Hate to break this to you Gramps but KMC's religion forum is not a catholic or christian forum. People of all creeds or no creeds go here and debate.
This forum wasnt created to convert anyone to a particular religion. As a Christian you should avoid spamming Bible quotes. If you re planning to do any converting, the best way would be is to prove your point in a debate.
And before i forgot, all human are born atheists. Its up to the parents or the surrounding elders to indoctrinate the child as it grows up into a specific religion.
You are laboring under the retarded impression that science and religion CANT co-exist and that science is atheistic. This is just simply wrong. Have you read of the Clergy Letter Project.
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” [directed at Intelligent Design] is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris.
As a Catholic (and a christian in general), you have FLAWED answers for everything.
Last time i checked, the gravitational potential energy that exists in a "vacuum" (as empty as quantum physics would allow) is what kick started the Big Bang.
Last time, i checked whenever you ask the question as "who created your god", Christians would COP OUT and claim that their "God" is exempt from the chain of causality. There is no proof of this of course, heck, there is also no proof that their god exists on the first place. Because of their blind faith, they just ASSUMED that this being exist and ASSUMED in addition, that this being is exempt from the chain of causality. So many baseless assumptions to based your "truths" on.
I could always assume that Santa Claus exists and that i could also assume in addition to that he wears yellow panties underneath all that red fur.
Its makes more sense to claim that the universe itself is exempt from the chain of causality rather than extend the chain and assume a none-existent being to create the universe and stop the chain of causality there.
I could always extend the chain of causality by assuming that a much higher god created the Christian god.
Science is not a religion in the traditional sense of the word.
However, science may be considered a religion under the metaphorical definition of something pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. This, however, could also apply to stamp collecting, watering plants, jacking off or practically any other activity. Calling science a religion makes religion effectively meaningless.
Old man, why dont you just admit that youre afraid to debate, specifically the merits of the geocentric theory? You dont have to make cop out explanations and say that "Atheists just wont understand".
The sensual "reality" youre feeling of the sun moving around the Earth is an illusion created by the earth's rotation on its axis. Youre assuming ERRONEOUSLY that the ground youre standing on is stationary and use it as point of reference to explain the movements of the heavenly bodies thats why you feel that everything seems to be revolving around the earth. You know the force of gravity? Thats the thing that compels less massive objects like earth to orbit more massive objects like the sun. More mass=more force of attraction.
Geocentricity violates the law of gravity. Heliocentricity does not.
If you want to disprove heliocentricity, you could start by attacking gravity.
Blah-blah-blah. Dont care about that other discussion board you brag about. Is that suppose to impress us? If so, youre wrong.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
A Christian denomination. Happens to be the largest with an immense history. Mostly defined by it's institutionalized set up and it's supreme ruler, the pope, that is believe to be the speaker of God here on earth.
The pope considers me a Catholic. So does the rest of the Catholic Church. I am not a believer though.
No, it is likely fictional in large parts.
I know what truth is. Where it resides I can only guess.
Top of the mornin to ye all. For weeks you guys have been trying to make an ejit out of Transfinitum but when it comes to your turn you cannot take it, especially Chickenlover. See how easy it is to take control and cause the hounds to come racing after you with vengeance on their minds. The fact that this is a non-denominational forum is actually better but I would like some more Catholic Copernicans to join the exchange (One of you guys said the debate hadn't started yet). Does anyone know the difference between a heliocentricist and a Copernican? Well an atheist, or a Buddhist for that matter, believes the earth goes around the sun and spins on an axis. A Copernican however believes the same AND that the BIBLE can be interpreted heliocentrically. Templares, the guy who called me Gramps, are you a Catholic or an atheist or what? You quote a Catholic group who think that Catholic faith and science are compatible. If by science you mean 'modern science' as is accepted by the world order today, then I disagree, the Catholic faith is not compatible with it. Now I know you will come back and say but popes since Benedict XIV in 1741 have said it is, but that is only their OPINION. There is a higher order of TRUTH than the utterances of Churchmen, but this has been abandoned. Perhaps now those of you who are non-Catholics might see that the debate really exists outside of your one-dimensional brains. Catholicism (note How I distinguish between Catholicism, Catholics and Churchmen) has two sources that lead to truth, divine revelation (yes the Bible) and empirical investigation. The Atheist only has one and this compromises him.
Oh by the way Templares let me answer your belief that 'and before I forgot, all human are born atheists. Its up to the parents or the surrounding elders to indoctrinate the child as it grows up into a specific religion.'
OK. Let this be the first exchange, the first point on which any neutral or objective reader can decide on. If all human beings were born atheists, necessitating indoctrination to attain faith, then how come EVERY nation, EVERY tribe, even those found in the last few centuries in jungles and on Islands where no religious missionaries ever set foot, ALL were theists? Name one atheistic people that even resided on earth. Have you read the history on atheism, a book recently published? Well the author of this book has tracked down the first public atheist on earth, and guess what, guess what century he popped up in, the SEVENTEENTH. As it happened this 'gramps' (who fishes, swims all year round in the cold Irish Sea, who walks over an hour a day, who lives life to the full) met an atheist as I walked the dog (great way to meet people by the way). She also agreed that it is the theist that needs the indoctrinating. She then went on to tell me that when she came home from her Catholic school her FATHER used to ask her what she learned at catechism class. If she said something like 'I learned how to pray to God', he, her FATHER, would say 'now you don't believe that do you, there is no God.' She is now an atheist. So, was her atheism 'natural' or was she indoctrinated into atheism by her father whom she trusted explicitedly for the truth?
Right then. Note how all you guys want me to lower my Catholic standards of two infallible ways to know something and to get down to a match between theories of gravitation, theories of relativity etc. Well only a fool could waste their time arguing from WITHIN theories. My Catholicism is guided by divine revelation and then I can check it out with FACTS, not theories.
Someone made reference to quantum mechanics and quantum maths as though they had a bearing on TRUTH. Oh by the way, TRUTH is reality, the REALITY OF EVERYTHING, be it your personality or be it the furthest star from earth. Quantum stuff is not reality. That is no big secret, for all physicists will admit to this. 'A man crossing the road could step onto Mars' said one Asian expert physicist. Now I do not know about you guys, but for me, a Catholic, that does not belong to the real world. Oh, and don't try to contradict me. I happen to have a brother who became a PhD Professor of quantum mathematics in a Canadian university. He gave it up after one year as "the most useless career ever INVENTED by man."
OK now. If I am to 'debate' the subject in question 'Geocentricism - Catholic propaganda', it will entail an understanding of Catholicism, an understanding of the history of heliocentrism, an understanding of how it was kept alive by the anti-Catholic Gnostics and then the secret societies of the sixteenth century, how it entered the world through Copernicus and finally how it was confirmed and spread through the masonic Royal Society of London. One will also have to know all there is to know about astrology and astronomy. One has to understand the limits of observation and how Kepler conjured up (yes conjured up) an ellipse as the orbit that the visible planets take as they orbit the sun, and the sun's apparent ellipse as it orbits the earth. One then has to know every detail of how the so-called proofs for heliocentrism were obtained and the worth of them. These are stellar aberration, Foucault’s Pendulum and stellar parallax. One also has to have studied Isaac Newton's reaction to the formula for the supposed 'force' that causes cosmic bodies to move themselves, the formula handed to him by the Freemasons. One then has to know of the two experiments that were conducted to prove the earth moves but which happened to show the earth did not move, the Airy experiment and the Mitchelson and Morely test of 1887. One must then know how for 18 years the world of physics was choking on the results that gave the empirical advantage to a geocentric world. And how did they get the earth moving again? One must now learn how a guy who knew little maths was groomed to get the earth moving again by his GENIUS, Albert Einstein (yes, his wife used to do his maths for him. Now learn all about the Special Theory of Relativity and its absurdities and how eminent physicists completely falsified it. Now move on to general relativity and you are in a better position to debate a subject called Geocentrism - Catholic propaganda? When the real question should be Heliocentrism - anti-Catholic propaganda.
So lads, there you are. I have omitted what true Catholic science has actually found because it has been suppressed by the world, including those who now run the Church, put there I must admit. By the Will of God Himself. My how God tests us.
Now who wants to ask the first real question, one that can be called Catholic belief or empirical fact?
Good evening all, only one complaint I see. I wish I knew how to put quotes into a box but I can't. I told you I was blog illiterate. I'll answer in chronogical orde. I will put in QUOTE so you know it is not me but me quoting someone else whom I HAVE to NAME.
An ejit is an Irish fool, but it is said in jest rather than an insult. Then the guy above with the flower tells me QUOTE "attacking people personally is against the rules. You run the risk of being banned for attacking people personally." Now one of the reasons why I came into this forum was to assist Transfinitum in his hopeless task of trying to convert atheistic heliocentrists to the fact that their heliocentricism has no empirical proof and as such is no more than a belief system to suit their anti-theisim. Let me list some of the things on this site that Chickenlover and others said to and about Transfinitum that flower power above let pass without a similar warning of getting banned. Egghead said on jan 11 QUOTE 'so ur saying we go round the sun but the universe goes round us - followed by five faces laughing. Now to me this is an official way of insulting the opinion of another. If these laughing faces appeared after something funny I could understand, but it goes further than that. On Jan 11 Egghead said QUOTE " so ur (transfinitum) saying the earth the earth is basically static and doesn't move? Are ****ING RETARDED - followed by another laughing face. On the 12th he says QUOTE "at least he (Transfinitum) knows his shit" and on the 13th asks him the usual ad hominum ploy QUOTE "Do you also believe the world is flat and is sitting on a tortuous", which presumably means tortoise. In other words "Are you that stupid." The Burning Skull told Transfinitum to QUOTE "Shut up. Its been proven" on Jan 16 you yourself said to him QUOTE "He is not trying to make it seem like you are crazy, you have already done that."
Now I do not see where any of you guys were told you could be banned for "attacking Transfinitum personally." Here I found a group of bullies ganging up on a person who holds the same belief as myself and all he was getting from you guys was abuse, personal and intellectual. How he had the patience to argue on your terms I do not know. But I will tell you this, you shall not get away with your heliocentric regurgitations with me.
So, get me banned if you like, its par for the course. Those who imposed heliocentrism on the world have been doing that to TRUTH for centuries.
The nest time I log in I shall state my position. I shall make it monkey proof so as to prevent only a fool to try to argue against it. I now see there are no objective observers logged on here who are searching for an honest appraisal of the two belief systems, someone who cannot be bullied and intimidated by the consensus of the heliocentricists.
I'm off to the pub now for a pint of Guinness and where men are men and a good row sends us to bed happy.
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
You are old enough to know that pointing at someone else’s wrong doing to rationalize your own is wrong. If you are truly 65, then I am going to hold you to a higher standard then the young adults who do not have the experience to temper their emotions.
You should have said this at the very beginning. You have a valid point to come to the rescue of people you relate with, but your attach first destroyed any hope of you had of getting people to listen to you.
You seem to have a persecution complex.
I do not believe you are real. A mature man, like myself, would have made his point clear from the start.
If you want to disprove heliocentricity, you could start by attacking gravity.
I have had a lot of luck with that. a trident to the heart takes anything out. There is a study being planned to actually find the gravitational 'particle'. You know how irreligous THAT is. *cues religious samurai*
No, atheism is the positive belief that there is no god, or the lack of belief that there is a god. Everyone begins an atheist, the belief that there is a god is learned.
Wrong. Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. The explicit affirmation that gods do not exist is positive atheism. The implicit lack of belief in the existence of gods is negative atheism. All persons are implicitly atheist, and are taught to believe in the existence of gods.
I think most people have the psychological equivalent of a God somewhere...be it another human, an unseen being in the clouds or just some pet rock. Many people don't have to be "taught" that a God exists. They naturally come up with one.
KMC Community Forums
Mar 5th, 2008 03:22 AM
