On the assumption this is directed against someone in this thread who disagrees with you, you’ll have to be more specific (since everyone is).
Who says there’s no truth in advertising?
Just out of curiosity, which of Maxwell’s experiments have you replicated? Which of Godel’s theorems have you verified with your own proprietary logic? Which of Lorentz’s equations have you checked for yourself?
The thing about religious experience is that it is experience. That means that to scientifically test it, you have to live the life of the person making the claim. Not that that will make any sense to you, but still.
Indeed, it is obvious that you pulled that “most science hating people” out of your ass as an act of faith since the actual evidence shows other churches are the science haters.
You will have no problems from me if you were not arriving to conclusions based on an opinion and not the facts.
I can have faith the original Foo Fighters will get together again, but the current actual members are not bad. 
The topic of the thread could be ‘Chiaroscuro - Are painters the most anti-music people on earth?’ and it would make as much sense as it does.
Science and metaphysics are separate subjects that don’t even pretend to say anything about each other, or their respective fields of knowledge/speculation. Just like music and painting.
Oh, and Jesus tastes like ice cream cones.
I’m sure that if we sift through the scripts for Voyager and the last few seasons of TNG we’ll find one of those suckers rigged through the deflector array…
Seems to me our boy Ammonius is barking up the wrong tree by focusing only on the Catholics: he should go to the root of the problem and seek out those pesky Neo-Platonists and Aristotelians who came up with those inconvenient metaphysics about a thing’s “substance” and “nature”.
Out of the myriad things involved in Christianity that are unscientific (starting with God itself and going thru the immortal soul, original sin, miracles, incarnation, resurrection, afterlife, etc.) can one seriously argue “Catholics are the most science-hating people on Earth” based on transubstantiation?? A doctrine that a certain phenomenon happens in the metaphysical plane, independent from actual matter, meaning it has no measurable effect in the material plane? When there are denominations that preach Young Earth Creationism as absolute truth???
The OP, in any case, could just as well stop at the point where ANY religion teaches that the universe and all life ultimately proceeds from and is under the rule of something called “a God”. If that alone is not the most unscientific conclusion ever, why bother with the arcana of specific sects?.
Kudos for the most ironic comment among all the Ammonius Saccus threads. (I wonder if he even gets it?)
As odious and incoherent as the OP was, I still can’t believe people are ‘defending’ transubstantiation.
Not that people in this thread believe it, but the responses so far have been that it’s not that unreasonable a thing to believe in. (“Hey, it’s not provable/disprovable by science, so we can’t condemn it/laugh at it”)
If there was a religious sect that went around saying that there was a big fat elephant on top of their followers’ heads, but only in some metaphysical sense, and the sect “admitted that the appearances open to the senses or to scientific investigation show that there is no elephant on top of peoples’ heads, but in some other sense it truly, really, is there”, wouldn’t people think this was ridiculous?
Hiding ridiculous claims under non-falsifiable religous dogma doesn’t make it any less ridiculous.
Also, regarding what several posters have mentioned above “Why does the OP care? Why does it bother him so much, since it doesn’t affect him?”. I don’t see where this question is coming from. Is this the first, or the last, time on the SDMB someone rants against something they consider stupid, even though it doesn’t affect them in their daily lives at all?
Of course, having said that, going from “transubstantiation is ridiculous” to “Catholics are the most science hating people on Earth” is itself ridiculous.
You’re ignoring the obvious: God is made of crackers.
It’s all there in the Bible. You just have to read between the lines.
I don’t get it. What’s the joke?
-
The OP asserted that Catholics were science haters based on transubstantiation. People attacked that premise because the church has never proclaimed transmogrification (as we learned Catholics like to call it) to be a scientific theory or fact. You don’t apply scientific standards to faith.
-
You could certainly start a Pit Thread about the ridiculousness of transmogrification. It wouldn’t get very far because: a) it’s impossible to argue against something that cannot be proven; and b) you attack people’s religions and you tend to look like a prick.
Does that mean we can’t make fun of Scientology anymore?
Liberal is a bitch. Is this the new “Hi, Opal”?
Weeeeeellll… there’s a big difference between “Joseph Smith was visited by an angel and given 24 actual physical golden plates that he could hold in his hand, nothing metaphorical at all, and then later on they vanished” and “when I eat this bread, I am eating the body of Jesus, but only in a totally non-observable way”. The second claim (as discussed in this thread) is on that is not scientifically provable or disprovable, and would not be, no matter what kind of hypothetically perfect instrumentation we might ever imagine devising. The former claim, however, is one which which makes factual statements about verifiable historical figures, etc. There is nothing inherently paradoxical about a machine that lets you look backwards through time. Thus, we might imagine a time in the future when Smith’s claims are testable, even if they are not testable right now. That puts them in an entirely different category, as far as I’m concerned, even though as of right now with the equipment I have at hand I can neither verify nor disprove them. So, yes, I’ll come right out and say it. I think it’s a lot sillier for someone to believe in the literal truth of Mormon doctrine than to believe in transsubstantiation. Perhaps even dangerously so.
Depends what you mean by “ridiculous”. It also at some level becomes a question of courtesy and respect for tradition. Given that I can neither prove nor disprove anything about transsubstantiation, whether or not I make fun of it kind of depends on who believes in it, why they do, what they do with that belief, etc. While it is true that a belief having been around for millenia doesn’t make it any more true, in some factual sense, it does tend to suggest that there is some utility in it.
Nonsense. If someone comes in here and says their faith tells them they can heal their child’s broken bones through prayer, see how sanguine a response they get.
(By the way, have you considered actually reading and responding to the things people have said in this thread, rather than just coming back ever dozen or so posts and posting another undirected tirade?)
I think transsubstantiation is a very real and literal phenomenon. In this case it’s oral entrance. We take into our bodies the earth and it becomes a very part of us. This nourishes us and powers our actions and intent. A piece of Jesus in Placebo is a Piece of Jesus in a holographic universe. Chances are an atomic or subatomic piece of Jesus has found its way into many peoples food and drink at one time or another and we have literally partaken of the dead transubstantiated.
We are what we eat.
The real life Ammonius Saccus (alternate spelling, Saccas) was the the teacher of both Plotinus and Origen. This basically made him the father of neo-Platonism as well as shaping much of Christian philosophical tradition. Of course, as a Platonist, he was more concerned with “ideal forms” instead of the real world, so we have a poster ranting up and down the SDMB, railing against religion and proclaiming the supremacy of science while taking the name of a person who helped to shape much of religion and who created the branch of philosophy that is most in opposition to science.
Let’s put it on the same level as transubstatiation. Say they said faith could heal the child’s bone, but faith would not heal the accidents of the bones, but the substance. Everyone hear would have to defend that position or be hypocrites.
here not hear
Ah, thanks.
Hardly, what you have there is a straw man.
Since we established you are a numb skull, the only thing I need to point out is that I’m not defending transubstantiation, only that there are better things to criticize the church than discussing the equivalent of how many angels can dance on the point of a needle.
And let us not forget it was your jerkish OP that turned even folks that can agree with you into critics.
A jerk that agrees with me is still a jerk.