1. Comment #33991 by Philip1978 on April 23, 2007 at 2:25 am

Phew, I am glad that was sorted out, I was all in a muddle there!

Other Comments by Philip1978

2. Comment #33992 by GoodbyeGodNZ on April 23, 2007 at 2:26 am

This was in the news a couple of months ago and it's purely for our mad Catlic mates to get parity with our mad Muslim mates in the 3rd world African countries religious battlegrounds. You see, there is no limbo in Islam and the ex Nazi boy in the Vatican got wind that they were slipping behind in the recruitment game in those areas. Their twisted minds then twigged to the fact that they might be out of alignment with some of their policy relating to infant deaths (and there's a bit of it that goes on in that part of the world).

The manufacturing process continues! It's been just like that since that bullshitter Paul put pen to paper in the 1st century. Just one long line of vote grabbing shit!!!!!!!

Other Comments by GoodbyeGodNZ

3. Comment #33993 by Lee Harrison on April 23, 2007 at 2:27 am

"We cannot know with certainty what will happen" when an unbaptised baby dies, said panel member Paul McPartlan.

"But we have good grounds to hope that God in his mercy and love looks after these children and brings them to salvation," he said

If they actually believed that their sky fairy was merciful and loving, the fate of unbaptised babies should never have been in question.

Other Comments by Lee Harrison

4. Comment #33994 by He-man Daunted World on April 23, 2007 at 2:34 am

Maybe one day someone high up in the church will say they are "in favour of scrapping the god notion", which he termed a mere "hypothesis."

Other Comments by He-man Daunted World

5. Comment #33995 by faouloki on April 23, 2007 at 2:36 am

So by that logic, aborted foeti and embroinic cells get an automatic pass to heaven. Therefore, surely the Catholic church should be in support of abortion and stem cell research!

Other Comments by faouloki

6. Comment #33996 by gcdavis on April 23, 2007 at 2:38 am

I guess he was just too old to get under the bar!

Other Comments by gcdavis

7. Comment #33998 by Enblomst on April 23, 2007 at 2:48 am

I think it was that annoying song by chubby checker that got to him.

Other Comments by Enblomst

8. Comment #34000 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2007 at 2:51 am

I do wonder what the "good grounds" are exactly, and why if they are so great they never noticed before.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

9. Comment #34002 by BillySands on April 23, 2007 at 2:58 am

I thought the popes were supposed to have a direct line to the unchanging god. Next he will be telling us that the whole of christianity from the virgin birth to the resurrection is ripped off from other pagan religions - TSK! - really!

Other Comments by BillySands

10. Comment #34003 by NJS on April 23, 2007 at 3:04 am

Another entry in todays "How stupid a statement can I make" contest.

The saddest thing is that not everyone who reads this garbage laughs.

Other Comments by NJS

11. Comment #34004 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2007 at 3:06 am

Silly Billy. You know the pope would say that Mith... I mean, Jesus, is the one true god, and that the others are just myths.

They're wrong though.

The Aztecs had it right.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

12. Comment #34005 by Duff on April 23, 2007 at 3:07 am

Most of us who come to this site believe in evolution, right? Well, this is a perfect example of religion evolving. We should encourage all religions to evolve, and hope that in the process they will become a little less ridiculous.

Other Comments by Duff

13. Comment #34006 by PaulJ on April 23, 2007 at 3:07 am

Utter nonsense.

Other Comments by PaulJ

14. Comment #34007 by GeneMachine on April 23, 2007 at 3:08 am

This was motivated by jealousy.

Just because Ratty is too old to lean back and dance under a stick, doesn't give him the right to spoil the fun for everybody; but then, why change the habit of a lifetime?

Other Comments by GeneMachine

15. Comment #34008 by Ichneumonid on April 23, 2007 at 3:08 am

Just can't wait to hear what the ruling from the church is now as to what happens to all those millions of babies that HAVE been unhappily consigned to limbo for the last several centuries! As the new ruling is not yet 'dogma', perhaps they will have to wait until heaven can get some more infrastucture built that is capable of housing them all. Sounds as logical as the deliberations of the theological commission must have been!

What a load of old cobblers!

Other Comments by Ichneumonid

16. Comment #34009 by devolved on April 23, 2007 at 3:12 am

Comment on #33993 by Lee Harrison

"If they actually believed that their sky fairy was merciful and loving, the fate of unbaptised babies should never have been in question."

I wonder if the real problem is that the Catholic Church decided it knew better than God the eternal destiny of children?

So what do you believe Lee? That stillborn and aborted babies end up in hospital incinerators?

Other Comments by devolved

17. Comment #34010 by nonsequitar on April 23, 2007 at 3:17 am

Best Monday morning read I've had in quite some time. I do love the Catholic Church's laughter lounge, ahem, panel!

Other Comments by nonsequitar

18. Comment #34014 by Lee Harrison on April 23, 2007 at 3:37 am

Comment on #34009 by devolved

So what do you believe Lee? That stillborn and aborted babies end up in hospital incinerators?

I don't actually know the hospital procedures for disposal, but assuming that incinerators are the endpoint then yes. What is there that could 'go' elsewhere?

Other Comments by Lee Harrison

19. Comment #34018 by Geoff on April 23, 2007 at 3:58 am

No evidence for the existence of Limbo?

Hmmm.
What about the rest of it, then?

Other Comments by Geoff

20. Comment #34020 by dancingthemantaray on April 23, 2007 at 4:06 am

"after due consideration we have decided that the controversial 'baby killing' room in Hogwarts school of magic does not, in fact, really exist...all other rooms (including the 'torture you for eternity' room) are of course still very real indeed and it's vitally important that everyone believes this..."

Other Comments by dancingthemantaray

21. Comment #34021 by 42nd on April 23, 2007 at 4:07 am

well, this could justify wanton infanticide, alright. According to this ridiculous reasoning, every baby that we kill is going straight to heaven. So every abortionist has saved more people than any priest, right? I actually find priests quite selfish, when we think about that. They save a few individuals knowing that they will go to heaven for that, while abortionist are selflessly saving millions, knowing that they will burn in hell for their deeds (well, I don't think that selfishness is a bad thing per se, but those people themselves claim to be noble and holier-than-thou which indeed makes them hypocrites).

Man, now I am so happy to be an atheist, so I don't have to plan my life around this sorry mess . We know that killing babies is wrong because it is bad for our survival, not because sky fairy says so.

Other Comments by 42nd

22. Comment #34024 by devolved on April 23, 2007 at 4:20 am

Comment #34014 by Lee Harrison
"I don't actually know the hospital procedures for disposal, but assuming that incinerators are the endpoint then yes. What is there that could 'go' elsewhere?"

Duff #12 said "Most of us who come to this site believe in evolution, right?"

He's made two interesting points. Most people on the site are evolutionists, and they are believers. I'm in the position of being a backslidden evolutionist partly because Richard Dawkins writings have undermimed my belief in Darwinism. Here's a couple of things Richards has said.

"Natural selection… needs some luck to get it (life) started. Maybe a few later gaps in the evolutionary story also need major infusions of luck…" (p141 The God Deluion).

"I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all 'design' anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection."

So I discover that far from being a scientific certainty (and I will donate £1000 to a charity of your choice if you can find me one proof that doesn't depend on presupposition) that evolution is a belief system.

Now the question is does the evidence fit the evolutionary belief system better than it fits a non-evolutionary belief system? To put that more clearly Richard is an atheist and because he is an atheist he denies (without scientific justification) anything beyond the material.

If he's wrong his limited view of the nature of the world will do enormous damage to science.

And I know that some people will react violently against this. Well I challenge them to think before they react. Whenever I throw mud at people I always end up losing ground.

And to answer your question I believe that it is wrong to deny the possibility that there is life beyond death. And if there is a just and loving God he would certainly ensure that millions of aborted babies, millions of children left to die in poverty and millions of children denied freedom would enjoy eternity with him.

Other Comments by devolved

23. Comment #34026 by AdrianB on April 23, 2007 at 4:28 am

I'm sorry but I've just got to say LOL.

Other Comments by AdrianB

24. Comment #34027 by anotherclinton on April 23, 2007 at 4:29 am

Limbo: The bar's too low for unbaptised babies!

Other Comments by anotherclinton

25. Comment #34028 by Reg on April 23, 2007 at 4:40 am

Just a little more evolution is needed; maybe Ratty (GeneMachine, I like the "Ratty" tag) could convince his moronic flock that the many factors that they have considered ... give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that all wasted, sacred sperm (or the souls of sperm) are given direct access to heaven when found to be trapped in condoms and are hence, in effect, ejaculated directly through the gates keyhole. Although heaven would become a little stickier, Aids could become history.

Other Comments by Reg

26. Comment #34030 by mundusvultdecipi on April 23, 2007 at 4:46 am

What I find so particularly absurd is the fact that a whole category of 'objective' existence - limbo is completely turned around after discussion by a panel ? Either limbo bloody exists or it doesnt, instead it gets whisked in and out of existence according to some thelogical beauty contest ? Surely even many catholics must recognise that whole swathes of doctrine are essentially being made up as they go along. The religious equivalent of doodling plans on a beermat, perhaps ? Angels dancing on pins has nothing on it.

Other Comments by mundusvultdecipi

27. Comment #34031 by BillySands on April 23, 2007 at 4:48 am

Devolved
Evolution in its simplest form is the change in the gene frequencies of a population over time. This happens everytime a new individual is born or dies. Evolution is based on evidence and is tested - and stands up to testing. It is in no way equivalent to a belief in a god.

Please give your money to the RDF!

PS if youy are an evolution denying creationist troll, I'm going to ignore you

Other Comments by BillySands

28. Comment #34033 by Logicel on April 23, 2007 at 4:49 am

7. Comment #33998 by Enblomst on April 23, 2007 at 2:48 am
I think it was that annoying song by chubby checker that got to him.
_________

Hilarious.

Other Comments by Logicel

29. Comment #34034 by pissinintothewind on April 23, 2007 at 4:50 am

Too late and too bad for the millions of families that have suffered as a result of this dogma and no consolation for those catholic families around today, the commission says there is reason to "Hope" that unbaptised infants will be saved, if they are wrong the impliction is that the children will go to hell.

Other Comments by pissinintothewind

30. Comment #34035 by filthyatheist on April 23, 2007 at 4:51 am

"He has approved the document drafted by the International Theological Commission, the panel's secretary told reporters, adding however that its conclusions were not to be considered Roman Catholic Church dogma."

Err...so what's the party line now? Do we fenians have to believe this or can we just ignore it, like condoms.

Other Comments by filthyatheist

31. Comment #34036 by koldito on April 23, 2007 at 4:54 am

I have the suspicion that "Devolved" (post #34024) is the same guy that appeared in this Pharyngula post.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/pompous_git_solves_the_problem.php

Could anybody (including "devolved" himself) confirm this?

Other Comments by koldito

32. Comment #34040 by Logicel on April 23, 2007 at 5:04 am

How nice, because of devolved quoting from TGD I decided to check the quote out, and after I am finished with this comment, I am going to curl up with not only that wonderfully clear, cogent, and convincing book but also one that is eloquently written and triple my reading pleasure by reading it for the third time.

pp 140, bottom of the page, TGD, RD writes:

One-off events like this might be explained by the anthropic principle, along the following lines. There are billions of planets that have developed life at the level of bacteria, but only a fraction of these life forms ever made it across the gap to something like the eucaryotic cell. And of these, a yet smaller fraction managed to cross the later Rubicon to consciousness. If both of these are one-off events, we are not dealing with a ubiquitous and all-pervading process, as we are with ordinary, run-of-the-mill biological adaptation. The anthropic principle states that, since we are alive, eucaryotic and conscious, our planet has to be one of the intensely rare planets that has bridged all three gaps.

Simple, elegant, and substantial. Wow!

Other Comments by Logicel

33. Comment #34041 by Lee Harrison on April 23, 2007 at 5:05 am

Comment on #34024 by devolved

Devolved, if you are looking for 'scientific certainty' then I am not surprised at your self description as a 'backslidden evolutionist'. Certainty does not belong in science. 'Certainty' is the province of faith - I use scare quotes here because that certainty is false.

"Natural selection… needs some luck to get it (life) started. Maybe a few later gaps in the evolutionary story also need major infusions of luck…" (p141 The God Deluion).

Yes - why is this a problem? Incidentally, it would be better if you had included the whole quote because the bits you left out are crucial:

"Natural selection works because it is a cumulative one way street to improvement. It needs some luck to get it started, and the 'billions of planets' anthropic principle grants it that luck. Maybe a few later gaps in the evolutionary story also need major infusions of luck, with anthropic justification."

A part of the answer to what seems to be troubling you was contained in the parts of the quote that you skipped.

"I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all 'design' anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection."

Assuming that the quote above is in Professor Dawkins' book in that form (I can't quickly check because you didn't give a page number), again I would say, so what? To say that this line, when read in the context of the rest of the book means that evolution is a belief system is to commit the fallacy of equivocation. The statement is certainly not reflective of a belief system in the sense of a religion such as Christianity - it is a qualified, provisionally accepted belief drawing on both the vast body of evidence for evolution and the total lack of evidence for the reality of a God-figure.

To put that more clearly Richard is an atheist and because he is an atheist he denies (without scientific justification) anything beyond the material.

This is somewhat incorrect - he does not deny anything beyond the material without scientific justification. Firstly - denial is too strong a word. If evidence could be presented, it's clear that he would change his mind like all good skeptics. Secondly, the scientific justification is the amazing lack of evidence. People say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - I would disagree. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence but it is supporting evidence (see Victor Stenger's "God: the failed hypothesis). Thirdly, it could easily be argued that the very concept of anything 'beyond the material' is so vague as to be absurd - the immaterial can't even be clearly defined. After all, so far the immaterial has been defined only by what it is not.

And to answer your question I believe that it is wrong to deny the possibility that there is life beyond death. And if there is a just and loving God he would certainly ensure that millions of aborted babies, millions of children left to die in poverty and millions of children denied freedom would enjoy eternity with him.

Actually this doesn't answer my question ;-) But anyway, the possibility that there is life beyond death is one that is lacking evidence - it is absolutely right to say that, as far as we can tell, there is no life beyond death. This is not a scary concept - life is not diminished by virtue of being finite. And as for the millions of aborted babies, etc, if there really is a just and loving God we must first ask why he allows this situation to exist.

I hope I have not reacted violently, Devolved - as far as I can tell you weren't slinging mud in the first place. Despite the mangled quotations, your questions seemed honest on the face of it and deserved to be treated as such. It's your replies that will show me whether I am being naive.

Other Comments by Lee Harrison

34. Comment #34042 by Jolly Wally on April 23, 2007 at 5:16 am

BAHAHAHAHA! These guys just make this stuff up as they go along. Priceless!

Other Comments by Jolly Wally

35. Comment #34043 by waxwings on April 23, 2007 at 5:23 am

This shit is completely idiotic.

Other Comments by waxwings

36. Comment #34044 by Luthien on April 23, 2007 at 5:23 am

LIES!

I have been to limbo. It is a little square not that far away from the Ponta Vecchio in Florence.

See: http://quibblequarterly.vox.com/library/photo/6a00d10a7a81d48bfa00d09e62d3d8be2b.html

Other Comments by Luthien

37. Comment #34045 by Rtambree on April 23, 2007 at 5:25 am

The Popes remind me of Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Masters - the congregation are the role-players and, as Jolly Wally above notes, they just pull the rules and scenarios out from underneath their robes: ascent of Mary, sale of indulgences, etc.

Other Comments by Rtambree

38. Comment #34046 by BillySands on April 23, 2007 at 5:29 am

Logicel and Lee
After your posts, I think he is a troll. He is very dishonest in his selective quoting from Dawkins. If the universe was only a couple of thousand years old with only one planet in it, then the anthropic principle would be more theist friendly. However, it is over 12 billion years old with perhaps a billion billion planets. Then perhaps our universe spawns other similar universes, or has indeed been spawned itself. Then, the anthropic principle clearly does not favour the possibility of a creator
It is amazing the burden of proof these guys try do put on rationalists when their beliefs have no evidence at all.
Regarging my earlier comment about Christianity plagiarising Pagan myths, perhaps the theists should listen to the 2nd century apologist Justin Martyr :"When we say that the Word, who is first born of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven; we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter (Zeus)." [First Apology, ch. xxi]

Quetz
I didnt realise that you too were:
born of a spotless virgin
retired to the wilderness and fasted for forty days
was worshipped as a God
was crucified between two thieves
was buried and descended into Hell
rose the third day


Other Comments by BillySands

39. Comment #34049 by Lee Harrison on April 23, 2007 at 5:35 am

Hi BillySands

I 100% agree with the substantive portion of your post, but I'm willing to reserve judgement on Devolved's troll status.

Other Comments by Lee Harrison

40. Comment #34051 by BillySands on April 23, 2007 at 5:42 am

Hi lee, It would be nice if he wasn't, but experience has made me cautious. There is a nice non troll guy (Mark) on the God of the bible is no delusion thread though http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,323,The-God-of-the-Bible-is-No-Delusion,Christadelphianorg#34050

Other Comments by BillySands

41. Comment #34054 by Robert Maynard on April 23, 2007 at 5:48 am

High five, Lee! *clap*
A firm and fair response to devolved.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

42. Comment #34056 by Lee Harrison on April 23, 2007 at 5:51 am

Thanks Robert - just recently started posting here but I lurked for a while and I was impressed with the low bollocks:info ratio.

Other Comments by Lee Harrison

43. Comment #34059 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2007 at 5:56 am

Quetz
I didnt realise that you too were:
born of a spotless virgin
retired to the wilderness and fasted for forty days
was worshipped as a God
was crucified between two thieves
was buried and descended into Hell
rose the third day

Billy, I meant that the Aztecs had the right idea about who to worship. I could have done all that if I wanted to, but I was busy.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

44. Comment #34063 by phasmagigas on April 23, 2007 at 6:01 am

Try to imagine reading that document, a lot of hard thought and beard stroking for that.

Its interesting to note that this is the church saying 'weve been wrong these last x number of years'. A step in the right direction, and less pain for all those poor sods who believed in limbo prior.

The whole scenario is a perfect soundbite of what is wrong with religion, it can be what you want it to be and when you want it to be.

I wonder how many catholics actually say 'oh well they were wrong there, what about here and here?' I guess that the vast majority will sheepishly just agree and not think anything else of it.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

45. Comment #34066 by devolved on April 23, 2007 at 6:06 am

So Richard Dawkins believes:

"One-off events like this might be explained by the anthropic principle, along the following lines. There are [any proof?] billions of planets that have developed life at the level of bacteria, but only a fraction of these life forms ever made it across the gap to something like the eucaryotic cell. And of these, a yet smaller fraction managed to cross the later Rubicon to consciousness. If both of these are one-off events, we are not dealing with a ubiquitous and all-pervading process, as we are with ordinary, run-of-the-mill biological adaptation. The anthropic principle states that, since we are alive, eucaryotic and conscious, our planet has to be one of the intensely rare planets that has bridged all three gaps."

Well it's certainly placing a huge amount of faith on the anthropic principle.
But what is this principle and does it really justify Richard's faith in his science of the gaps?

Here's the anthropic principle more fully explained:

The Anthropic Principle which states that the universe is especially suited for the well-being of mankind, is one such assumption. As just one of hundreds of examples, consider the tides that the moon causes on earth. If the moon was closer to the earth, tides would be greatly increased. Ocean waves could sweep across the continents. The seas themselves might heat to the boiling point from the resulting friction. On the other hand, a more distant moon would reduce the tides. Marine life would be endangered by the resulting preponderance of stagnant water! Mankind would also be in trouble because the oxygen in the air we breathe is replenished by marine plants. We can conclude that the moon is in the "correct" position for man's well-being. Even such details as the mass of protons and the strength of gravity have values that give stability to the universe and thus reinforce the Anthropic Principle.

The Anthropic Principle is a powerful argument that the universe was designed. Of course, whether it is an intricate watch or a beautiful planet, any design plan requires a designer! Evolution theory believes it has an answer to "design" in biological systems by hypothesizing ongoing processes of mutation and natural selection. Living things are said to change very slowly and improve with time. There are many fundamental problems with evolution theory, not the least of which is that-in the case of the Anthropic Principle-the theory provides no answer at all.

Whether describing tides, proton mass, or the earth's position in the solar system, is not a grand design present from the very beginning? These phenomena don't mutate or change with time. The negative response of secular science to new evidence of design is interesting in that it shows the extremes to which man will go to maintain a belief in the random origin of all things. It has even been proposed that there really is an infinite number of universes, each with a completely different set of physical properties. According to such thinking, our particular universe just happens to have conditions suitable for human life, and that is why we are here to enjoy it! Of course, there is no way to detect any "other" universes or comprehend their underlying principles.

I'm grateful to those of you who reply to my comments thoughtfully and with respect. I'm particularly grateful to those who challenge my comments logically.

'The God Delusion' is meant to be about making the place a better place for people to live in. I really fail to see how unreflective and abusive attacks on people who disagree with you will bring that about. Political and religious systems that have violently persecuted people for their beliefs are evil. Please let's refrain from adding to their destructive toll by repeating their mistakes in the present or future.

Other Comments by devolved

46. Comment #34069 by BillySands on April 23, 2007 at 6:10 am

St Augustine said that unbaptised babies went to hell, so that's at least twice they have changed their mind. Fear of hell is also a good way to control people .... hmmm - nah, surely that's not what religion was all about!

Quetz
I thought all that stuff did happen to you - are you just testing me here? Eagerly awaiting you sending me Jessica Biel your holiness :-)

Devolved
My last comment to you. How on earth is the fact that you personally cannot (or will not) explain something be seen as evidence of design? Those proposing design of things such as the bacterial flagellum were basically saying "wow that's complicated, I cant explain it. It must be god. This is a poor reason to base any hypothesis on. By the way, almost immediately, it was reduced further tho the type III secretory system (bacterial syringe). So much for going "wow". This idea of design appeals to personal ignorance and is nothing more than worshiping the god of the gaps. You can not claim design in the universe unless you know everything about it, which none of us do. But we do progress our understanding and close those gaps.
To sumarise, personal incredulity or current ignorance is not evidence of design. It is only evidence that someone either does not know or understand something. Ask youself why you reject natural explanations and see how reasonable your views are.

Other Comments by BillySands

47. Comment #34071 by Lee Harrison on April 23, 2007 at 6:15 am

I didn't know we could request Jessica Biel! I want one! I want one!

Other Comments by Lee Harrison

48. Comment #34072 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2007 at 6:16 am

Hell is a big problem for religions today anyway, as Briancoughlanworldcitizen put across brilliantly in his Youtube video.

Billy- I always test my worshippers. I am a mischievous God. JB is on the way, however I used Royal Mail to transport her, and they sent her to the Shetland Isles by mistake. She should get to you soon. Have faith, my acolyte.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

49. Comment #34074 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2007 at 6:18 am

LeeHarrison- I am afraid Billy has first dibs on Jessica Biel. However, I may be able to offer you someone else. All you have to do is worship the great god Quetzalcoatl (no human sacrifice required).

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

50. Comment #34077 by Suffolk Blue on April 23, 2007 at 6:28 am

Well, that's a relief! I presume the new rules will be applied retrospectively and all those unbaptised babies who went to limbo in the intervening millennia will now get their rightful place in heaven.

Other Comments by Suffolk Blue