Catholics A Minority

[beast of the east]

 My theological summation of this thread is as followed: I don't know whose arrogance is more repugnant Joe3 for pretending to be the voice of his generation or Beast for pretending to know who gets through the Pearly Gates. There's a place in Hell for both you.... maybe. 

 

I think it's really funny that you can attach arrogance to commentary on a a thread by someone who is trying to patiently explain Catholic doctrine, when the purpose of the thread was to discuss the secularization of univeristies that were founded for a religious mission. It's astounding you can cast negativity on the explanation of cathlic doctrine, which some of the negative posters on here chose this thread to reject.

For many alumni, the fact that St. John's was a CAtholic University was an important part of our decision to attend the university and the continued decline in Catholic enrollment is disconcerting. As you are likely aware, FH and the BOT is very aware of this fact, and are actively taking steps to try to reverse this trend. IMO it is not enough, and we will see how it unfolds.

 

I still respect you and everyone else here as part of the SJU family, and good for your generation for embracing the Catholic mission in years past at SJU. The thing is, as your generation gets older and older, the ideals go with it...they begin to die out. You can't try to force feed old ideas to a new progressive more intellectual generation. The bus has simply left years ago...colleges are not going back to the days when people went to church every Sunday because the culture and population is changing. I understand your nostalgia, but despite the common belief that "back in my day everything was better", some things need to happen i.e. secularization. It's time to pass the baton to the new generation...we are approaching that age where it's our turn at bat now. I was at the reason rally in DC and an estimated 20,000 yes twenty thousand people showed up...overwhelmingly consisting of people under 30. By the way that was in torrential downpours and cold muggy weather. Look around on the internet...it seems that the norm is secularism already.

 

Ahhh, so now I know what I am dealing with - someone who is a dyed in the wool atheist who is trying to promote an atheist movement in the United States. Good luck with that. It's much easier to understand you when you reveal just how much of a doctrine you are spouting. If you could string together an intelligent argument disproving God based on science, I might be interested in hearing it. However, you are quite incapable, not by your own lack iof intellect and preparedness, but because it is not possible to prove or disprove God irrefutably merely by science.

There is nothing in science now or ever that is not in harmony with God. Can science explain everything? No.
Sceince is limited by known facts, and the conclusions made are done so basedon available evidence and tools to measure and examine.

There is nothing in science that can explain how identical twins separated at birth name their children or pets the exact same names, or the times when a twin has become aware that his sibling has died at the moment of death. It cannot explain how people that are brain dead by an EEG somehow regain consciousness and resume normal activity.

More definitively science appears to be broken when it comes to issues like dark matter (an unknown form makes up most of the matter of the universe.) This matter is not predicted by the standard physics models. The so-called "Theory of Everything" does not predict and does not understand what this substance is.

The law of gravity appears to be seriously broken. Experiments by Saxl and Allais found that Foucault pendulums veer off in strange directions during solar eclipses. Interplanetary NASA satellites are showing persistent errors in trajectory. Neither of these is explained or predicted by the standard theory of gravity known as Einstein's General Relativity.

The Cold Fusion phenomenon violates physics as we understand it, and yet it has been duplicated in various forms in over 500 laboratories around the world. Recent studies by the Electric Power Research Institute, a large non-profit research organization funded by the nation's power companies, found that Cold Fusion works. A recent Navy study also verified the reality of Cold Fusion, and the original MIT study which supposedly disproved Cold Fusion has been found to have doctored its data. Present day physics has no explanation for how it works, but it does work.

Under certain conditions, billions of electrons can "stick together" in close proximity, despite the law of electromagnetism that like charges repel. Charge clusters are small, one millionth of a meter in diameter, and are composed of tens or hundreds of billions of electrons. They should fly apart at enormous speed, but they do not. This indicates that our laws of electromagnetism are missing something important.

The speed of light, once thought unbreakable, has been exceeded in several recent experiments. Our notion of what is possible in terms of propagation speed has been changing as a result. Certain phenomena, such as solar disturbances on the sun which take more than eight minutes to be visible on the earth, are registered instantaneously on the acupuncture points of instrumented subjects. Acupuncture points apparently respond to solar events by some other force which travels through space at a much higher speed than light.

This covers just a few of the more glaring anomalies in the "hard sciences." Evidence has also accumulated in the laboratory that many paranormal effects are real, and can be verified and studied scientifically. Among these are the following: ESP, which has been proven but not explained by science. Psychokinesis = Even over distances of thousands of miles, the behavior of certain machines, called REGs for Random Event Generators, have been altered by the intention, or the psychic force of a distant person. The odds that these effects are real, and not due to chance, is now measured in billions to one. In other words, this phenomenon is real.

So despite atheist clamoring for prooft positive that there is God, or he simply cannot exist, or that the supernatural is just not possible, falls far short of being conclusive evidence.

I have often clallenged those who have rejected the Christian faith, that if the reusrrection can be aboslutely proven not to have occurred, then I would have to reject Christianity. I will similarly offer to someone as yourself, that if the resurrection could be proven, would you accept Christianity? I would offer you the same question.

 

This is the ultimate arrogance. Because we humans can't figure it out it must be god's will. I know Joe's argument debate is full of holes and generally infantile (all my friends are doing it so the rest of the country must be too, I mean c'mon) but then a post like this that shows an anti-intellectualism second only to the tea party platform and leaves me stupefied.

The gist of the argument is I read it in a self help book disguised as a mix of historical fiction and fantasy so who cares about your science text books. I leave you with another of my other mottos: Science always has an answer, it's just that sometimes the answer is I don't know, yet.

 

Respectfully, I think if you believe my post to be the ultimate arrogance, you hven't visited Paris.

It's a ridiculous conclusion to summarize my post in that fashion. I am fairly certain that as part of my studies, I've taken more chemistry (general, organic,physical,biochem, medicinal), physics. and biology than I care to remember and have deep respect to the scientific process. The process of rigorous testing of hypothesis in a well defined and structured way, and carefully analyzing results has resulted in a depth of understanding of the human body and our environment in ways never thought possible. However, the point isn't to disregard the intellectualism that elitist atheists seem to think they have cornered the market on, but to remind you that science always doesn't have the answer, and in fact, over the course of history, has often made false conclusions that were invalidated as new discoveries were made.

Pope John II was an ardent advocate of the role of science in faith. Below are excerpts from his discussion on such, where he cites the case of Galileo.

"The geocentric representation of the world was commonly admitted in the culture of the time as fully agreeing with the teaching of the Bible of which certain expressions, taken literally seemed to affirm geocentrism. The problem posed by theologians of that age was, therefore, that of the compatibility between heliocentrism and Scripture.

Thus the new science, with its methods and the freedom of research which they implied, obliged theologians to examine their own criteria of scriptural interpretation. Most of them did not know how to do so.

Paradoxically, Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to be more perceptive in this regard than the theologians who opposed him. "If Scripture cannot err", he wrote to Benedetto Castelli, "certain of its interpreters and commentators can and do so in many ways".(2) We also know of his letter to Christine de Lorraine (1615) which is like a short treatise on biblical hermeneutics....

By virtue of her own mission, the Church has the duty to be attentive to the pastoral consequences of her teaching. Before all else, let it be clear that this teaching must correspond to the truth. But it is a question of knowing how to judge a new scientific datum when it seems to contradict the truths of faith. The pastoral judgement which the Copernican theory required was difficult to make, in so far as geocentrism seemed to be a part of scriptural teaching itself. It would have been necessary all at once to overcome habits of thought and to devise a way of teaching capable of enlightening the people of God. Let us say, in a general way, that the pastor ought to show a genuine boldness, avoiding the double trap of a hesitant attitude and of hasty judgement, both of which can cause considerable harm. "

I'm sure that some of you believe you have a more eloquent, intellectual response to the realtionship between faith and science that far exceeds the feeble utterings of an out of touch pontiff inclined to believe in the fairy tales that the more intellectual among you have rejected.

My point is that faith should never contradict the truth, but also that science at times has made false conclusions as to what the truth is. And of course, there are still realms that sceince cannot explain, prove, or disprove. This fact is not the premise for proof of God, but a reminder that it is foolish to try to use science to disprove God.

 

[fuchsia]

 As a dear friend explained to me, the only thing wrong with Paris is the Parisites.

 

[austour]

Oh, I've been to Paris, but I speak French and have a French sounding last name so they go easy on me. However I've never been to Spain, but I kind of like the music.

 

[beast of the east]

Oh, I've been to Paris, but I speak French and have a French sounding last name so they go easy on me. However I've never been to Spain, but I kind of like the music.

 

To be very fair, when I visited Paris the Parisians were much more polite than I anticipated. In my surprising command of high school badly pronounced French I would politely ask something of a French person, and they would kindly respond in English - something that the French Canadians in Montreal refust to do when I visited there 25 years ago.

 

[mjmaherjr]

Parisians were real cool to us last year when we were in Paris but my girlfriend speaks french also so maybe that had something to do with it.

The worst experience we had in Paris ( and there were only 2 ) was trying to visit the St Johns campus. Freaking idiots that work there 

 

[LINY89]

 Marist is clearly not an "Average" school for undergrad. Average would be going to a SUNY like Oneonta, Cortland, or going to Suffolk or Nassau CC. Marist accepts 36% of applicants making it a top 100 or 150 in the nation I believe in terms of selectivity. By the way, that's out of thousands of colleges. Its nickname is not "Harvard on the Hudson" for nothing. My sister had a 4.0 and an nearly a 2000 on the new SAT and got rejected at Marist. IQ has only risen, you can go look it up yourself.

"No one takes the Bible literally any more as you know"

No I don't know that. I know many DO take the Bible literally today. There was some poll where like 50% of Americans believe the Bible literally. That is VERY scary I think we can both agree. You have all these hateful groups like the Tea Party and the Westboro Baptist Church who believe in literal interpretations and prevent civil rights as a result. It's nonsense.

 

[LINY89]

 Factual information you have about a god that has absolutely no evidence of ever existing? Nice.Maybe if god appeared in the clouds one day, did a huge Q&A session, did some scientific tests, etc. then I would start to change my mind. It's not that I refuse to believe. It's that I don't believe things with no evidence. You don't either...you just use religion as an exception.

 

[LINY89]

 Let me save a lot of typing here: you CAN'T prove a negative. I can't prove god doesn't exist in the same way you can't prove Santa or leprechauns don't exist. What we as humans go off of is this: someone makes a claim, and the burden is on them to prove it. If they cannot prove it, then it does not exist. Simple. Why do you keep saying atheists have a doctrine? To claim atheists have a doctrine is to totally misunderstand what an atheist is. All an atheist does is reject the notion that a god exists because there is 0 evidence. That's it. No doctrine, no cute costumes, no sermons on the mound, no crosses, no missionaries, no nothing.

You keep trying to highlight what science hasn't proven yet. Again, you use the god of the gaps theory. If we don't know something from science, therefore it must be done by god right? Wrong. Do you know how many things people didn't understand in the past 100-200 years that science has now explained? What makes you think many of life's biggest questions won't one day be answered by science? One thing's for sure: religion is stagnant and gives us nothing new. Just old ideologies from the bronze age that result in discrimination (i.e gays).

In conclusion, you have to understand that negatives CANNOT be proven. You are asking for impossibilities.

 

[LINY89]

 Define a blessing. Have you been blessed? If so, please explain how and what goes into a blessing.

 

[LINY89]

 My theological summation of this thread is as followed: I don't know whose arrogance is more repugnant Joe3 for pretending to be the voice of his generation or Beast for pretending to know who gets through the Pearly Gates. There's a place in Hell for both you.... maybe. 

 

I think it's really funny that you can attach arrogance to commentary on a a thread by someone who is trying to patiently explain Catholic doctrine, when the purpose of the thread was to discuss the secularization of univeristies that were founded for a religious mission. It's astounding you can cast negativity on the explanation of cathlic doctrine, which some of the negative posters on here chose this thread to reject.

For many alumni, the fact that St. John's was a CAtholic University was an important part of our decision to attend the university and the continued decline in Catholic enrollment is disconcerting. As you are likely aware, FH and the BOT is very aware of this fact, and are actively taking steps to try to reverse this trend. IMO it is not enough, and we will see how it unfolds.

 

I still respect you and everyone else here as part of the SJU family, and good for your generation for embracing the Catholic mission in years past at SJU. The thing is, as your generation gets older and older, the ideals go with it...they begin to die out. You can't try to force feed old ideas to a new progressive more intellectual generation. The bus has simply left years ago...colleges are not going back to the days when people went to church every Sunday because the culture and population is changing. I understand your nostalgia, but despite the common belief that "back in my day everything was better", some things need to happen i.e. secularization. It's time to pass the baton to the new generation...we are approaching that age where it's our turn at bat now. I was at the reason rally in DC and an estimated 20,000 yes twenty thousand people showed up...overwhelmingly consisting of people under 30. By the way that was in torrential downpours and cold muggy weather. Look around on the internet...it seems that the norm is secularism already.

 

Ahhh, so now I know what I am dealing with - someone who is a dyed in the wool atheist who is trying to promote an atheist movement in the United States. Good luck with that. It's much easier to understand you when you reveal just how much of a doctrine you are spouting. If you could string together an intelligent argument disproving God based on science, I might be interested in hearing it. However, you are quite incapable, not by your own lack iof intellect and preparedness, but because it is not possible to prove or disprove God irrefutably merely by science.

There is nothing in science now or ever that is not in harmony with God. Can science explain everything? No.
Sceince is limited by known facts, and the conclusions made are done so basedon available evidence and tools to measure and examine.

There is nothing in science that can explain how identical twins separated at birth name their children or pets the exact same names, or the times when a twin has become aware that his sibling has died at the moment of death. It cannot explain how people that are brain dead by an EEG somehow regain consciousness and resume normal activity.

More definitively science appears to be broken when it comes to issues like dark matter (an unknown form makes up most of the matter of the universe.) This matter is not predicted by the standard physics models. The so-called "Theory of Everything" does not predict and does not understand what this substance is.

The law of gravity appears to be seriously broken. Experiments by Saxl and Allais found that Foucault pendulums veer off in strange directions during solar eclipses. Interplanetary NASA satellites are showing persistent errors in trajectory. Neither of these is explained or predicted by the standard theory of gravity known as Einstein's General Relativity.

The Cold Fusion phenomenon violates physics as we understand it, and yet it has been duplicated in various forms in over 500 laboratories around the world. Recent studies by the Electric Power Research Institute, a large non-profit research organization funded by the nation's power companies, found that Cold Fusion works. A recent Navy study also verified the reality of Cold Fusion, and the original MIT study which supposedly disproved Cold Fusion has been found to have doctored its data. Present day physics has no explanation for how it works, but it does work.

Under certain conditions, billions of electrons can "stick together" in close proximity, despite the law of electromagnetism that like charges repel. Charge clusters are small, one millionth of a meter in diameter, and are composed of tens or hundreds of billions of electrons. They should fly apart at enormous speed, but they do not. This indicates that our laws of electromagnetism are missing something important.

The speed of light, once thought unbreakable, has been exceeded in several recent experiments. Our notion of what is possible in terms of propagation speed has been changing as a result. Certain phenomena, such as solar disturbances on the sun which take more than eight minutes to be visible on the earth, are registered instantaneously on the acupuncture points of instrumented subjects. Acupuncture points apparently respond to solar events by some other force which travels through space at a much higher speed than light.

This covers just a few of the more glaring anomalies in the "hard sciences." Evidence has also accumulated in the laboratory that many paranormal effects are real, and can be verified and studied scientifically. Among these are the following: ESP, which has been proven but not explained by science. Psychokinesis = Even over distances of thousands of miles, the behavior of certain machines, called REGs for Random Event Generators, have been altered by the intention, or the psychic force of a distant person. The odds that these effects are real, and not due to chance, is now measured in billions to one. In other words, this phenomenon is real.

So despite atheist clamoring for prooft positive that there is God, or he simply cannot exist, or that the supernatural is just not possible, falls far short of being conclusive evidence.

I have often clallenged those who have rejected the Christian faith, that if the reusrrection can be aboslutely proven not to have occurred, then I would have to reject Christianity. I will similarly offer to someone as yourself, that if the resurrection could be proven, would you accept Christianity? I would offer you the same question.

 

This is the ultimate arrogance. Because we humans can't figure it out it must be god's will. I know Joe's argument debate is full of holes and generally infantile (all my friends are doing it so the rest of the country must be too, I mean c'mon) but then a post like this that shows an anti-intellectualism second only to the tea party platform and leaves me stupefied.

The gist of the argument is I read it in a self help book disguised as a mix of historical fiction and fantasy so who cares about your science text books. I leave you with another of my other mottos: Science always has an answer, it's just that sometimes the answer is I don't know, yet.

 

I'm not on the debate team and I don't claim to be Christopher Hitchens. I am simply arguing as a graduate student interested in this topic. How can it be called "infantile" to suggest that we need proof to believe things? Richard Dawkins said it best at this year's Reason Rally in DC, "It's sad that it's even necessary in the first place to have a REASON rally". It's sad that someone would even argue that my main tenant of requiring proof if an "infantile" argument.

 

[LINY89]

 My theological summation of this thread is as followed: I don't know whose arrogance is more repugnant Joe3 for pretending to be the voice of his generation or Beast for pretending to know who gets through the Pearly Gates. There's a place in Hell for both you.... maybe. 

 

I think it's really funny that you can attach arrogance to commentary on a a thread by someone who is trying to patiently explain Catholic doctrine, when the purpose of the thread was to discuss the secularization of univeristies that were founded for a religious mission. It's astounding you can cast negativity on the explanation of cathlic doctrine, which some of the negative posters on here chose this thread to reject.

For many alumni, the fact that St. John's was a CAtholic University was an important part of our decision to attend the university and the continued decline in Catholic enrollment is disconcerting. As you are likely aware, FH and the BOT is very aware of this fact, and are actively taking steps to try to reverse this trend. IMO it is not enough, and we will see how it unfolds.

 

I still respect you and everyone else here as part of the SJU family, and good for your generation for embracing the Catholic mission in years past at SJU. The thing is, as your generation gets older and older, the ideals go with it...they begin to die out. You can't try to force feed old ideas to a new progressive more intellectual generation. The bus has simply left years ago...colleges are not going back to the days when people went to church every Sunday because the culture and population is changing. I understand your nostalgia, but despite the common belief that "back in my day everything was better", some things need to happen i.e. secularization. It's time to pass the baton to the new generation...we are approaching that age where it's our turn at bat now. I was at the reason rally in DC and an estimated 20,000 yes twenty thousand people showed up...overwhelmingly consisting of people under 30. By the way that was in torrential downpours and cold muggy weather. Look around on the internet...it seems that the norm is secularism already.

 

Ahhh, so now I know what I am dealing with - someone who is a dyed in the wool atheist who is trying to promote an atheist movement in the United States. Good luck with that. It's much easier to understand you when you reveal just how much of a doctrine you are spouting. If you could string together an intelligent argument disproving God based on science, I might be interested in hearing it. However, you are quite incapable, not by your own lack iof intellect and preparedness, but because it is not possible to prove or disprove God irrefutably merely by science.

There is nothing in science now or ever that is not in harmony with God. Can science explain everything? No.
Sceince is limited by known facts, and the conclusions made are done so basedon available evidence and tools to measure and examine.

There is nothing in science that can explain how identical twins separated at birth name their children or pets the exact same names, or the times when a twin has become aware that his sibling has died at the moment of death. It cannot explain how people that are brain dead by an EEG somehow regain consciousness and resume normal activity.

More definitively science appears to be broken when it comes to issues like dark matter (an unknown form makes up most of the matter of the universe.) This matter is not predicted by the standard physics models. The so-called "Theory of Everything" does not predict and does not understand what this substance is.

The law of gravity appears to be seriously broken. Experiments by Saxl and Allais found that Foucault pendulums veer off in strange directions during solar eclipses. Interplanetary NASA satellites are showing persistent errors in trajectory. Neither of these is explained or predicted by the standard theory of gravity known as Einstein's General Relativity.

The Cold Fusion phenomenon violates physics as we understand it, and yet it has been duplicated in various forms in over 500 laboratories around the world. Recent studies by the Electric Power Research Institute, a large non-profit research organization funded by the nation's power companies, found that Cold Fusion works. A recent Navy study also verified the reality of Cold Fusion, and the original MIT study which supposedly disproved Cold Fusion has been found to have doctored its data. Present day physics has no explanation for how it works, but it does work.

Under certain conditions, billions of electrons can "stick together" in close proximity, despite the law of electromagnetism that like charges repel. Charge clusters are small, one millionth of a meter in diameter, and are composed of tens or hundreds of billions of electrons. They should fly apart at enormous speed, but they do not. This indicates that our laws of electromagnetism are missing something important.

The speed of light, once thought unbreakable, has been exceeded in several recent experiments. Our notion of what is possible in terms of propagation speed has been changing as a result. Certain phenomena, such as solar disturbances on the sun which take more than eight minutes to be visible on the earth, are registered instantaneously on the acupuncture points of instrumented subjects. Acupuncture points apparently respond to solar events by some other force which travels through space at a much higher speed than light.

This covers just a few of the more glaring anomalies in the "hard sciences." Evidence has also accumulated in the laboratory that many paranormal effects are real, and can be verified and studied scientifically. Among these are the following: ESP, which has been proven but not explained by science. Psychokinesis = Even over distances of thousands of miles, the behavior of certain machines, called REGs for Random Event Generators, have been altered by the intention, or the psychic force of a distant person. The odds that these effects are real, and not due to chance, is now measured in billions to one. In other words, this phenomenon is real.

So despite atheist clamoring for prooft positive that there is God, or he simply cannot exist, or that the supernatural is just not possible, falls far short of being conclusive evidence.

I have often clallenged those who have rejected the Christian faith, that if the reusrrection can be aboslutely proven not to have occurred, then I would have to reject Christianity. I will similarly offer to someone as yourself, that if the resurrection could be proven, would you accept Christianity? I would offer you the same question.

 

This is the ultimate arrogance. Because we humans can't figure it out it must be god's will. I know Joe's argument debate is full of holes and generally infantile (all my friends are doing it so the rest of the country must be too, I mean c'mon) but then a post like this that shows an anti-intellectualism second only to the tea party platform and leaves me stupefied.

The gist of the argument is I read it in a self help book disguised as a mix of historical fiction and fantasy so who cares about your science text books. I leave you with another of my other mottos: Science always has an answer, it's just that sometimes the answer is I don't know, yet.

 

Respectfully, I think if you believe my post to be the ultimate arrogance, you hven't visited Paris.

It's a ridiculous conclusion to summarize my post in that fashion. I am fairly certain that as part of my studies, I've taken more chemistry (general, organic,physical,biochem, medicinal), physics. and biology than I care to remember and have deep respect to the scientific process. The process of rigorous testing of hypothesis in a well defined and structured way, and carefully analyzing results has resulted in a depth of understanding of the human body and our environment in ways never thought possible. However, the point isn't to disregard the intellectualism that elitist atheists seem to think they have cornered the market on, but to remind you that science always doesn't have the answer, and in fact, over the course of history, has often made false conclusions that were invalidated as new discoveries were made.

Pope John II was an ardent advocate of the role of science in faith. Below are excerpts from his discussion on such, where he cites the case of Galileo.

"The geocentric representation of the world was commonly admitted in the culture of the time as fully agreeing with the teaching of the Bible of which certain expressions, taken literally seemed to affirm geocentrism. The problem posed by theologians of that age was, therefore, that of the compatibility between heliocentrism and Scripture.

Thus the new science, with its methods and the freedom of research which they implied, obliged theologians to examine their own criteria of scriptural interpretation. Most of them did not know how to do so.

Paradoxically, Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to be more perceptive in this regard than the theologians who opposed him. "If Scripture cannot err", he wrote to Benedetto Castelli, "certain of its interpreters and commentators can and do so in many ways".(2) We also know of his letter to Christine de Lorraine (1615) which is like a short treatise on biblical hermeneutics....

By virtue of her own mission, the Church has the duty to be attentive to the pastoral consequences of her teaching. Before all else, let it be clear that this teaching must correspond to the truth. But it is a question of knowing how to judge a new scientific datum when it seems to contradict the truths of faith. The pastoral judgement which the Copernican theory required was difficult to make, in so far as geocentrism seemed to be a part of scriptural teaching itself. It would have been necessary all at once to overcome habits of thought and to devise a way of teaching capable of enlightening the people of God. Let us say, in a general way, that the pastor ought to show a genuine boldness, avoiding the double trap of a hesitant attitude and of hasty judgement, both of which can cause considerable harm. "

I'm sure that some of you believe you have a more eloquent, intellectual response to the realtionship between faith and science that far exceeds the feeble utterings of an out of touch pontiff inclined to believe in the fairy tales that the more intellectual among you have rejected.

My point is that faith should never contradict the truth, but also that science at times has made false conclusions as to what the truth is. And of course, there are still realms that sceince cannot explain, prove, or disprove. This fact is not the premise for proof of God, but a reminder that it is foolish to try to use science to disprove God.

You cannot logically respect and practice the scientific method, then violate it by having blind faith. Pick one. 

 

[austour]

[
I'm not on the debate team and I don't claim to be Christopher Hitchens. I am simply arguing as a graduate student interested in this topic. How can it be called "infantile" to suggest that we need proof to believe things? Richard Dawkins said it best at this year's Reason Rally in DC, "It's sad that it's even necessary in the first place to have a REASON rally". It's sad that someone would even argue that my main tenant of requiring proof if an "infantile" argument.

 

Dude I'm on your side but you're right, you're not nor should you be on the debate team. That said I'm trying to stay out of this debate anyway but just when I think I've walked away one of you two pull me back in. ;

 

[LINY89]

 You make similar points to mine, but you said mine were "infantile" when I demanded proof.

 

[Class of 72]

 Marist is clearly not an "Average" school for undergrad. Average would be going to a SUNY like Oneonta, Cortland, or going to Suffolk or Nassau CC. Marist accepts 36% of applicants making it a top 100 or 150 in the nation I believe in terms of selectivity. By the way, that's out of thousands of colleges. Its nickname is not "Harvard on the Hudson" for nothing. My sister had a 4.0 and an nearly a 2000 on the new SAT and got rejected at Marist. IQ has only risen, you can go look it up yourself.

"No one takes the Bible literally any more as you know"

No I don't know that. I know many DO take the Bible literally today. There was some poll where like 50% of Americans believe the Bible literally. That is VERY scary I think we can both agree. You have all these hateful groups like the Tea Party and the Westboro Baptist Church who believe in literal interpretations and prevent civil rights as a result. It's nonsense.

 


"No one takes the Bible literally any more as you know"

No I don't know that. I know many DO take the Bible literally today. There was some poll where like 50% of Americans believe the Bible literally".

You see Joe, even a Marist grad can learn something new! Those 50% you quote must be southern Baptists! LOL! Most Catholic theologians have a very "modern" interpretation of the Bible today.
Marist is an excellent school and its student profile is very similar to Villanova----White, upper-middle class and from the suburbs. Visit Chaminade HS and visit Marist and the only difference in the students will be that the Marist kids will be a little older. That has a lot to do with its academic profile. Although many of the Marist grads claim to be liberal, left-leaning progressives, by the time they marry they are most likely to marry a fellow Catholic, in a Catholic ceremony, in a "White", upper-middle-class Lonnng Island town and live in a highly segregated community and eventually record every show that Bill O'Reilly is on. LOL!
A daughter of a close friend in a LI community recently was accepted to Marist. She was also accepted to SJ on a full scholarship. She will have to (the parents will have to) pay her own way. I asked her dad why would she give up a full ride when he was already paying for 2 other kids at private colleges and he said SJ was "too diversified" for their daughter.
Whatever Joe..........it is nice to have you in the 50% Catholic St. John's University. We accept atheists such as you unlike the Campus Ministry at Marist that you may have belonged to for better housing. LOL!

 

[jerseyshorejohnny]

FYi..Info on Marist from U.S. News (as of 2010)

http://premium.usnews.com/best-colleges/marist-college-2765/applying/entering-class-stats

Would think Joe's sister would have earned a full ride or close to one at St. John's (4.0 GPA and I would guess her SAT would be around the 1300 give or take under the old scoring system of 1600).

She is obviously a very, very good student. Certainly on par, at the very least, with many of those in the St. John's Pharmacy program.

Out of idle curiosity where is she going and where else did she apply ??

"Harvard on the Hudson", is a bit of a stretch. Marist is a good school, no doubt, but not let's get "nuts" here.

It's sort of like when Ronald Reagan called St. John's "The new Harvard" when he was POTUS.

Info on St. John's:

http://premium.usnews.com/best-colleges/st.-john's-university-2823/applying/entering-class-stats

   

 

[tom in salem]

 Marist is clearly not an "Average" school for undergrad. Average would be going to a SUNY like Oneonta, Cortland, or going to Suffolk or Nassau CC. Marist accepts 36% of applicants making it a top 100 or 150 in the nation I believe in terms of selectivity. By the way, that's out of thousands of colleges. Its nickname is not "Harvard on the Hudson" for nothing. My sister had a 4.0 and an nearly a 2000 on the new SAT and got rejected at Marist. IQ has only risen, you can go look it up yourself.

"No one takes the Bible literally any more as you know"

No I don't know that. I know many DO take the Bible literally today. There was some poll where like 50% of Americans believe the Bible literally. That is VERY scary I think we can both agree. You have all these hateful groups like the Tea Party and the Westboro Baptist Church who believe in literal interpretations and prevent civil rights as a result. It's nonsense.

 


"No one takes the Bible literally any more as you know"

No I don't know that. I know many DO take the Bible literally today. There was some poll where like 50% of Americans believe the Bible literally".

You see Joe, even a Marist grad can learn something new! Those 50% you quote must be southern Baptists! LOL! Most Catholic theologians have a very "modern" interpretation of the Bible today.
Marist is an excellent school and its student profile is very similar to Villanova----White, upper-middle class and from the suburbs. Visit Chaminade HS and visit Marist and the only difference in the students will be that the Marist kids will be a little older. That has a lot to do with its academic profile. Although many of the Marist grads claim to be liberal, left-leaning progressives, by the time they marry they are most likely to marry a fellow Catholic, in a Catholic ceremony, in a "White", upper-middle-class Lonnng Island town and live in a highly segregated community and eventually record every show that Bill O'Reilly is on. LOL!
A daughter of a close friend in a LI community recently was accepted to Marist. She was also accepted to SJ on a full scholarship. She will have to
(the parents will have to) pay her own way. I asked her dad why would she give up a full ride when he was already paying for 2 other kids at private colleges Whatever Joe..........it is nice to have you in the 50% Catholic St. John's University. We accept atheists such as you unlike the Campus Ministry at Marist that you may have belonged to for better housing. LOL!

 

and he said SJ was "too diversified" for their daughter.

Then why apply?
Did she think all the minorities were going to transfer out?

 

[austour]

 You make similar points to mine, but you said mine were "infantile" when I demanded proof.

 

I wasn't talking about your content (that was the full of holes part) I meant your tone.

 

[jerseyshorejohnny]

Hello Tom,

Trust you are enjoying your Memorial Day weekend !!

It is disturbing to hear that the diversity on campus is being more of an issue for "white folks".

Over the last month someone told me that they don't want there kid going to a school where they are the minority and I was also told by an alumnus that a good friend's kid visited the school (Pharmacy) but decided against applying saying "no one" looked like her.  

 

[austour]

Hello Tom,

Trust you are enjoying your Memorial Day weekend !!

It is disturbing to hear that the diversity on campus is being more of an issue for "white folks".

Over the last month someone told me that they don't want there kid going to a school where they are the minority and I was also told by an alumnus that a good friend's kid visited the school (Pharmacy) but decided against applying saying "no one" looked like her.  

 

It is indeed unfortunate that this country is so unable to come to grasps with its invevitable true multi-culturalism (instead of the multi-culturalism that was a bunch of different white folks from different parts of Europe that the country celebrated for so long) but that's not unique to St Johns or religious schools. In LA the joke name for UCLA is University of Caucasians Lost Amongst Asians. Sounds scary doesn't it.

 

[jerseyshorejohnny]

I'm a big fan of a meritocracy.

If you have the grades and extra curricular activities required by the admissions office you have earned the right to enroll, no matter what your heritage. 

Realize this has been a hot button issue in California particularly to UCLA (as you addressed), UCSD and Cal.

If UCLA was 100% Asian that would be OK with me if I was a California tax payer. The kids who were accepted and enrolled deserve to be there.

No one should be frozen out because of their race, creed or color if they are among the very best candidates applying.