Mother Teresa.

nozzferrahhtoo

Careful now of you will have our resident MT lover in here telling us that since none of us can show the money trail we can not prove she did NOT spend lots of money on the poor and was not in fact a great person and saint

CerebralCortex

Wasn't Christopher Hitchens on to her nonsense years ago?

robindch

^^^ Hitchens:

The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice

PopePalpatine

robindch wrote: »

^^^ Hitchens:

The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice

The funny thing is, I was on Facebook a while ago and noticed that the "Catholicism" page had a link to it as a "recommended page". :pac:

LittleBook

robindch wrote: »

^^^ Hitchens:

The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice

Regarding the title's double entendre, Hitchens remarked, "it was either that or Sacred Cow, and I thought Sacred Cow would be in bad taste."

:pac:

robindch

Pope Frank has announced that Mother Teresa is now a saint:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37269512

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65JxnUW7Wk4

Cabaal

She seems fitting to be a saint,
The church has a whole liked inflicting suffering on its victims and she believed suffering was good and thats why she withheld pain relief from people.

recedite

There has been a bit of sniggering going on regarding the two miracles attributed to M. Teresa. The two people cured of tumours.
But just because somebody takes a course of conventional medicine, it does not preclude the possibility they were actually cured by a photo under their pillow of somebody who had died a few years previously.

magicbastarder

i recently bought what my wife refers to as a flour or baking station - an old enamel topped little press.
the guy who sold it to us claimed it came out of the convent in drumcondra, and that mother teresa had used it when she was based there.

notwithstanding the fact that the convent she was based in when she was here is one in rathfarnham, afaik (thus adding bilocation to her portfolio), this can only make my recent acquisition more valuable.

Bristolscale7

Remember the mother teresa cinnabun?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4562170.stm

recedite

magicbastarder wrote: »

notwithstanding the fact that the convent she was based in when she was here is one in rathfarnham, afaik (thus adding bilocation to her portfolio), this can only make my recent acquisition more valuable.

Could it be used now to manufacture Mother Teresa's Miracle Wafers? There could be money in this.

magicbastarder

all the joints have failed in it and i have to try to inject them with wood glue. i had left it to see if it would miraculously heal itself, but no luck yet.

recedite

You need to pray harder and it will repair itself. Have you tried sleeping with a photo of M. Teresa under your pillow?

Just don't let the wife find the pic; it could be awkward to explain

cowboyBuilder

What always got to me about Mother Teresa was her anti contraception stance, she would happily advise poverty stricken women have 10 kids that would all live in misery and hunger, where they could have had 2-3 and been suffering a whole lot less.

That and all the dodgy money dealings im reading about since ..

Cabaal

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

What always got to me about Mother Teresa was her anti contraception stance, she would happily advise poverty stricken women have 10 kids that would all live in misery and hunger, where they could have had 2-3 and been suffering a whole lot less.

Catholics love misery, didn't you know that?
Pain and suffering is good for the soul

hgfj

For someone who was so in love with the idea (reality) of suffering she certainly knew how to look after herself. A lot better than the blunt needles she offered to the sick and dying in her poorhouses.


"In the April 1996 issue of the US magazine Ladies Home Journal, Mother Teresa said that she wanted to die like the poor in her home for the dying destitute in Kalighat. This is a very outrageous statement indeed. By then she had had numerous in-patient medical treatments in some of the most expensive clinics around the world. This includes the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, California and the Gemelli Hospital in Rome. She also had numerous treatments at Calcutta s Woodlands and Belle Vue Clinics, which are outside the reach of 99% of India s population. She also received (on numerous occasions) sophisticated and expensive cardiac treatments at Calcutta s Birla Heart Institute."


h ttps://deeshaa.org/deposition-mother-of-all-myths/

robindch

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

What always got to me about Mother Teresa was her anti contraception stance, she would happily advise poverty stricken women have 10 kids that would all live in misery and hunger, where they could have had 2-3 and been suffering a whole lot less.

That's because religious people are interested in live births, and those preferably to religious parents - the more live births there are to religious people (who tend to indoctrinate their kids), and the more that people live in poverty (which accentuates the religious belief), the more likely it is that the religious population will come to dominate the non-religious population over time.

Behold the power of memetic evolution.

wonderfullife

The hate and vitriol directed towards Mother T by the atheist community is kinda laughable. Hitchens fan-boys. She was no different to many religious and non religious icons of the 20th century. Good intentions but a flawed character.

looksee

wonderfullife wrote: »

The hate and vitriol directed towards Mother T by the atheist community is kinda laughable. Hitchens fan-boys. She was no different to many religious and non religious icons of the 20th century. Good intentions but a flawed character.

Hate? I am not seeing all that much hate. Its a popular argument to accuse atheists of hating religion, but really its more contempt for the sham, amusement at many of the ideas, and tolerance of the believers - the believers that don't try to inflict their ideas on non-believers that is. Hate is a very strong emotion that most atheists can't be bothered with, in respect of religion anyway.

wonderfullife

looksee wrote: »

Hate? I am not seeing all that much hate. Its a popular argument to accuse atheists of hating religion, but really its more contempt for the sham, amusement at many of the ideas, and tolerance of the believers - the believers that don't try to inflict their ideas on non-believers that is. Hate is a very strong emotion that most atheists can't be bothered with, in respect of religion anyway.

well i've seen plenty of animosity towards her on Twitter today.

Atheism is a sham in itself in many ways.

It amuses me that religious people and atheists have something hugely in common.

99.9% of atheists accept the Big Bang model to partially explain the beginning of the Universe. 99.9% of religious people think God created the universe.

What both models rely on, 100%, is the concept of "Ex Nihilo".

Science has a broad, accepted model of the formation of the universe (Big Bang Model) but haven't presented one cogent argument for the origin of the universe. I.e. All that energy that came together, heated up, creating the subatomic particles.... the only explanation science can offer for WHERE that energy came from is "Ex Nihilo" - It came out of nothing.

Equally, religious people wholly believe in the existence of God "Ex Nihilo".

Funny really. Both camps at polar opposites of a debate relying on the same abstract concept.

That something was just there out of nothing.

Energy was just there.

God was just there.

Meh. I wish people would take a more nuanced view of the whole thing. God might exist, and if "he" does, then i hope he's not a jackass. Or God might not exist, and in which case, i hope i'm not a jackass to people.

looksee

well i've seen plenty of animosity towards her on Twitter today.

I don't doubt you have, but animosity is not the same as hate.

Atheism is a sham in itself in many ways.

You can't just throw that out and not explain it further. Why is atheism a sham? Your example of creation doesn't seem to relate to that statement. I suggest your maths is a bit dodgy too, however can you explain why you consider atheism a sham?

AlfaZen

wonderfullife wrote: »

Atheism is a sham in itself in many ways.

It amuses me that religious people and atheists have something hugely in common.

99.9% of atheists accept the Big Bang model to partially explain the beginning of the Universe. 99.9% of religious people think God created the universe.

What both models rely on, 100%, is the concept of "Ex Nihilo".

Science has a broad, accepted model of the formation of the universe (Big Bang Model) but haven't presented one cogent argument for the origin of the universe. I.e. All that energy that came together, heated up, creating the subatomic particles.... the only explanation science can offer for WHERE that energy came from is "Ex Nihilo" - It came out of nothing.

Equally, religious people wholly believe in the existence of God "Ex Nihilo".

The difference is Science does no claim that the Big Bang is definitely the answer - just the best answer they have right now. They will continue to strive to find better answers.

Religion on the other hand claims they have the right and only answer. So your assertion that they are essential the same by both coming from Ex Niliho position is disingenuous to say the least.

wonderfullife

looksee wrote: »

You can't just throw that out and not explain it further. Why is atheism a sham? Your example of creation doesn't seem to relate to that statement. I suggest your maths is a bit dodgy too, however can you explain why you consider atheism a sham?

Given maths might not be my strongpoint i won't put a number on to this but i think it's reasonable to say that MOST atheists in the 21st century are "Atheists by Default".

I won't attempt a % but it's fair to say the majority.

So, you've got anything up to 1 billion people who believe in the non-existence of God purely by taking a default position that if the existence of God can't be proved then ipso facto "he" does not exist.

A similarly strong majority of atheists accept the "big bang" model as the likeliest model on the formation of the known universe.

This is relevant because the default position of religious people is that a supernatural God created the Universe and everything in it.


So, on the one hand we have atheists arguing that given there's no evidence for God creating anything, let alone the universe, he must not exist.

But the model they accept for creation (Big Bang) similarly has zero proof on where the energy came from in order to precipitate the formation of the universe.


A sham is when someone falsely presents something as the truth.

Given there's 100% lack of evidence on HOW creation began, WHERE creation began and WHY creation began - the only logical conclusion is that Religion and Atheism are both shams.

If given a choice to pick between the 2 shams i would veer towards religion purely on the basis that nothing in the natural world appears "Ex Nihilo".

Nothing. I can't think of a single physical, tangible, material thing in this universe that suddenly appears out of nothing.

On the basis that there are no natural explanations for creation, i'd have to side with their being a supernatural explanation that is beyond the comprehension of our human brains (as they exist today).

So, if i was forced to pick between 2 stools, i'd pick Religion over atheism as religion supposes (or asserts!) a Supernatural explanation - God - as the reason for creation.

Atheists offer no workable science based solution and close their minds to a supernatural explanation.

To me, that's as much (if not more) of a sham, although probably religion and atheism are equally a sham as they exist today.

A fundamental default position should be that the evidence neither supports or denies the existence of God but currently supports a Supernatural force involved in Creation.

AlfaZen wrote: »

The difference is Science does no claim that the Big Bang is definitely the answer - just the best answer they have right now. They will continue to strive to find better answers.

Religion on the other hand claims they have the right and only answer. So your assertion that they are essential the same by both coming from Ex Niliho position is disingenuous to say the least.

Yeah religion asserts there is a God and he created everything.

That's fundamentally flawed as it's only a probability.

Atheism asserts God doesn't exist, which is more flawed as the current best explanation for Creation is an Ex Nihilo existence of energy - which is impossible within the physical world as we know it.

So religion asserts based on a probability, Atheism asserts based on an impossibility.

Pherekydes

wonderfullife wrote: »

So, you've got anything up to 1 billion people who believe in the non-existence of God purely by taking a default position that if the existence of God can't be proved then ipso facto "he" does not exist.

Atheists do not believe in the existence of a deity. That's it. End of.


The rest you are making up and then projecting onto atheists.

wonderfullife

Pherekydes wrote: »

Atheists do not believe in the existence of a deity. That's it. End of.


The rest you are making up and then projecting onto atheists.

All available evidence points to a Supernatural reason to explain the creation of the universe.

Whether it's God or a magic pink unicorn OR even a phenomenon that changes the concept of how we view the natural world ..... all the evidence points to a supernatural inception of the universe.

AlfaZen

Firstly atheism and scientific theories about the origin of the universe are totally separate from each other.

Secondly your assertion that something from nothing cannot be explained so God is the only plausible answer is "God of the gaps" position.

The problem for that position is the gap is getting smaller all the time. Go back 200 years and there was a lot more that science could not explain.

Personally I would prefer to stay with science and continue to search for the answers to creation rather than take religions assertion that they have the answer when we all know the don't.

looksee

^^^ what he said. Edit: both Pherekydes and AlfaZen

Yeah religion asserts there is a God and he created everything.

That's fundamentally flawed as it's only a probability.

Who says its a probability? You believe its a probability. Just because you believe something, that does not make it so.

wonderfullife

looksee wrote: »

^^^ what he said.


Yeah religion asserts there is a God and he created everything.

That's fundamentally flawed as it's only a probability.

Who says its a probability? You believe its a probability. Just because you believe something, that does not make it so.

Given there is no current scientific explanation within the realms of the natural world for "energy" to appear out of nothing, that makes it a probability that there is a Supernatural explanation for how and why that energy appeared.

That supernatural explanation can either be a Deity (a God) or a scientific reason that completely changes the construct of the natural world. A reason that is so beyond our current comprehension that it may change how we view space and time.

At this point in time, given our current knowledge of the natural world is so detailed, it's probable there is a Supernatural explanation.

That may end up being a benevolent God, multiple Gods, or just in fact a Magic Fairy started the whole thing. But there's a definite probability it was a Supernatural causation to creation. And Creation is fundamental to religion.

Hotblack Desiato

wonderfullife wrote: »

So, on the one hand we have atheists arguing that given there's no evidence for God creating anything, let alone the universe, he must not exist.

But the model they accept for creation (Big Bang) similarly has zero proof on where the energy came from in order to precipitate the formation of the universe.

You are comparing apples and oranges. We have evidence the universe exists but we have no evidence whatsoever for the existence of any god(s).
The current imperfect status of our cosmological knowledge is not a logical argument for the existence of god(s).

A sham is when someone falsely presents something as the truth.

It's not presented as the truth, that's what preachers do not scientists.
Scientists say "This is the best answer we have now based upon the evidence we have now."

On the basis that there are no natural explanations for creation, i'd have to side with their being a supernatural explanation that is beyond the comprehension of our human brains (as they exist today).

The major problem for this stance is that the state of our knowledge is not static.

We now have perfectly natural explanations for events which used to be thought of as supernatural. Lightning. Fire. Earthquakes. Disease. Eclipses. Speciation. The list is very long. All of these were used in times past as 'proof' of the existence of god(s), malevolent spirits, etc.

But the gap into which the "god of the gaps" can fit is getting smaller and smaller over time.

Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
To which I would add - sufficiently advanced from the point of view of an observer who doesn't understand it. For instance, a hypothesis has been put forward that the "apparition" at Knock could have been caused by someone using a "magic lantern" - not magic at all but an ill-educated 19th century peasant could reach a different conclusion.

Ancient religions tried to explain events and processes which were thought to be magical, or supernatural, but now we know how these things happen. We may one day arrive at an explanation for the Big Bang. We may not. I can't say it'll have much effect on my life either way.

Atheism asserts God doesn't exist

False. Atheism/theism is a position about belief, agnosticism/gnosticism is a position about knowledge.

BlaasForRafa

wonderfullife wrote: »

All available evidence points to a Supernatural reason to explain the creation of the universe.

Whether it's God or a magic pink unicorn OR even a phenomenon that changes the concept of how we view the natural world ..... all the evidence points to a supernatural inception of the universe.

Go ahead and present this evidence to us then.

wonderfullife

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Go ahead and present this evidence to us then.

The laws of the natural world dictate that there is a cause. Something can't be created out of nothing.

The current scientific explanation for the formation of the Universe is:

13.7 billion years ago (t=0), a bunch of energy heated up, a big bang ensued, subatomic particles were created and then a long, long time later we have galaxies, solar systems, planets and Jedward.

t=0 implies inception and implies nothing existed before this.

Which then implies that the energy that caused the Big Bang was simply just there. It was there out of nothing. It's just there. Ex Nihilo deal with it.

That's problematic because there is it breaks every single part of the natural laws that govern everything.

It's also problematic for the Atheist position in the sense if you're arguing for a Science that bases it's whole model of Creation via Ex Nihilo, then that's the same basis religious people are ridiculed for the existence of God.

The fact that something can't be created from nothing.

In both situations, there is no natural explanation for how this is possible. There's no natural explanation that energy came into being from nothing and no natural explanation for how God came into being.

The answer isn't out there. Science can't find an answer for this because it bases it's whole model from t=0.

A t=0 model categorically can't look for a causation because it implies a moment in time where nothing existed before it and things just spontaneously began to exist.


At which point, atheists conveniently move their argument to "who cares? the universe exists now and i've plenty of evidence for it. Where's your evidence for the existence of God?".

You've then tried to say "well in 200 years from now, who knows what science might discover".

They CAN'T discover anything because they've all agreed the Universe has a start-point of t=0.

At which point, they make a mockery of science by saying "energy was just there. Take it on faith".

That's exactly what religious people do. They take it on faith that God created everything.

If i'm given a choice between believing my computer was made in a factory in China by people i've never met, will never see, will never know OR that it just spontaneously came into existence Ex-Nihilo, then i'm gonna have to go with "someone made it".

There is no natural explanation for the universe and it's an impossibility to ever reveal one because the human mind cannot understand the concept of something appearing from nothing.

Science is telling us to take it on faith that the energy simply existed. Religion tells us to take it on faith that God simply existed.

Either way, the universe had a Supernatural origin than can never be explained by science and can never be understood by humanity.

t=0 is impossible for us to understand.

God is an easier sell than no God.



Anyway, I kinda liked Mother Teresa. She was flawed and made a bunch of mistakes and is rightly criticised for some of her hypocrisy, but she did do a whole lot of good during her lifetime too.

vibe666

well done for a thoroughy comprehensive misunderstanding of the inception of our universe.

The big bang theory doesn't deal with anything before the big bang itself, it (and we) have no idea what was there *before* the big bang since time and space as we experience it didn't exist and the BBT doesn't "imply" anything about where the energy came from or how it came to be.

it doesn't however mean that nothing existed before the big bang or that our universe HAD to have been created by something supernatural, absolutely anything could have existed beforehand, but we'll simply (most likely) never know unless we figure out a way to exist outside of the space-time constraints of our physical universe, which doesn't seem all that likely any time soon.

because YOUR human mind can't comprehend a world without an all powerful creator god, doesn't mean others can't comprehend it, and it's drastically flawed logic to think otherwise. it wasn't that long ago that the brightest minds in the world couldn't reconcile the movement of the moons and planets in our solar system and concluded that it must have been 'god' as it couldn't have happened in such intricate detail on it's own. now we know differently and mathematical models can accurately map the movements of not only our own planets but those in other solar systems and even the movements of galaxies.

the big bang theory hasn't been 'just a theory' for quite a while either, it's a fact and you won't find a (sane) cosmologist who would call it into question. we're at a p[oint now where there's more rock solid irrefutable evidence for the big bang than there is for evolution, there just isn't any doubt at all thatthe big bang happened, it's just a fact. the details of *how* it happened and some of the finer points of what happened directly before ae still up for debate, but to claim that the big bang theory is anything other than 100% fact shows a complete lack of understanding of the underlying physics and cosmology that it explains and the almost infinitely intricate detail to which it explains it.

what's this got to do with mother theresa btw? :pac:

nozzferrahhtoo

wonderfullife wrote: »

It amuses me that religious people and atheists have something hugely in common.

Hasn't that been done before?

wonderfullife wrote: »

What both models rely on, 100%, is the concept of "Ex Nihilo".

Errrrr no. The Big Bang model relies on no such thing. In fact it makes no assumptions about the singularity which expanded at all other than that it was there. Where it came from, how it came to be, why it was there.... none of these things have anything to do with the model.

wonderfullife wrote: »

the only explanation science can offer for WHERE that energy came from is "Ex Nihilo" - It came out of nothing.

Errrr no. That is not the only possible explanation on the table. For example it might not have come from nothing, it might simply have ALWAYS been. The issue is that humans, yourself included it seems, tend to think of "nothing" as the default and that the "something" has to be explained. What such people, yourself included it seems, never explain is why "nothing" has to be the default in the first place.

That said however, as people like Laurance Krauss explain, a universe from nothing is actually more compatible with current science than many people might think.

wonderfullife wrote: »

Equally, religious people wholly believe in the existence of God "Ex Nihilo".

Equally, errrrrr no. The majority, if not the totality, of people I have discussed god(s) with ALSO think they were eternal and always there.

wonderfullife wrote: »

Funny really. Both camps at polar opposites of a debate relying on the same abstract concept.

Errrrrr no again, there are massive differences. Nothing the science camp has postulated, for example, is based on zero substantiation. The idea of a god is entirely unsubstantiated.

Further nothing in the scientific camp postulated an intelligent and intentional agency behind anything we observe. The god(s) camp do.

There are massive differences there, which you merely prune away to force them to look the same. If you do enough pruning and ignoring, even a 100 year old Oak tree can be made look "the same" as a Bonsai Tree.

wonderfullife wrote: »

Meh. I wish people would take a more nuanced view of the whole thing.

Check the mirror on that one, the lack of nuance is coming solely from your post here.

wonderfullife wrote: »

God might exist, and if "he" does, then i hope he's not a jackass. Or God might not exist, and in which case, i hope i'm not a jackass to people.

So you are happy to be a jackass to people if god does exist??? Fair enough.

There simply is NO arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer at this time to suggest a non-human intelligent and intentional agency is responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe. Not even a bit.

That can not be said for the "Big Bang" model which has quite a lot of substantiation. Nor is that model compromised by us having no explanation for what was "before" it.

wonderfullife wrote: »

So, on the one hand we have atheists arguing that given there's no evidence for God creating anything, let alone the universe, he must not exist.

There goes your lack of nuance again. I can probably count on one hand the number of atheists I have met who hold that position. The position they generally hold is that given the lack of even a modicum of substantiation that god exists, they merely proceed in life without the assumption that such an entity does exist.

That a god can not or must not exist however is not an assumption many appear to hold. I, for one, am perfectly open to the POSSIBILITY that such an entity exists. But being open to the possibility does not require, at any time, that I miss the simple fact that there is no reason AT ALL at this time to think it does.

That said we can say that PARTICULAR gods do not exist when their very definition precludes the possibility that they exist. Like a Married Bachelor, by simply definition they can not exist.

For example an All Powerful and All Knowing god can not exist. Simply by definition this would create too many contradictions, in the same way a Married Bachelor does.

wonderfullife wrote: »

But the model they accept for creation (Big Bang) similarly has zero proof on where the energy came from in order to precipitate the formation of the universe.

You are making a category error now. The model is not REQUIRED to explain where the energy "came from". The model only requires that it was there. You are asking the model to explain something that is not under its purview. You might as well go into a Ballistics class and complain they are not talking about the explanations for why, chemically, gun powder explodes. Or into a Cookery Class and moan that they are not talking about the biological processes by which Yeast causes bread to rise. Or an Evolution class harping on loudly that no one is explaining where the life matter came from in the first place.

Every model in science has a scope of what it explains, how and why. Moaning that it does not explain something outside it's scope achieves nothing other than to highlight your lay man status to the subject.

wonderfullife wrote: »

A sham is when someone falsely presents something as the truth.

Given there's 100% lack of evidence on HOW creation began, WHERE creation began and WHY creation began - the only logical conclusion is that Religion and Atheism are both shams.

You are conflating science and atheism now as if they are the same thing, which is false, at best, and a sham of your own at worst.

However science is not claiming to have explained anything it does not have substantiation for. The same can not be said of religion. So your prune heavy conflation of the two is merely getting more shrill now.

wonderfullife wrote: »

Nothing. I can't think of a single physical, tangible, material thing in this universe that suddenly appears out of nothing.

Then you are not thinking hard enough. "Empty" space in our universe is awash with particles that appears and disappear out of nothing all the time.

wonderfullife wrote: »

On the basis that there are no natural explanations for creation, i'd have to side with their being a supernatural explanation that is beyond the comprehension of our human brains (as they exist today).

That is called "the God of the Gaps" argument. Because you can not explain something, you merely arbitrarily choose an explanation. I guess some humans prefer ANY explanation to having no explanation at all.

The rest of us however are happy to divide the universe into things we know and things we are happy to admit we do NOT know. I know what we do not know, and I feel no compulsion to simply make nonsense up to plug the holes.

wonderfullife wrote: »

So, if i was forced to pick between 2 stools, i'd pick Religion over atheism as religion supposes (or asserts!) a Supernatural explanation - God - as the reason for creation.

Which makes no sense because you have moved from having no explanations for what you observe..... to having no explanations for what you observe AND what you have merely invented.

So you remain JUST as ignorant as you were before, only now about more things that before. And you act like this is some kind of improvement on matters?

wonderfullife wrote: »

Atheists offer no workable science based solution and close their minds to a supernatural explanation.

Now you are merely making things up. As I said above already, I have yet to meet a single atheist who has "closed their mind" to that explanation. They simply acknowledge that that explanation is currently not just slightly, but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated nonsense.

There is a MASSIVE difference between realizing an idea is unsubstantiated and so not accepting it, and being closed to the possibility that the idea is true entirely. You conflate the two for reasons of your own that I can only guess at. But honesty is not one of them I warrant.

wonderfullife wrote: »

A fundamental default position should be that the evidence neither supports or denies the existence of God but currently supports a Supernatural force involved in Creation.

Well isn't that nice considering that is CLOSER to the position atheists DO appear to actually hold in general. Though the word "supernatural" is merely superfluous and likely misleading there.

The atheist position, as far as I understand it myself, is merely that there is currently NO REASON AT ALL to think that the explanation for our universe, whatever it turns out to be, is a non-human intelligent and intentional agency.

wonderfullife wrote: »

Atheism asserts God doesn't exist

No. It does not. Perhaps you would do well to assert your own positions rather than assert (falsely) the positions of others. Let them do that for themselves thanks.

wonderfullife wrote: »

an Ex Nihilo existence of energy - which is impossible within the physical world as we know it.

Except it is not. Especially if the sum total of energy in the universe goes to zero which some science has suggested is in fact the case.

wonderfullife wrote: »

The laws of the natural world dictate that there is a cause. Something can't be created out of nothing.

Causality is time based and time is one of the things that came into being at the "big bang" point. Therefore demanding a causal based explanation for things outside the scope of the Big Bang and our current universe is another of those many errors you appear to be intent on making.

wonderfullife wrote: »

a bunch of energy heated up

Please explain what it means for energy to heat up. I am truly agog on this one.

wonderfullife wrote: »

t=0 implies inception and implies nothing existed before this.

No. It does not. But please by all means explain why you think it does.

wonderfullife wrote: »

That's problematic because there is it breaks every single part of the natural laws that govern everything.

Except the "natural laws" as you call them are attributes of the universe in it's current form and they break down at the Big Bang. So your demands, like your temporal error above, that the elements outside that scope conform to the laws within that scope is just another of your litany of lay man errors here.

wonderfullife wrote: »

It's also problematic for the Atheist position

The "atheist position" as you label it is merely that we have no reason to think the explanation for our universe is an intelligent and intentional agency. And nothing you have waffled on about so far is "problematic" for that position, no.

wonderfullife wrote: »

A t=0 model categorically can't look for a causation because it implies a moment in time where nothing existed before it

No. It implies a state where your use of the words like "before" are simply rendered non-sensical.

wonderfullife wrote: »

and things just spontaneously began to exist.

That OR things "always" existed and just spontaneously took on their current form.

wonderfullife wrote: »

There is no natural explanation for the universe and it's an impossibility to ever reveal one because the human mind cannot understand the concept of something appearing from nothing.

Or your human mind can not understand the concept that this MIGHT not be a requirement at all. Also just because WE do not have an explanation for it, that does not support your faith based assertion that no such explanation exists.

wonderfullife wrote: »

Science is telling us to take it on faith that the energy simply existed.

No, science is telling you there IS energy, we do not know why, and it is merely currently an open question. Do not conflate "open question" with "faith" as they could not be more different.

wonderfullife wrote: »

Either way, the universe had a Supernatural origin than can never be explained by science and can never be understood by humanity.

More faith based assertion that you are merely making up. All we know is that we do NOT understand it and HAVE NOT explained it. That does not mean we never will. Neither of us know that. Yet only one of us is pretending to. (Hint, of the two of us it is not me. The rest you should likely be capable of working out yourself).

wonderfullife wrote: »

God is an easier sell than no God.

No disagreement from me there. Simplistic nonsense is always going to be easier to sell to the masses than substantiated hard science and thought.

DublinWriter

wonderfullife wrote: »

All available evidence points to a Supernatural reason to explain the creation of the universe.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
- Clarke's Third Law.

sbsquarepants

wonderfullife wrote: »

well i've seen plenty of animosity towards her on Twitter today.

Atheism is a sham in itself in many ways.

It amuses me that religious people and atheists have something hugely in common.

99.9% of atheists accept the Big Bang model to partially explain the beginning of the Universe. 99.9% of religious people think God created the universe.

What both models rely on, 100%, is the concept of "Ex Nihilo".

.

This, I think, is a fairly ridiculous "point" something from nothing is hardly the point whatsoever.
There's a big difference in that something being just some fundamental force of nature and it being a supernatural being with magic powers.
Also, i don't mean to derail the thread with an obscure musing but is it even possible for "nothing" to exist. Existence surely implies "something" nothing is just non existence.

Anyway, back on topic. Mother Theresa - nah, she was a bit of a cúnt as far as I'm concerned. Suffering for the glory of god - all well and good until it was her turn to do some real suffering - then she pissed of to the US for some real scientific medical assistance, I'm sure there were plenty of pain killers which her order frowned upon to ease the suffering of the peasants she "helped" lest it upset the god she apparently didn't even really believe in. The woman was a fúcking psychopath!

magicbastarder

lads; about the big bang... yeah, eh, sorry, that was me. i accidentally divided an energy value by zero, and next thing there's **** *everywhere*; inflation, plasma, atoms, you name it. don't worry, it'll sort itself out in 90 billion years.

Hotblack Desiato

Let's for the sake of argument assume that the Big Bang was caused by a supernatural force or 'god' if you prefer.

Then what?

Everything that has happened since then can be explained in terms of physical laws and natural processes. There is no evidence whatsoever that a god has ever intervened since then, let alone a theistic god who supposedly watches while we browse porn on the internet, or judges us for wearing the wrong sort of fibres.

Theistic gods and all that go with them are clearly man-made according to all the evidence we have.

We're left with a weak deism, 'something' created the universe but then did nothing since. So why should I care a jot whether a deistic god exists or not? It can't intervene in my life and there's still no argument for any afterlife that hasn't been conjured up out of nothing.

But even that deistic argument has a flaw. If this deity created the universe, what created it? Or if the deity does not need a creator, why does the universe need one?

sbsquarepants

magicbastarder wrote: »

lads; about the big bang... yeah, eh, sorry, that was me.

You're Chuck Lorre :eek:

Don't feel too bad, it passes a half hour every now and then and penny's quite hot.

Cabaal

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Let's for the sake of argument assume that the Big Bang was caused by a supernatural force or 'god' if you prefer.

Then what?

Well, obviously the next question is.....what created god? After all clearly god would have to be made of some sort of energy (energy can't come from nowhere so the god would need a large amount of energy to create energy/the big bang etc)

Clearly it was a larger, more powerful god and before that it was a more power god and so on and so on, of course this means that Christians worship the newest and most puny of these gods because their god doesn't even have the power to create another god. Pathetic!

Anyway, I prefer to think it was a turtle, its just as logical as god and there as much chance that it was a turtle as it was the christian god.

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Let's for the sake of argument assume that the Big Bang was caused by a supernatural force or 'god' if you prefer.

Nobody's ever told me how the religious know that whatever created the universe was the same guy who showed up as a bearded Rabbi in first century Palestine and went on to have himself executed so that he could be sure that everybody would know how much he loved them.

Cabaal

robindch wrote: »

Nobody's ever told me how the religious know that whatever created the universe was the same guy who showed up as a bearded Rabbi in first century Palestine and went on to have himself executed so that he could be sure that everybody would know how much he loved them.

If we go the first god our species worshipped then its a 40,000 year old god

The oldest evidence of a human religion that worshipped a supernatural deity is the Löwenmensch figurine, a half-human, half-lion sculpture made approximately 40,000 years ago, originally excavated from a German cave in 1939. A relic of the Aurignacian culture, the figurine is likely the totem of a prehistoric ancestor cult with animist beliefs. The half-human, half-lion form of the figurine is most likely a reflection of the belief that ancestor spirits dwelled in the bodies of European cave lions, an animal that went extinct about 12,000 years ago.

So I guess I was wrong about turtles, but atleast it was a half animal god that did the job :pac:

mikhail

wonderfullife wrote: »

The hate and vitriol directed towards Mother T by the atheist community is kinda laughable. Hitchens fan-boys. She was no different to many religious and non religious icons of the 20th century. Good intentions but a flawed character.

What's laughable is calling her a saint.

learn_more

I think she wasn't very bright.

pauldla

learn_more wrote: »

I think she wasn't very bright.

Who is more not very bright, the not very bright or the not very bright that follow her?

(I wish there were a clearer way to express that. Help me, Obi Wan...!)

robindch

pauldla wrote: »

Who is more not very bright, the not very bright or the not very bright that follow her?

"Who's more in the dark? The dimwit at the front or the benighted behind?"

mikhail

pauldla wrote: »

Who is more not very bright, the not very bright or the not very bright that follow her?

(I wish there were a clearer way to express that. Help me, Obi Wan...!)

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

learn_more

pauldla wrote: »

Who is more not very bright, the not very bright or the not very bright that follow her?

(I wish there were a clearer way to express that. Help me, Obi Wan...!)

No idea. Ask Yoda.

learn_more

stevejazzx wrote: »

Hitchens is ruthless on this subject but I'd class it as one of his misfires.
He goes a bit ott on the criticism. She was for all intent and purposes a good enough woman but Hitchens slates her on everything he can get his hands on including issues like her not being a friend of the poor but rather of 'poverty'. Thats the kind of odd political attack he makes on her person that I find a bit uneasy even if they are, on a technical level, true.
He proudly attests to the fact that he played devils advocate after her nomination of beatification.

I 'm a fan of Hitchens but I think someone of his considerable energies should be attacking the more formidable enemies of reason (which he does of cours) as much as he can.

In saying all that, it was however declared recently that she couldn't find it within herself to believe in a God. Quite remarkable really when you think about it.

Well she's famous because she's a saint. To an atheist that's meaningless.

I think Hitches points about her are completely valid. I haven't heard anyone make any augments against his points about her ?

Saying she was 'a good enough person' doesn't cut it. I'm a good enough person if you don't mind me saying so. Most people are.

Furthermore you actually say his points about her are largely true, so I'm not quite sure what your point is?

robindch

The Holy Stone of ClonrickertCalcutta is visiting Killarney for a few days R+R in the cathedal there during July:

https://www.killarneytoday.com/three-day-veneration-plan-cathedral/

KillarneyToday wrote:

"The relic has been secured from the Sisters of Charity [...]".

magicbastarder

a 'first class' relic? does this mean it's verified? or an actual body part?