merely simple tiny things piled up high giving the impression of complexity, but the only complexity is in your perceptual biases being used to filter your examinations of same, thus you have an illusion of complexity where there is none.
      A house of cards is complex, but is only made of cards according to the physical characteristics of each card.
      If you think a card is simple but the house of cards complex, it is the same sort of thing you are misunderstanding about our universe. Physics is very straightforward. There is no energy from outside the continuum detectable in any way and the math always comes out exactly the same every time no matter how hard one prays or believes otherwise.
      I'm something of a wet blanket, but your problem in trying to find scientific support for a religious ideology is flawed from the beginning, as no ideology based upon magic or supernatural or otherwise imaginary constructs will ever have any real scientific support. You can have science or imaginary stuff. You cannot have both without cognitive dissonance, faulty logic, unreason, nonsensical or other lack of realistic thinking.
      But perhaps I misunderstand where you are coming from?
      Instead of telepathy we have toilet paper and I complain only a little.

      June 14, 2013 at 3:55 pm |
    • fred

      Wind-Bag, Badger-God and Typist of the Cosmos™

      “I can only disagree with that since all "intelligent design" arguments have been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked as nonsense over and over again.”
      =>Talk about bias! All intelligent design arguments have not been debunked. A political decision was forced upon the public school system to separate science from the notion of creator. One must meat scientific standards that are limited to evaluation and measurement of matter and energy that is objective and falsifiable with predictable results. The other is considered to be religious or philosophical in nature by a secularized movement following the removal of prayer in public schools by atheist petition (to avoid argument it is an atheist that took credit even though the initial suit was not brought forth by an atheist).
      What a court rules regarding separation of church and state has no bearing on the actual science.

      June 14, 2013 at 4:50 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      So fred, you should be able to provide references to scholarly articles about intelligent design, that conclude with "some god did it," and that have been peer reviewed and published in the most highly respected scientific journals. I'm betting you can't – but you will probably try with some piece of crap from the likes of Liberty University.

      June 14, 2013 at 4:58 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      2sc1970
      Do you have a link to a science website showing scientists who are considering that there was a grand design or a greater intelligence?

      June 14, 2013 at 5:00 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      fred
      "What a court rules regarding separation of church and state has no bearing on the actual science."

      In the Dover case it did – the creationists used the argument that ID was science and were not able to prove that in the face of overwhelming evidence that there is no scientific basis for creationism (or its doppelganger ID).

      June 14, 2013 at 5:07 pm |
    • fred

      Wind-Bag, Badger-God and Typist of the Cosmos™

      “The physics of this continuum are very basic, very simplistic in relative scope.”
      =>The relative scope is simplistic only because our knowledge is limited to that which was created.

      “ What you call "design" is merely simple tiny things piled up high giving the impression of complexity, but the only complexity is in your perceptual biases being used to filter your examinations of same”
      =>gads, you make things up like I do as needed. The fact is that the probability of such an ordered “pile” just assembling by accident is astronomical. Even Stephen Hawking agreed that M theory is necessary producing an infinite number of possible universes in order to allow even the slightest probability of intelligent life given the constraints of fine tuning.

      “thus you have an illusion of complexity where there is none.”
      =>there is no illusion as to complexity as the complexity is factual. One simple illustration would be in basic carbon. Simply because properties of fullerene (carbon 60) acting as a stable universal biologic template (the earliest progenitor of life) are not complex does not even remotely suggest life is not complex.

      “ Physics is very straightforward. There is no energy from outside the continuum detectable in any way.....”
      =>correction there is known energy outside the continuum. In particle physics for example we must correct for remnants of early universe quantum gravity when metrics exist in the Euclidean regime. I will concede that it is possible the force does not necessarily originate outside the field boundary.

      June 14, 2013 at 5:43 pm |
    • fred

      HotAirAce
      You are correct. Every single scientist that attempts to put out and argument for say even fine tuning leading to intelligent design is shot down and funding removed for life. It is like the Global Warming Model that could not be touched for 8 years then finally it is acknowledged to be in error so move forward with "Climate Change".

      Those who continue on the line of intelligent design are minimalized in the scientific community.

      June 14, 2013 at 5:49 pm |
    • fred

      In Santa We Trust
      No, the science behind intelligent design is sound it is the linkage to a creator or creationism that is not scientific in methodology.

      June 14, 2013 at 5:52 pm |
    • David

      "It is like the Global Warming Model that could not be touched for 8 years then finally it is acknowledged to be in error so move forward with "Climate Change".

      No, just uneducated people misunderstood what the implication of an average rise in global temperature aka "Global Warming" would do to the planet and morons couldn't understand how that might might make winter weather colder or more severe in some areas so those who understood this changed the talking points and began calling it "Global climate change". The people who have been working in these fields have understood what was meant for at least the last 20 years or more.

      "Those who continue on the line of intelligent design are minimalized in the scientific community." Yes, those who would submit any scientific work based on "faith" would lead to a minimalization of that persons work in the field of science. There is no scientific evidence for "fine tuning" and the only "research" that can be done in that field is supposition, thus does not meet the standards required to submit a scientific theory.

      June 14, 2013 at 6:01 pm |
    • David

      "the science behind intelligent design is sound"

      There is no science behind intelligent design. There are only observable and repeatable scientific experiments that so far have never indicated anything "supernatural".

      June 14, 2013 at 6:12 pm |
    • fred

      David
      Just so we are straight on this the Global Warming Model was acknowledged flawed. No one bothered to apologize to the scientists that were marginalized over the years by politics over science. This secularized nation is showing the hallmarks of what most atheists hate about religion.

      As to fine tuning no one in the scientific community (that I am aware of) doubts the existence of fine tuning or the conclusion that an accidental existence is a very low probability event. The conclusions drawn from fine tuning are as you noted subject to debate and speculation.

      June 14, 2013 at 6:25 pm |
    • 2sc1970

      When i said made by some kind of intelligent design, i was not referring to anything about faith or any deity, that was your perception of my saying. I was more focusing about the possibility of this huge creation that we see in this dimension that could have been made by some combination of different scenario that could have be the source for creating all of this. I can't explain which elements or scenario combined together could have produce this, i am not a scientist. But i do know one thing, if a scientist is bias on a single idea then that person is not a real scientist, that person probably have more intellectual capability than others, but also suffer from some form of paranoia. A real scientist will always be open to ideas. And will not reject any ideas that haven't been proved wrong yet. And i wasn't making reference about creationism belief either.

      June 14, 2013 at 6:38 pm |
    • David

      "the Global Warming Model was acknowledged flawed" does not equate to global warming not existing. The models were off as to how rapidly we are warming due to the lack of real world data over the last several hundred years and the newer models are becoming far more accurate as more and more data is coming in as well as new measuring techniques being used. Those scientists that were being paid by the oil industry who said humans do not effect our climate were wrong and they are still wrong, the effects are just not happening as rappidly as the flawed data was predicting.

      "no one in the scientific community (that I am aware of) doubts the existence of fine tuning or the conclusion that an accidental existence is a very low probability event." Seriously? No one in the scientific community doubts the existence of "fine tuning"? Really?

      "in the United States, 7 percent of eminent scientists believe in God, while 40 percent of less eminent scientists believe in God. In Britain, the survey indicated that just under 5 percent of eminent scientists believe in God." – study done by R. Elisabeth Cornwell and Michael Stirrat

      June 14, 2013 at 6:42 pm |
    • Secular Humanist from Ohio

      @ 2sc1970

      Prove Russell's teapot does not exist. Yet most scientists reject this.

      June 14, 2013 at 6:49 pm |
    • Secular Humanist from Ohio

      Science does not concern itself with hypotheses that are not falsifiable.

      June 14, 2013 at 6:53 pm |
    • David

      "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires" – Physicist Paul Davies

      The "theory" of fine tuning is rather silly and is left to philosophers, not scientists. The logic is as follows: Life exists and is fragile, for the kind of life we are examing to exist you need a very exacting recipe of building blocks in the right order in the right environment. Since that life exists, we can assume those exacting needs were met. What are the chances they happened by chance? Well, it's a very low probability event, but it is still possible to have lined up after enough rolls of the dice. Religious persons just can't accept that low probability number so decide it's easier on their brains to invent a prime mover that answers any unanswered questions so they can go back to watching Real Housewives.

      The same logic is as follows: Rainbows exist and are fragile, for the kind of rainbows we are examing to exist you need a very exacting recipe of matter in the right shape in the right light environment. Since those rainbows exist, we can assume those exacting needs were met. What are the chances they happened by chance?

      June 14, 2013 at 6:59 pm |
    • fred

      David
      "The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being.
      – Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design (New York: Random House, 2010), p.161

      June 14, 2013 at 6:59 pm |
    • David

      examining...

      June 14, 2013 at 7:01 pm |
    • David

      http://www.wimp.com/risingtone/

      Finely tuned sand, God did it?

      We are surrounded by waves, they inundate us and penetrate the fabric of the universe. If they did not have a "tuning" effect on the universe I would be more surprised then discovering they do.

      June 14, 2013 at 7:06 pm |
    • fred

      David
      I read that "if our universe is all there is, then it would be more like one person buying a single ticket for every lottery game in the U.S., and winning all of them simultaneously....1,000 times in a row!

      But, ok if you want to it could happen like a rainbow appearing.

      June 14, 2013 at 7:08 pm |
    • Secular Humanist from Ohio

      @fred

      The universe is very large and rare events happen all the time.

      June 14, 2013 at 7:17 pm |
    • David

      Before watching that video of the sand being manipulated just by sound waves I might have said the odd's it could produce some of those patterns would be very low. Thats the thing about the "odds" since you cannot calculate them correctly without knowing exactly how everything works, which we don't. So it could be more like "if our universe is all there is, then it would be more like one person buying a single ticket (plus or minus infinity tickets) for every lottery game in the U.S., and winning all of them simultaneously....1,000 times in a row!" which is now far more believiable.

      June 14, 2013 at 7:19 pm |
    • fred

      David
      I could not help but note the hand of the designer pouring the sand ...............Let us assume he was an intelligent designer.

      June 14, 2013 at 8:43 pm |
    • Wind-Bag, Badger-God and Typist of the Cosmos™

      @2sc1970
      I find it interesting that you are not using a thrust towards "intelligent design" in a non-theistic way, as this is what we almost always see here with religious posters.
      As I understand it, any design should be readily apparent, yet there is no credible example of any design anywhere.
      So if you want to claim there is a design, you should back it up with something rational and factual, describing how your example cannot be explained in any other way.
      Otherwise, using theoretical physics, there is nothing to suggest that the Big Bang has any design or symmetry, as any quick glimpse at the map of background microwave radiation will show you, or even a glimpse at the macro-structures of galaxies spread across the universe in every direction.
      Nothing points to our galaxy. Nothing points to our solar system.
      If there is a design, it would be at the hyper-dimensional level, I would expect, because there is nothing to indicate otherwise.
      Maybe this continuum is just a holding tank for their quantum foam, or they are extracting energy from black holes using a very inefficient method to do so. Lots of possibilities, none of them explain the lack of any design to be found other than the inside of our continuum not being anything they want to do anything with, but only the continuum itself is the thing they want, not the insides of it, or whatever, maybe just the energy or they want the space expanded for some reason, but as to where you left your car keys and pray about it? Ridiculous. There are no gods. Prayers do nothing. No designs are seen.
      No signs in the heavens, no signs in our brains, no ultimate authority and no intrinsic morals or values of any kind to be found here.
      No, you'll have to provide a solid example of what you mean by "design", otherwise it's pure speculation and a waste of time.

      June 14, 2013 at 9:47 pm |
    • Wind-Bag, Badger-God and Typist of the Cosmos™

      @2sc1970
      *theistic way

      June 14, 2013 at 9:48 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      fred
      "Those who continue on the line of intelligent design are minimalized in the scientific community."

      Because there is no science behind intelligent design; it is purely an attempt to reconcile the superstitions of our ancestors as recorded in the bible with scientific knowledge that shows the bible to be wrong. Bringing us such nonsense as "irreducible complexity" et al

      June 14, 2013 at 10:07 pm |
    • LinCA

      Holy fucking shit! You have to be a complete and utter moron to think that fine tuning of the universe implies there must have been a designer.

      Fine tuning in regard to fundamental constants isn't in any way like tuning a radio to a broadcast. Fine tuning only means that the value of these constants needed to be the values they are for our universe to support life. It says noting about how they got their values, or if they can have other values.

      There is only a single universe that we can examine. We have a sample set of exactly one. We don't even know if this is the only universe, or one of many. There is no way of knowing if the fundamental constants are in any way adjustable. Even if we find that, in an alternate universe, these parameters can have different values, that still doesn't mean that they were intentionally set.

      All we know is that they pretty much had to be the way they are in our universe, to allow life to evolve and observe that these parameters seem "finely tuned". We wouldn't have been around to know the difference, if they weren't.

      June 14, 2013 at 11:07 pm |
  17. Joey

    Most of the wars in history were fought over resources, religion just made it easier to convince people to kill each other.

    June 14, 2013 at 12:24 pm |
  18. Kevin

    I'm not religious, but man, I like this new pope.

    “We must meet one another doing good,” the pope said. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.” – that's the kind of thing I can get behind. Kudos.

    June 14, 2013 at 12:21 pm |
    • be honest

      he's a con man. Nothing more. The entire vatican and catholic church are based on a con.

      June 14, 2013 at 12:25 pm |
    • Kevin

      That's very interesting, but not relevant at all to what he said. A good idea is a good idea no matter the quality of the person it comes from.

      June 14, 2013 at 12:29 pm |
    • be honest

      humans had that concept for many years.. The idea belongs to most people, not this con man. So like the idea, but understand that this bag of hot air had no origination to it.

      June 14, 2013 at 12:31 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Kevin

      If only he means what this quote implies, namely that atheists and catholics can meet in heaven because they both did good work.

      What he later said and what all catholics understood was the what he means to say is that he's glad atheists do good and if they accept jesus they'll see each other in heaven. I appreciate the lob for us as non believers to appreicate that he isn't talking all fire and brimstone when discussing atheism, but it's a smaller step than the quote implies.

      Don't get behind the guy, just congratulate him that he's at least sorta, kinda updated his thinking on one very specific subject in the 21st century. Saying this is baby steps in the right direction is overstating it, but at least the Vatican is glacially moving towards acceptance...kind of

      June 14, 2013 at 12:33 pm |
    • be honest

      the vatican and religion don't need to move forward,, they need to go extinct. at least arrest the pope, cardinals and bishops for crimes against children.

      June 14, 2013 at 12:35 pm |
    • Kevin

      @Chuckles –

      Thanks for the considered response. I looked into the article referenced in this one, and what it looked like to me is after-the-fact, other Catholic officials made the effort to clarify Pope Francis' remarks for him. I'm not sure what that means or says about the Pope and the Catholic Church (it could be spun many different ways), but it doesn't look like the quote here was misrepresented or presented out of context.

      In any case, I'm glad to see the idea of "just be good to your fellow man first and worry about where you'll end up in the end second" being put forward by the head of the Catholic church. I think that's something that everyone can get behind – religious people because they trust that God will sort it out after death, non-religious people because it keeps the focus on doing the best with the time we have on the Earth.

      June 14, 2013 at 12:45 pm |
    • be honest

      the catholic church and the pope are the last group anyone should listen too.

      June 14, 2013 at 12:47 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Kevin

      1. Sure, it was the cardinals et al who later tried to clarify Francis's quote, but I think it's important to note one of the absolutely key things about christianity is that you need christ in order to achieve salvation. There is simply no other way. Sure, the clarification didn't come from Francis himself but I'm positive he meant what was clarified. It wasn't necessarily out of context or even necessarily misrepresented. The pope clearly believes that atheists can be good even if they aren't christians and thats a change in stance from earlier popes who believed that all atheists are evil, regardless of action. So yeah, baby steps.

      I do like that the Vatican is try to move towards encouraging followers to stop condeming and start loving and as others have pointed out, it's a slight disappointment because it will probably elongate the churches life for a longer time period. I'm all for it though, I won't get behind the pope himself or even congratulate him on something that's pretty obvious but I'll nod my head and say, "good for you popey!"

      June 14, 2013 at 12:52 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Chuckles, Christians know that anyone can do/be good. It's never to learn the multiple lessons why one must stay good is the issue. Good for easy events is simple. Forfeit being good when an event goes into the difficult grey areas of life. Endurance, patience, plus faith are some of Jesus' wisdom that are taught to Christians throughout our lives. Most people, never learn these tools to add to their tool belt in life.

      June 14, 2013 at 2:00 pm |
  19. sly

    Does the Pope have any comments on how he helped the Right Wing Fascist Death Squads execute the intelligent liberal students of Latin America?

    Didn't think so.

    He is a criminal.

    June 14, 2013 at 12:20 pm |
    • be honest

      he sure is helping in the continuation of clergy abuse cover ups.. arrest the con man

      June 14, 2013 at 12:21 pm |
  20. be honest

    yep, the popes just another con man. As they are in this catholic organization. An organization of power and money.

    They are no different than witches, those who practice voodoo and the con psychics.

    June 14, 2013 at 12:17 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      Why do I get the impression you don't have a similar view of all Christian churches?

      June 14, 2013 at 12:21 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      Sorry, I may have misinterpreted your meaning.

      June 14, 2013 at 12:24 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.