Uncle Geo Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 Uncle Geo, I can faithfully promise you that my previous discourse rejecting the notion of Atheism as a 'religion' came entirely from informal observation. Your reassertion of the 'Atheism is a Religion' notion has now caused me to research further: http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheism/p...ismReligion.htm I found it uncanny how closely this site parallels the definitions and characteristics (after the event) that I had offered you. I'm sure you would maintain that you are a better judge than an outside observer as to whether Catholicism is a religion. Can you not likewise accept that Atheists are the best judges of whether or not Atheism is a religion? Or is it the case that you believe Catholicism alone has the last word on that? I had come to think more highly of you than that, Uncle Geo. Perhaps for someone deeply immersed in any organized religion it is hard, even impossible, to conceptualize individuals with a blank slate where religion resides for others. But that is the way it is. http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/...el_religion.htm Am I an Atheist? That's between me and my God. @ Jon ... You've asked me to address this post (303)... I'm not sure that I can do justice to it. I can promise you that I will make no attempt to baffle you with BS ... namely because I don't think I, nor anyone else for that fact, could do it ... Beside the fact that I do truly respect your point of view. I'm sure that you are better qualified to decide exactly what the parameters of Atheism entail ... especially in regard to my contention that Atheism is a religion of sorts. Someone earlier posted that they don't believe that I know the difference between a religion and an ideology ... perhaps they are right, but I would hope it not so. I say that only because of anecdotal observations and my personal definition of religion. Atheism is a belief in "no god" ... yes? I'm not quite sure how a Realist can believe in a negative, "no god", because I can't understand how a negative can be proven. Believing that we are finite beings with limited understanding, how does an Atheist dare refute a "First Cause"? Or will an Atheist accept that idea ... necessarily leading to the belief that the "First Cause" must be defined as "God" so that we can wrap our finite minds around the concept ... yes? If an Atheist doesn't believe in a "First Cause" then how do they explain ...well, everything? Whatever the answer you are looking for from me, in the end I must say that I know what I believe in and that's the way my belief will stay ... kind of harsh, but that's the way it is for me ... and probably for you too. Opposite sides of the fence, my friend ... opposite sides of the fence. @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 If any Church should be labeled the Church of Satan, it should be the Catholic Church. EXACTLY!n Who wants a god who threatens you wil hell if you don't obey his rles? Gee what a friendly god that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 EXACTLY!n Who wants a god who threatens you wil hell if you don't obey his rles? Gee what a friendly god that is. LOL one of the least articulate posts ever on this site... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 LOL one of the least articulate posts ever on this site... Glad you liked it. Better rush off to confession now, you have sinned! @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 That's not a sin...It was a truthful comment meant to enlighten you that you need to increase your education. I did you a favor! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 EXACTLY!n Who wants a god who threatens you wil hell if you don't obey his rles? Gee what a friendly god that is. It's not WHO wants a God.....its the God we have. He is an all true, loving God. He desires to save everyone......but everyone cannot be saved because of the poor choices they make. It wouldn't be just to send Mother Teresa type people to heaven and at the same time un-repentant murderers to heaven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polly Ezsterpantz Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 In the name of all that is holy (I do love irony), will someone pull the plug on this tired thread? The poor OP shoulda known it was not a good idea to try and find a constructive answer on BCV. I'm sure another thread will be close on the heels of this one to give all the thumpers and agnostics and zealots and atheists and morons and AFC's-in-guests-clothing -- was that an oxymoron? -- something to dig their dogmas into. @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Look at www.stopbaptistpredators.org. The media states that abuse by Protestant ministers may exceed that of Catholic priests. It further states that because of their decentralized structure, it is harder to quantify the reports. The Baptist church refuses to provide numbers. It is open season on Catholics in this country. Unfortunately, we handed them all the ammunition they needed to tear us apart. Shame on us for not rooting out bad priests and demanding action from bishops. However, if you look at the good the Catholic church does, schools, hospitals, missions, social services, that is what really represents us, not a few bad apples in the clergy. First, I would say it is a little overzealous to say "the media states that abuse by Protestant ministers may exceed that of Catholic priests." Let's keep it real and just agree a couple news stories make this claim. Looking further at these articles it is apparant that the claim comes from a single statement from a Joe Trull. The second problem I see is that two of the reporters (P&SB's William Moyer and Rose French seem to be "paraphasing" an earler work by Bob Allen. It is evident these two are "borrowing heavily" from Allen without giving him credit. I found these coincidences among others: William Moyer-"But tracking allegations and confirmed cases of misconduct by Protestant clergy is an elusive task because Christianity's other ecclesiastical division is wildly diverse, congregational and sometimes staunchly independent compared to Catholicism's centralized hierarchy." Rose French-Protestant numbers have been harder to come by and are sketchier because the denominations are less centralized than the Catholic church; indeed, many congregations are independent, which makes reporting even more difficult. Bob Allen-Protestant numbers are harder to come by, the AP reported, because the denominations are less centralized than the Catholic Church. Many churches are independent, making reporting even harder. W.M.-Brotherhood Mutual said it has received an average of 73 reports of child sex abuse and other sexual misconduct every year for the past 15 years. However, Brotherhood does not specify which victims are younger than 18 so it is impossible to accurately add that to the total cases. R.F.-Brotherhood Mutual said it has received an average of 73 reports of child sex abuse and other sexual misconduct every year for the past 15 years. However, Brotherhood does not specify which victims are younger than 18 so it is impossible to accurately add that to the total cases. B.A.-Brotherhood Mutual said it received an average of 73 reports of child sex abuse and other sexual misconduct every year for the last 15 years but did not specify how many victims are younger than 18. W.M.-The largest company, Church Mutual of Merrill, Wis., with 96,000 clients including the Wyoming Conference, reported an annual average of 100 child sex abuse cases during the past decade. R.F.-The largest company, Church Mutual, reported an average of about 100 sex abuse cases a year involving minors over the past decade. B.A.-The largest company, Church Mutual, reported an average of about 100 sex-abuse cases a year involving minors over the last decade. W.M.-GuideOne, headquartered in West Des Moines, Iowa, reported an average of 160 reports every year for the past two decades among its 45,000 clients. R.F.-GuideOne, which has about half the clients of Church Mutual, said it has received an average of 160 reports of sex abuse against minors every year for the past two decades. B.A.-GuideOne, with about half the clients of Church Mutual, said it has received an average of 160 reports of sex abuse against minors every year for the past two decades. Basically, you have two people repeating what one person wrote. I did notice that the article made inquiries to Church Mutual Insurance Co., GuideOne Insurance Co. and Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Co. I also noticed that the Catholic Mutual Group (which insures over 50% of North America's Catholic Churches) was not asked for their statistics at all. Instead, Bob Allen's article relies on what the Catholic Church self-reports as "credible accusations" Is this the same thing as what is reported to insurance companies? It doesn't sound like it to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 The Catholic Church is notorious for reporting half-truths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Jon ... You've asked me to address this post (303)... I'm not sure that I can do justice to it. I can promise you that I will make no attempt to baffle you with BS ... namely because I don't think I, nor anyone else for that fact, could do it ... Beside the fact that I do truly respect your point of view. I'm sure that you are better qualified to decide exactly what the parameters of Atheism entail ... especially in regard to my contention that Atheism is a religion of sorts. Someone earlier posted that they don't believe that I know the difference between a religion and an ideology ... perhaps they are right, but I would hope it not so. I say that only because of anecdotal observations and my personal definition of religion. Atheism is a belief in "no god" ... yes? I'm not quite sure how a Realist can believe in a negative, "no god", because I can't understand how a negative can be proven. Believing that we are finite beings with limited understanding, how does an Atheist dare refute a "First Cause"? Or will an Atheist accept that idea ... necessarily leading to the belief that the "First Cause" must be defined as "God" so that we can wrap our finite minds around the concept ... yes? If an Atheist doesn't believe in a "First Cause" then how do they explain ...well, everything? Whatever the answer you are looking for from me, in the end I must say that I know what I believe in and that's the way my belief will stay ... kind of harsh, but that's the way it is for me ... and probably for you too. Opposite sides of the fence, my friend ... opposite sides of the fence. @ I think you are confusing believing in "No God" and believing in something totally different: believing in a universe that doesn't require a God. These are two different concepts. Why does the First Cause need to be God? Why can't it be something else like the Big Bang Theory, Vacuum Theory, or Inflation Theory? "First Cause" = God is a non-sequitor The possiblity of something to not exist does not necessarily mean that it has not existed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 I think you are confusing believing in "No God" and believing in something totally different: believing in a universe that doesn't require a God. These are two different concepts. Why does the First Cause need to be God? Why can't it be something else like the Big Bang Theory, Vacuum Theory, or Inflation Theory? "First Cause" = God is a non-sequitor The possiblity of something to not exist does not necessarily mean that it has not existed. Well none of those theories can still explain the moment of creation yet, but your basic premise is correct... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 In the name of all that is holy (I do love irony), will someone pull the plug on this tired thread? The poor OP shoulda known it was not a good idea to try and find a constructive answer on BCV. I'm sure another thread will be close on the heels of this one to give all the thumpers and agnostics and zealots and atheists and morons and AFC's-in-guests-clothing -- was that an oxymoron? -- something to dig their dogmas into. The 'poor OP' probably did know. For all we know he/she might have intended to stimulate the sort of discussion that evolved. It's probably fair to believe that those who had a direct answer to offer to the opening question as put have already given it their answers. Thereafter everyone has settled into philosophizing as usually happens. It's the broader questions that preoccupy a lot of posters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 I'm actually surprised that for the most part it has been a more intellectual debate than usually found of bcvoice...with few personal attacks. Nice for a change.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 The 'poor OP' probably did know. For all we know he/she might have intended to stimulate the sort of discussion that evolved. It's probably fair to believe that those who had a direct answer to offer to the opening question as put have already given it their answers. Thereafter everyone has settled into philosophizing as usually happens. It's the broader questions that preoccupy a lot of posters. And he can read minds via the internet too. Amazing. @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Well none of those theories can still explain the moment of creation yet, but your basic premise is correct... Actually, Vacuum Theory does explain it. This was discussed earlier in the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 No it actually doesn't fully explain it...if you have a full non-Wikipedia link that explains how the vacuum created energy feel free to post it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Jon ... You've asked me to address this post (303)... I'm not sure that I can do justice to it. I can promise you that I will make no attempt to baffle you with BS ... namely because I don't think I, nor anyone else for that fact, could do it ... Beside the fact that I do truly respect your point of view. I'm sure that you are better qualified to decide exactly what the parameters of Atheism entail ... especially in regard to my contention that Atheism is a religion of sorts. Someone earlier posted that they don't believe that I know the difference between a religion and an ideology ... perhaps they are right, but I would hope it not so. I say that only because of anecdotal observations and my personal definition of religion. My observations too are anecdotal. But I found it interesting that my observations seemed borne out by those linked sites in which Atheists themselves spell out the parameters of their beliefs. What they had to say was pretty much chapter & verse what I had expected. Atheism is a belief in "no god" ... yes? I'm not quite sure how a Realist can believe in a negative, "no god", because I can't understand how a negative can be proven. Believing that we are finite beings with limited understanding, how does an Atheist dare refute a "First Cause"? Or will an Atheist accept that idea ... necessarily leading to the belief that the "First Cause" must be defined as "God" so that we can wrap our finite minds around the concept ... yes? If an Atheist doesn't believe in a "First Cause" then how do they explain ...well, everything? I feel this is where you perhaps misunderstand the Atheist position, Uncle Geo. I can understand and in fact anticipated their position when I detailed in an earlier post in this thread: To get back (at least part way) to the theme of this thread, it seems reasonable to believe that all of creation had some underlying cause. But we can only infer cause and its nature by using the equipment we have ..... From that to an all-knowing Entity that has ideas and opinions and ethics and a scale of rewards and punishments and plans for the future including our own and heeds prayer from occupants of fox holes etc etc suggests a consciousness resembling our own and that is quite a leap with scant evidence to justify or support it. Why can't it be the case that the Universe is 'self-defining' and indifferent with no agenda. Why can't it just 'be'? In short, one can believe in a 'First Cause' in raw form without weighing it down with all manner of bolt-on accessories of supposed character designed 'make God in Man's image'. Atheists would argue that all that does is take us not closer to truth but further away from it. Whatever the answer you are looking for from me, in the end I must say that I know what I believe in and that's the way my belief will stay ... kind of harsh, but that's the way it is for me ... and probably for you too. Opposite sides of the fence, my friend ... opposite sides of the fence. Your use of the 'fence' metaphor is especially interesting. We could have a lively debate about who put any fence in place, and exactly what does it really divide. Has it in fact become an enclosure that cocoons religions from reality? Do those outside that fence enjoy unrestricted access to the full breadth and richness of reality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 No it actually doesn't fully explain it...if you have a full non-Wikipedia link that explains how the vacuum created energy feel free to post it! It DOES explain it. I can't post a link from a book I have in my personal possession. To show that energy and matter can be created out of nothing, this link will have to do: http://universe-review.ca/R03-01-quantumflu.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 And he can read minds via the internet too. Amazing. I thank you for tipping your hand. You do realize that I will now get busy joining some dots, don't you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 In short, one can believe in a 'First Cause' in raw form without weighing it down with all manner of bolt-on accessories of supposed character designed 'make God in Man's image'. Atheists would argue that all that does is take us not closer to truth but further away from it. That Occam fellow was on to something. @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 That link was talking about a quantum vacuum...not a classical vacuum. If you read your own post you would know that and the principle is only valid in a quantum vacuum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Geo Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 My observations too are anecdotal. But I found it interesting that my observations seemed borne out by those linked sites in which Atheists themselves spell out the parameters of their beliefs. What they had to say was pretty much chapter & verse what I had expected. I feel this is where you perhaps misunderstand the Atheist position, Uncle Geo. I can understand and in fact anticipated their position when I detailed in an earlier post in this thread: In short, one can believe in a 'First Cause' in raw form without weighing it down with all manner of bolt-on accessories of supposed character designed 'make God in Man's image'. Atheists would argue that all that does is take us not closer to truth but further away from it. Your use of the 'fence' metaphor is especially interesting. We could have a lively debate about who put any fence in place, and exactly what does it really divide. Is it in fact an enclosure that cocoons religions from reality? Do those outside that fence enjoy unrestricted access to the full breadth and richness of reality? Interesting observations Jon, but I still can't understand how one, who professes to be an Atheist, can believe in a "First Cause", no matter how raw the form, without admitting to a Supreme Being. As for the fence ... who will be the first to declare which side is the inside and which side is the outside? @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Geo Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 It DOES explain it. I can't post a link from a book I have in my personal possession. To show that energy and matter can be created out of nothing, this link will have to do: http://universe-review.ca/R03-01-quantumflu.htm This is far above my capacity but reading what you posted makes me wonder how you can prove the existence of 'nothing'? What is the definition of "nothing"? And if the existence of 'nothing' can be proven, then how was it made and who made it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 1.According to Heisenberg Uncertainty, either the product of the uncertainty in momentum times the uncertainty in the position of a/an system/object....or...according to Einstein....the product of the uncertainty in the energy times the uncertainty in the time of the measurement of same is equal to or less than h-bar where h = Planck's constant and h-bar is that divided by two. 2. From Weinstein's physics page...h-bar is 1.0546 times 10-27erg*sec. Since an erg =~6.24 times 105Mev...that reduces to ~ 6.58 X 10-22Mev*sec. This is what Yukawa used to find the ~ mass of the exchange particle in the nucleus. 3. Let's take the mass of the universe as ~ 1079 protons. A single proton has a mass of ~ 938 Mev/c2. Multiplying, we get ~ 1080Mev/c2. 4. we'll let your cosmologist have the energy "fluctuate" to create a matter universe, and an antimatter universe simultaneously. That means 2 times 1080 Mev/c2, for the uncertainty in the mass/energy part. 5. So, ( 2 X 1080Mev/c2 )( Delta T)=~ 6.58 X 10-22Mev*sec. 6. Solving for Delta T, the time for which this quasi-state may exist by HUP...yields it exists for =~ 3.29 X 10-102seconds. Then it disappears, both the matter version and the antimatter version together. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle never said an "empty vacuum" could fluctuate into the universe we see. Hopefully these physicists didn't work part time in the stock market over the last decade ... this is ~ 10-58 Planck-times...absurd. Well this is as far as I know... @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 That link was talking about a quantum vacuum...not a classical vacuum. If you read your own post you would know that and the principle is only valid in a quantum vacuum. Well I was talking about quantum vacuums earlier. I don't recall ever referring to a classical vacuum. What does it matter? Quantum potential exists at every point in the vacuum of our three-dimensional physical space. Or are you going to argue otherwise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.