1000's of kids making their communion today

jigglypuffstuff

Kenny Bania wrote: »

I'm not going to debate with you, because facts are not debatable. You're a fact-denier - nothing more. Move along - back to your church.

And yet you didnt answer his question about the BBC

Or Mine about Ireland

So you'll dismiss somebody because you cannot answer their question :pac:

You sound like a very logical person

Mr Rhode Island Red

This thread:

unseenfootage

legocrazy505 wrote: »

Didn't know we had a Ken Ham here in Ireland that wasn't a Healy Rae. :rolleyes:

I highly suggest you first check the creationist claim database before suggesting an argument that actually "stupifies" atheists:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI301.html

Also Krauss's theory is not simply "nothing" because as a physicist that nothing is actually something. You might first want to understand his idea before hand though the best thing about science is neither Krauss or Dawkins are authoritarian voices. The whole point is you bring your evidence to the table and then we fact check it. What evidence have you got for a creator because you must have something if you think these scientists are wrong. Bring it to the table and we can fact check it like any other theory. The problem I have with creationists is they come up with this idea that they are right but are afraid to give evidence that apparently can stand up against scientific scrutiny. Show us your evidence and you might just win a Noble Prize and dare I say it, change the world.

Ken Ham is a fool...lol.
I believe in old earth.

Just to let you know I am arguing from an intelligent design perspective. I don't need to refer to any religious texts. We can use scientific and rational arguments.

The arguments for intelligent design are many, but I will start off with too.
- Bing Bang.
Causality. Every effect has a cause. The universe came into existence. Scientists have proven throgh observation that it is expanding and concluded that since it is expanding it started off from one point in time, t=0 and from one "lump of dense matter." For the big bang to have occurred there had to be a potential; a cause.

- Finely tuned universe.
The physical constants that exist throughout the universe, without which the universe and life itself could not exist, can only be explained by the existence of an intelligent designer.

- Complexity of the cell.
- DNA -
etc....(will continue later)

The Randy Riverbeast

unseenfootage wrote: »

What a load of tripe. Go educate yourself on neo atheist scientist arguments re: the above before you engage me again.

I'll give you some tips.

Modern neo atheist arguments.
1)Nothing - Lawrence Kraus.
2) p̶r̶i̶m̶o̶r̶d̶i̶a̶l̶ ̶s̶o̶u̶p̶ "Don't know but we are working on it " - Richard Dawkins

Another fact that stupifies godless scientists is the finely tuned universe. Their unscientific theory is that the are infinite universes aka multiverse and that ours became finely tuned due to chance. (This of course is unscientific and irrational and has been refuted.)

Unscientific and irrational compared to magic?

unseenfootage

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Unscientific and irrational compared to magic?

You can call it magic. I'll call it supernatural.
As if "something from nothing" is not magic?...lol

legocrazy505

unseenfootage wrote: »

Ken Ham is a fool...lol.
I believe in old earth.

Just to let you know I am arguing from an intelligent design perspective. I don't need to refer to any religious texts. We can use scientific and rational arguments.

The arguments for intelligent design are many, but I will start off with too.
- Bing Bang.
Causality. Every effect has a cause. The universe came into existence. Scientists have proven throgh observation that it is expanding and concluded that since it is expanding it started off from one point in time, t=0 and from one "lump of dense matter." For the big bang to have occurred there had to be a potential; a cause.

- Finely tuned universe.
The physical constants that exist throughout the universe, without which the universe and life itself could not exist, can only be explained by the existence of an intelligent designer.

- Complexity of the cell.
- DNA -
etc....(will continue later)

The problem is your argument isn't using science, you are jumping to the "we don't know therefore God" argument used by Christians like yourself including Ken Ham. Intelligent design is equal to the creationist argument, it's just the cult of young earthers make up the smaller percentage. Their arguments are mostly the same though.

The problem with the big bang argument is it's illogical to try and debate what happens before t=0. But to use the fact we don't know to somehow make that mean there must be a designer doesn't hold up in the scientific field because there's zero evidence for you to back it up.

Again the finely tuned universe:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI301.html

unseenfootage wrote: »

You can call it magic. I'll call it supernatural.
As if "something from nothing" is not magic?...lol

I'm sorry but admitting it's supernatural automatically means you can't use science as a means of testing it. You can't prove the supernatural with science. The Atheist Experience deal with people who bring this up on a weekly basis, go check them out to see their answer to it because I haven't a huge amount of time to do it myself (I'm doing the leaving cert).

And again you don't seem to understand the something from nothing argument, it's confusing but Krauss' thesis is on the idea that in physics nothing is actually something. Krauss doesn't actually literally mean nothing made something, what he means is in quantum physics terms nothing can make something.

The Randy Riverbeast

unseenfootage wrote: »

You can call it magic. I'll call it supernatural.
As if "something from nothing" is not magic?...lol

Its more like, this is as far back we can go, not sure what happened before then.

Creationist hit the same wall, god created everything but there is a gap before that. God must have come from somewhere. The only difference is one group put some effort in trying to find an explanation.

unseenfootage

legocrazy505 wrote: »

The problem is your argument isn't using science, you are jumping to the "we don't know therefore God" argument used by Christians like yourself including Ken Ham. Intelligent design is equal to the creationist argument, it's just the cult of young earthers make up the smaller percentage. Their arguments are mostly the same though.

The problem with the big bang argument is it's illogical to try and debate what happens before t=0. But to use the fact we don't know to somehow make that mean there must be a designer doesn't hold up in the scientific field because there's zero evidence for you to back it up.

Again the finely tuned universe:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI301.html

I'm not following links. You can summarize here.

There are many things that science cannot explain and that scientists don't even endeavor to explain. Not sure why you raised scientific method when I clearly argued causality from a rational explanation.

You're getting a bit boring with your ken ham associations. Change your tune a bit and slow down on the rhetoric. You asked for arguments. I gave you a couple and you made no attempt at a decent rebuttal. At least you are not as hopeless as the other guy with his primoradial soup and nothing nonsense.

Pherekydes

unseenfootage wrote: »

Ken Ham is a fool...lol.
I believe in old earth.

Just to let you know I am arguing from an intelligent design perspective. I don't need to refer to any religious texts. We can use scientific and rational arguments.

The arguments for intelligent design are many, but I will start off with too.
- Bing Bang.
Causality. Every effect has a cause. The universe came into existence. Scientists have proven throgh observation that it is expanding and concluded that since it is expanding it started off from one point in time, t=0 and from one "lump of dense matter." For the big bang to have occurred there had to be a potential; a cause.

- Finely tuned universe.
The physical constants that exist throughout the universe, without which the universe and life itself could not exist, can only be explained by the existence of an intelligent designer.

- Complexity of the cell.
- DNA -
etc....(will continue later)

The eye, no doubt. And the banana.

legocrazy505

unseenfootage wrote: »

I'm not following links. You can summarize here.

There are many things that science cannot explain and that scientists don't even endeavor to explain. Not sure why you raised scientific method when I clearly argued causality from a rational explanation.

You're getting a bit boring with your ken ham associations. Change your tune a bit and slow down on the rhetoric. You asked for arguments. I gave you a couple and you made no attempt at a decent rebuttal. At least you are not as hopeless as the other guy with his primoradial soup and nothing nonsense.

The problem with your big bang theory is there are plenty of other theories that could explain it, like Krauss's "a universe from nothing". Since we don't actually have proof of anything before time I don't see how you are jumping from don't know to "ah well God created it". How do you know? It's illogical at this current time to conclude anything about what happened before time. Maybe if we find some way to bend time we might find a Morgan Freeman wishing the universe into existence but until then nobody can claim they have definitive proof. If you use the big bang must have a cause you then have to explain what caused the the thing that caused it and you then get into this infinitely long requirement to prove the cause of the causes.

As for the link I'll just copy and paste:
"The claim assumes life in its present form is a given; it applies not to life but to life only as we know it. The same outcome results if life is fine-tuned to the cosmos.

We do not know what fundamental conditions would rule out any possibility of any life. For all we know, there might be intelligent beings in another universe arguing that if fundamental constants were only slightly different, then the absence of free quarks and the extreme weakness of gravity would make life impossible.

Indeed, many examples of fine-tuning are evidence that life is fine-tuned to the cosmos, not vice versa. This is exactly what evolution proposes.

If the universe is fine-tuned for life, why is life such an extremely rare part of it?

Many fine-tuning claims are based on numbers being the "same order of magnitude," but this phrase gets stretched beyond its original meaning to buttress design arguments; sometimes numbers more than one-thousandfold different are called the same order of magnitude.

How fine is "fine" anyway? That question can only be answered by a human judgment call, which reduces or removes objective value from the anthropic principle argument.

The fine-tuning claim is weakened by the fact that some physical constants are dependent on others, so the anthropic principle may rest on only a very few initial conditions that are really fundamental. It is further weakened by the fact that different initial conditions sometimes lead to essentially the same outcomes, as with the initial mass of stars and their formation of heavy metals, or that the tuning may not be very fine, as with the resonance window for helium fusion within the sun. For all we know, a universe substantially different from ours may be improbable or even impossible.

If part of the universe were not suitable for life, we would not be here to think about it. There is nothing to rule out the possibility of multiple universes, most of which would be unsuitable for life. We happen to find ourselves in one where life is conveniently possible because we cannot very well be anywhere else.

Intelligent design is not a logical conclusion of fine tuning. Fine tuning says nothing about motives or methods, which is how design is defined. (The scarcity of life and multi-billion-year delay in it appearing argue against life being a motive.) Fine-tuning, if it exists, may result from other causes, as yet unknown, or for no reason at all.

In fact, the anthropic principle is an argument against an omnipotent creator. If God can do anything, he could create life in a universe whose conditions do not allow for it."

Kenny Bania

You can't fix stupid, lego. This guy doesn't wants facts or logic-based theories. He believes what he believes - that's it.

Mark Hamill

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I generally don't give two fcuks what organisations anyone affiliates themselves with. If they made any sort of hateful comments about anyone, or any group, then I'd give a shìt.

By affiliating with organisations that specifically make comments on other groups, like the RCC or the KKK make comments on others, then those people are supporting the same comments. Otherwise the "affiliation" is meaningless.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We were talking about people, not the Church.

And you implies that qualities of compassion, kindness etc had something to do with the church.

Mark Hamill

One eyed Jack wrote: »

People's attendance at Church in no way is a reflection of their feelings towards people who committed crimes against anyone

Except, clearly, it must be a reflection of how they feel towards the abusers. Unless you want to argue that people are attending church ignorant of the abuses, then you must agree that peoples attendance is made despite knowing it happened and knowing what the church did to protect the abusers.
Now, I don't think I would ever really say that anyone attending church condones the abuses, but I think it's fairly evident from the whataboutery and wilful (if not outright faux-) ignorance etc on display, that many people don't really care about them.

Mark Hamill

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Except, clearly, it must be a reflection of how they feel towards the abusers. Unless you want to argue that people are attending church ignorant of the abuses, then you must agree that peoples attendance is made despite knowing it happened and knowing what the church did to protect the abusers.
Now, I don't think I would ever really say that anyone attending church condones the abuses, but I think it's fairly evident from the whataboutery and wilful (if not outright faux-) ignorance etc on display, that many people don't really care about them.

So seeing as Kenny doesn't want to answer this question I'll ask you.
The BBC knew for years what Jimmy Saville & others were doing when the were sexually abusing children & others.
They kept it quiet & hidden away, protecting abusers.
Is anyone that watches BBC TV now condoning child abuse?

eviltwin

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Except, clearly, it must be a reflection of how they feel towards the abusers. Unless you want to argue that people are attending church ignorant of the abuses, then you must agree that peoples attendance is made despite knowing it happened and knowing what the church did to protect the abusers.
Now, I don't think I would ever really say that anyone attending church condones the abuses, but I think it's fairly evident from the whataboutery and wilful (if not outright faux-) ignorance etc on display, that many people don't really care about them.

I think most people genuinely fail to see the connection between going to mass and enabling a continued inertia by the hierarchy. As the saying goes, nothing changes if nothing changes.

unseenfootage

legocrazy505 wrote: »

The problem with your big bang theory is there are plenty of other theories that could explain it, like Krauss's "a universe from nothing". Since we don't actually have proof of anything before time I don't see how you are jumping from don't know to "ah well God created it". How do you know? It's illogical at this current time to conclude anything about what happened before time. Maybe if we find some way to bend time we might find a Morgan Freeman wishing the universe into existence but until then nobody can claim they have definitive proof. If you use the big bang must have a cause you then have to explain what caused the the thing that caused it and you then get into this infinitely long requirement to prove the cause of the causes.

I don't know why you are still citing a fruitcake like krauss that makes unintelligent claims that something can come from nothing. There are atheist physicists and philosophers that not only refute him but think that he is a crackpot.
Nevertheless, Ima wait for a pizza without making one myself or ordering it. If one suddenly appears within the next 30 minutes then I'll give Kraussionists the benefit of the doubt.

Mark Hamill

unseenfootage wrote: »

- Bing Bang.
Causality. Every effect has a cause. The universe came into existence. Scientists have proven throgh observation that it is expanding and concluded that since it is expanding it started off from one point in time, t=0 and from one "lump of dense matter." For the big bang to have occurred there had to be a potential; a cause.

Causality is dependent on the direction of time, i.e something that happens now, can only be caused that something that happened before it. Since time (and space) was created at the point of the big bang, causality wouldn't necessarily apply "outside" of the big bang (at least, causality as we perceive and understand).

One eyed Jack

Mark Hamill wrote: »

By affiliating with organisations that specifically make comments on other groups, like the RCC or the KKK make comments on others, then those people are supporting the same comments. Otherwise the "affiliation" is meaningless.

That'd be your take on it, but my take is that their affiliations or lack thereof are simply meaningless to me either way.

And you implies that qualities of compassion, kindness etc had something to do with the church.

I did not, and I never would, as they are universal human qualities that nobody has any copyright on. But if you're going to accuse a whole organisation of people of lacking compassion and kindness, not only would I be wondering about your sense of perspective, but I'd be thinking you're a bit picky choosy about who you show compassion and kindness to yourself, so you're hardly in any position to moralise about anyone else's lack of compassion and kindness.

Mark Hamill

bubblypop wrote: »

So seeing as Kenny doesn't want to answer this question I'll ask you.
The BBC knew for years what Jimmy Saville & others were doing when the were sexually abusing children & others.
They kept it quiet & hidden away, protecting abusers.
Is anyone that watches BBC TV now condoning child abuse?

No. The BBC, to my knowledge, has never claimed to be a church, with an unchanging infallible dogma asserting the organisations' own eternal infallibility.

Mark Hamill

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No. The BBC, to my knowledge, has never claimed to be a church, with an unchanging infallible dogma asserting the organisations' own eternal infallibility.

Kenny started this thread on the theory that anyone that allows their children to get communion or goes to mass etc is condoning abuse, because the RC Church protected & hid abusers.
By his reckoning people that watch BBC are also condoning child abuse.
Thread was not started as a 'whether people believe in God or not' thread.
There's plenty of them here.

legocrazy505

unseenfootage wrote: »

I don't know why you are still citing a fruitcake like krauss that makes unintelligent claims that something can come from nothing. There are atheist physicists and philosophers that not only refute him but think that he is a crackpot.
Nevertheless, Ima wait for a pizza without making one myself or ordering it. If one suddenly appears within the next 30 minutes then I'll give Kraussionists the benefit of the doubt.

Again it's not nothing, you don't seem to understand this. Yes I'm aware that his thesis has come under scientific criticism but that's what should happen to any scientific theory. The problem with your claim is it can't be put under the knife of science because you are assuming because we don't know something God did it. Science doesn't work that way and if it was a worthy claim then scientists would still be debating it.

I use Krauss as an example, I don't claim he answers the question of how the big bang happened. Nobody should claim they know.

Again though Krauss's nothing is actually not the layman understanding of nothing. In quantum physics nothing is always made of incredibly small things. Researching this would help you understand it (or maybe just watch one of countless videos he explains it) and then obviously research the arguments against it since it is after all just a theory.

bubblypop wrote: »

Kenny started this thread on the theory that anyone that allows their children to get communion or goes to mass etc is condoning abuse, because the RC Church protected & hid abusers.
By his reckoning people that watch BBC are also condoning child abuse.
Thread was not started as a 'whether people believe in God or not' thread.
There's plenty of them here.

Unfortunately people always end up coming along claiming to know the truth in these threads. It's quite sad really but atheists will for the foreseeable future have this issue.

I don't see how the BBC condones child abuse to begin with, the RCC has though simply moved bishops and stuff in order to allow child abusers remain in their church. Catholics should I believe be actively more upset about this and calling for more fair justice be served on some of these criminals. Victims clearly aren't all happy with the way the RCC have handled the issue http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/27/pope-francis-sex-abuse-scandal-survivors so Catholics definitely shouldn't be either. Obviously there are many Catholics horrified by the actions of their own church but there are many who take no notice of the scandals.

One eyed Jack

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Except, clearly, it must be a reflection of how they feel towards the abusers. Unless you want to argue that people are attending church ignorant of the abuses, then you must agree that peoples attendance is made despite knowing it happened and knowing what the church did to protect the abusers.
Now, I don't think I would ever really say that anyone attending church condones the abuses, but I think it's fairly evident from the whataboutery and wilful (if not outright faux-) ignorance etc on display, that many people don't really care about them.

Thank you. That's all I needed to hear tbh. I don't pretend to speak for anyone else's motivations and I can only speak for my own, but rest assured they are nothing to do with condoning child abuse, and any time anyone brings it up or tries to accuse me of somehow being willfully ignorant, or suggesting that I don't care for the victims of the RCC's efforts to cover up and protect abusers...

I have to make allowances for the fact that they really don't know me, so they're likely to make ill-informed presumptions based on a lack of evidence. I can live with that rather than justify myself to them tbh.

Mark Hamill

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That'd be your take on it, but my take is that their affiliations or lack thereof are simply meaningless to me either way.

So now you are saying if someone said they were with the KKK, that would be meaningless to you?
So if someone said they support Liverpool FC, you couldn't hazard a guess at what football team they follow?
If you had to choose between a dentist with their degree on the wall and someone down a back alley with a hammer and chisel, then you would just have to suffer with your toothache?
Because, you know, affiliations or lack thereof are meaningless.
Come off of it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I did not, and I never would, as they are universal human qualities that nobody has any copyright on.

Then what did you mean when you said:
"If their morals and integrity are more important to a person than showing compassion, kindness and caring to another human being, then how are they any different to the people whom they despise?"

Kenny Bania

bubblypop wrote: »

Kenny started this thread on the theory that anyone that allows their children to get communion or goes to mass etc is condoning abuse, because the RC Church protected & hid abusers.

Except I never said "condone". Read it back again. I asked if they are "cool" with it - i.e. why are they happy to stay associated with an organisation that committed such crimes. I never said 'condone', so stop saying I did.

And re your BBC analogy - the BBC is not an organisation that tells people how to live their lives, and has them sign up to a cult that offers all of life's solutions and claims to answer all questions about life & the universe. And did the BBC cover up abuse? I don't know - but if they did, anyone involved should be prosecuted & jailed.
And since I don't live in the UK, I don't pay a licence fee to the BBC - so I don't support them. But some people do object actually to paying their TV licence based on the paedophile accusations:
https://youtu.be/w_nRsnd2-Lo

But they're a TV station - not a cult. Did they move paedos around & hide them from the authorities, and intentionally hinder investigations? No.

Whereas the sole purpose of the RCC is money and to molest little boys. The rest is just a cover-story - all the jesus & god stuff. They even admit it here:
https://youtu.be/VABSoHYQr6k

jigglypuffstuff

Kenny Bania wrote: »

You can't fix stupid, lego. This guy doesn't wants facts or logic-based theories. He believes what he believes - that's it.

Logic? Your very argument is the height of hypocrisy

You condemn the organization which facilitated the abuse of children, yet you fail to see the states role...they are the ones who enabled the RCC...and ignored everything that was going on.....you are part of a nation that facilitated it...yet you're not renouncing your nationality are you?

But yes, you'll ignore the facts that dont support your argument in any way

Such logic :pac::pac:

eviltwin

pone2012 wrote: »

Logic? Your very argument is the height of hypocrisy

You condemn and organization which facilitated the abuse of children, yet you fail to see the states role...they are the ones who enabled the RCC...and ignored everything that was going on.....you are part of a nation that facilitated it...yet you're not renouncing your nationality are you?

But yes, you'll ignore the facts that dont support your argument in any way

Such logic :pac::pac:

I think his argument is society has moved on, government doesn't wilfully hide and protect abusers anymore. The church on the other hand.....

unseenfootage

legocrazy505 wrote: »

Again it's not nothing, you don't seem to understand this. Yes I'm aware that his thesis has come under scientific criticism but that's what should happen to any scientific theory. The problem with your claim is it can't be put under the knife of science because you are assuming because we don't know something God did it. Science doesn't work that way and if it was a worthy claim then scientists would still be debating it.

I use Krauss as an example, I don't claim he answers the question of how the big bang happened. Nobody should claim they know.

Again though Krauss's nothing is actually not the layman understanding of nothing. In quantum physics nothing is always made of incredibly small things. Researching this would help you understand it (or maybe just watch one of countless videos he explains it) and then obviously research the arguments against it since it is after all just a theory.

He just uses equivocation when he use the word nothing. What he really means by nothing is "quantum vacuum." I did a physics module in uni when I studied electrical engineering so I am aware of the structure of the atom - proton, neutron, nucleus, electron and that most of the atom is just space. (We didn't do quantum physics though) Krauss has argued with other academics and in my opinion his nothing theory has failed even at their level so I'm not convinced by your "laymen understanding of nothing" point. If he wants to say quantum vacuum then say "quantum vacuum" rather than equivocating by saying nothing.

If he still insists on saying that something came from nothing.
|Then he has to answer this.
If he says that there is NO God; that there is nothing out there; that God is nothing.
Then why cant something come from God?

Mark Hamill

bubblypop wrote: »

Kenny started this thread on the theory that anyone that allows their children to get communion or goes to mass etc is condoning abuse, because the RC Church protected & hid abusers.
By his reckoning people that watch BBC are also condoning child abuse.
Thread was not started as a 'whether people believe in God or not' thread.
There's plenty of them here.

I ... don't know what this has to do with what I said?
Did you even read what I wrote?

Kenny Bania

pone2012 wrote: »

You condemn the organization which facilitated the abuse of children, yet you fail to see the states role...they are the ones who enabled the RCC...and ignored everything that was going on.....you are part of a nation that facilitated it...yet you're not renouncing your nationality are you?

How far are you going to push this feeble attempt at an analogy? The government facilitated it, so I should stop being Irish? And didn't some Gardai also turn a blind eye? So maybe I should boycott calling the Gardai if I'm ever in trouble. Maybe I'll refuse to pay taxes so I'm not supporting the government that facilitated it. Didn't the RCC abuse kids all over the world?? Maybe I should leave the planet!

All you seem to be doing with this pathetic analogy is trying to spread out & deflect the blame from the actual perpetrators.

Mark Hamill

pone2012 wrote: »

Logic? Your very argument is the height of hypocrisy

You condemn the organization which facilitated the abuse of children, yet you fail to see the states role...they are the ones who enabled the RCC...and ignored everything that was going on.....you are part of a nation that facilitated it...yet you're not renouncing your nationality are you?

But yes, you'll ignore the facts that dont support your argument in any way

Such logic :pac::pac:

Isn't the RCC supplier of an infallible morality? Why should it need a government to tell it hold to be moral? Isn't it supposed to be the other way around?