Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

1177178180182183196

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,509 ✭✭✭Harika


    Festus wrote: »
    The Sun looks hot and many suspect it is burning and it is suspended in a vacuum


    The fact that fires like the sun burn in the vacuum of space illustrates that you have made up your own facts in this posting.

    The Sun does not "burn", like we think of logs in a fire or paper burning. The Sun glows because it is a very big ball of gas, and a process called nuclear fusion is taking place in its core. Nuclear fusion occurs when one proton smashes into another proton so hard that they stick together...and release some energy as well. This energy then heats up the other materials (other protons and electrons and such) nearby. This heating eventually grows out from the center (or core) of the star to the outside, finally leaving the surface and radiating out into space to be the heat and light we know stars emit.

    People, including scientists, sometimes say that the Sun "burns hydrogen" to make it glow. But that is just a figure of speech. Hydrogen really doesn't burn, it fuses, into helium. So no oxygen is required!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭Safehands


    Festus wrote: »
    The fact that fires like the sun burn in the vacuum of space illustrates that you have made up your own facts in this posting.

    No they don't! Simplistic Festus. A little truth is dangerous.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,509 ✭✭✭Harika


    Festus wrote: »

    Wrong answer. Try again. I gave you clues. Twice.

    Nope mine are right, prove it please that they are wrong, although it might become then a physics question and not belong into Christianity.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Safehands wrote: »
    Great! You claim God exists, so the burden of proof lies with you! Bring on the evidence!

    I will tell you what I believe, and that is that I believe that God exists, but I do not have to prove that. For me belief in God is the default position.
    In the absence of any evidence to the contrary why should I arbitrarily change my position?

    You can tell me that you believe I am wrong to hold my belief but why should I believe you?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ABC101 wrote: »
    It's called first mover advantage.

    The reason why there is not an athiest educational system today... is because athiests did not get it together way back 200 odd years ago.

    But because various religious orders La Salle, Christian Brothers various convent schools did... athiests are calling sour grapes. You yourself said that it has caused huge damage.

    I myself, my father and various other members of my family.... going back over 100 years were educated in schools run by various Religious orders. It did not do my family any harm. In fact a few million Irish people have been educated by them.

    To turn around now... and state Ireland would have been better off without any Schools run by Religious orders over the last 200 to 300 years is blatently false!

    The above is simply incorrect , if the church hadn't provided education the state would have and we would have an education system today somewhat similar to the UK education system. The same applies to the health system- imagine if we had a health system ( for all its faults) similar to the UK. Now that would be something.

    No the truth of the matter is the the Church wanted the State nowhere near education or health , but we the people of Ireland paid for all those schools and hospitals that miraculously always ended up in the ownership of the Church .

    This whole education thing is a myth as if it was an either this or nothing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭ABC101


    Harika wrote: »
    I never made any statement that Ireland would be better off with or without any schools by religious orders.
    Still the argument that it did not do you any harm, is pointless as you have no reference how it would have been if you went to an "atheist" school, basically a school without forced religious input.
    Still let's bury this red herring and come back to the main discussion why are political, social .... decisions made with the presumption "God wants it that way" in the year 2014?

    I'll refer you to your own comments in post #8935

    Quite simple, because christian policies are forced on people and religion imposes it's standard on others, what would be fine if only Christians would be affected by it. But my life and the life of others are influenced in a negative way by those policies

    and as long religion stands in the way of happiness of other people


    It is clear you are stating that the work carried out in the Irish educational system over the last 250 years by various religious orders... has had a NEGATIVE effect on you and others.

    You choose to ignore the great good that has been done by these people. People who gave their entire life... to the service of others... and you state that it is a negative!! Most unfair comment in my opinion!!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭ABC101


    marienbad wrote: »
    The above is simply incorrect , if the church hadn't provided education the state would have and we would have an education system today somewhat similar to the UK education system. The same applies to the health system- imagine if we had a health system ( for all its faults) similar to the UK. Now that would be something.

    No the truth of the matter is the the Church wanted the State nowhere near education or health , but we the people of Ireland paid for all those schools and hospitals that miraculously always ended up in the ownership of the Church .

    This whole education thing is a myth as if it was an either this or nothing.

    The Irish state did not exist then as it does now. In addition under your espoused British Rule... there were penal laws enacted against the Roman Catholics... who where the majority of the population. That is how a minority controls a majority... you keep them ignorant!

    Religious orders risked their own lives, and many where hunted down and killed by the Redcoats. Schools had to be conducted in fields, hedges etc.

    When the Free State was set up... it was effectively bankrupt..it was TOO poor to set up and run it's own educational system. The religious orders provided assistance to the fledgling new Irish nation to educate the population.

    This country would be nothing without an educational system... and the Irish educational system was built upon the efforts of various religious orders and the great sacrifices they made over the centuries.

    Of course.... these facts are valueless to you.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Harika wrote: »
    Nope mine are right, prove it please that they are wrong, although it might become then a physics question and not belong into Christianity.

    Lets recap. one poster stated that "nothing lasts forever". I responded - at least one thing does and mentioned a closed system and the laws of physics.

    You mentioned three things. The universe, dark matter and dark energy.

    The universe is the closed system mentioned in my response and so cannot be the answer. Further we cannot state that the universe will last forever.

    Dark matter is a recent invention and its existence cannot be proven and may well be as hypothetical as dark energy. Further if dark matter does exist it is still matter and matter can be destroyed and so cannot last forever.

    So, your answers are wrong.

    There is one thing that does last forever and this fact is recorded as a law of physics


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭ABC101


    Safehands wrote: »
    You sound like a nice person ABC. I'm sure you do believe these stories.
    The truth is that fire can't burn in a vacuum and spirits with no human type senses, cannot feel a sensation of burning. So that story of seeing spirits burning in hell is just a story, it is not true. You can't just make up your own "facts" such as it being a special fire which burns spirits. I know that logic doesn't enter the equation with beliefs such as these, but you must try to understand that these Visions are about as real as your "special" fire.

    Well there are other ways to get burnt... ever hear of RF Burn?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_burn

    Next time you are near a TV mast... you may notice danger signs to keep away. Not a good idea to touch / come into contact with an antenna when it is transmitting power.

    Electrical current can burn human tissue etc.

    Anyway I'm sure you are aware of all that, so lets leave it there so.

    I never expected you to believe Safehands... however I was only offering an explanation for various questions, and no ... unfortunately I do not have all the answers.

    One of the reasons why believers like to spread their belief... is that it is about the Good News... that there is a God... he loves you... and that there is a place in Heaven for us ALL. That includes me and YOU!!. But there are ground rules... which apply to you and I... and everybody else.

    If I was really a selfish person... I would not be bothered blogging on here for one!!

    Best of luck to ya.... where ever you go, end up. But remember the story of Howard Storm... if you do find yourself in a dire situation... don't forget to call on Jesus!!


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Safehands wrote: »
    No they don't! Simplistic Festus. A little truth is dangerous.

    Please, no name calling.

    Why can you not accept that the sun is like a fire burning in the vacuum of space as a figure of speech?


    You don't like the sun analogy. Too simple? Ok, what about thermite?

    Thermite can burn in a vacuum.

    what does that mean for your statement
    Safehands wrote: »
    The truth is that fire can't burn in a vacuum...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ABC101 wrote: »
    The Irish state did not exist then as it does now. In addition under your espoused British Rule... there were penal laws enacted against the Roman Catholics... who where the majority of the population. That is how a minority controls a majority... you keep them ignorant!

    Religious orders risked their own lives, and many where hunted down and killed by the Redcoats. Schools had to be conducted in fields, hedges etc.

    When the Free State was set up... it was effectively bankrupt..it was TOO poor to set up and run it's own educational system. The religious orders provided assistance to the fledgling new Irish nation to educate the population.

    This country would be nothing without an educational system... and the Irish educational system was built upon the efforts of various religious orders and the great sacrifices they made over the centuries.

    Of course.... these facts are valueless to you.

    Simplistic tosh, both Catholic and Protestant churches united against a national education system in the 1840's and 50's because they were fundamentally opposed to a state involvement in education.

    To believe that without the church there would have been no catholic education is simply incorrect.

    The issue at its root was about control over 'hearts and minds' - not education - or at least only a specific kind of education. And we certainly have seen the results .


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    marienbad wrote: »
    Simplistic tosh, both Catholic and Protestant churches united against a national education system in the 1840's and 50's because they were fundamentally opposed to a state involvement in education.

    To believe that without the church there would have been no catholic education is simply incorrect.

    The issue at its root was about control over 'hearts and minds' - not education - or at least only a specific kind of education. And we certainly have seen the results .

    It's not surprising so many people fall for spin that the churches educating the masses was done because the state wouldn't or couldn't do it, given the continued church control of education.These days if they are as interested in education as others claims why aren't they handing over unused school buildings for the education of children of other and no faith as they promised? Funny how so much educational properties disappeared into trusts in recent years.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,509 ✭✭✭Harika


    Festus wrote: »
    Lets recap. one poster stated that "nothing lasts forever". I responded - at least one thing does and mentioned a closed system and the laws of physics.

    You mentioned three things. The universe, dark matter and dark energy.

    The universe is the closed system mentioned in my response and so cannot be the answer. Further we cannot state that the universe will last forever.

    We don't know yet if the universe will last forever, at the moment it looks like it, although the future does not look very bright.

    Dark matter is a recent invention and its existence cannot be proven and may well be as hypothetical as dark energy. Further if dark matter does exist it is still matter and matter can be destroyed and so cannot last forever.

    Dark matter is hypothetical but required to keep everything going, we know that it is there but don't know what it is. Same with Dark energy. So as long as this is not proven to be able to be destroyed or not to last forever, it is legit.
    Isn't it fantastic to have something as answer where you know it cannot be refuted because it cannot be measured and only indirectly observed. :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭ABC101


    marienbad wrote: »
    Simplistic tosh, both Catholic and Protestant churches united against a national education system in the 1840's and 50's because they were fundamentally opposed to a state involvement in education.

    To believe that without the church there would have been no catholic education is simply incorrect.

    The issue at its root was about control over 'hearts and minds' - not education - or at least only a specific kind of education. And we certainly have seen the results .

    Your hatred of anything religious is your undoing.

    From Wikipedia...

    Types of school[edit]
    Primary education is generally completed at a national school, a multidenominational school, a gaelscoil or a preparatory school.

    National schools date back to the introduction of state primary education in 1831. They are usually controlled by a board of management under diocesan patronage and often include a local clergyman.[11][12] The term "national school" has of late become partly synonymous with primary school in some parts. Recently, there have been calls from many sides for fresh thinking in the areas of funding and governance for such schools, with some wanting them to be fully secularised.[13]

    As of 2010 mainstream primary schools numbered as follows:[14]

    Type of school Number (total: 3165) Percentage of total (to 1d.p.)(citation needed)

    Roman Catholic 2,884 91.1%
    Church of Ireland (Anglican) 180 5.7%
    Multi-denominational 73 2.3%
    Presbyterian 14 0.4%
    Inter-Denominational 8 0.3%
    Muslim 2 0.1%
    Methodist 1 <0.1%
    Jewish 1 <0.1%
    Quaker 4 <0.1%
    Other/Unknown 1 <0.1%

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

    As over 91% of PRIMARY schools are R.C.

    YOU DENY the positive role they have played in the development of Ireland as it is today.

    Your hatred of Religious orders makes you blind to the facts.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    ABC101 is referring to eye witness testimony. You do not have to believe the testimony but are not qualified to state whether or not it is true.

    Neither is ABC qualified or anyone else trying to use them as 'evidence' for their beliefs.
    For me belief in God is the default position.

    Which is a MASSIVE bias in favour of the god of the christian religion, over that of any other god posited by any other religion. Why is it that the christian god gets a 'free pass' so to speak, but if anyone else tries to convert you to their religion, (or we atheists discuss the holes in the christian religion), you demand of US that we provide evidence?
    The universe is the closed system mentioned in my response and so cannot be the answer. Further we cannot state that the universe will last forever.
    You pointed to the first law of thermodynamics as being your evidence for the universe being closed. However, the jury is still out, but I did see this on wikipedia (not the greatest of sources I know)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe#Role_of_the_shape_of_the_universe
    "Recent measurements by Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe have confirmed that the universe is flat."
    "[For a flat universe] With dark energy, the expansion rate of the universe initially slows down, due to the effect of gravity, but eventually increases. The ultimate fate of the universe is the same as an open universe."
    "[For an open universe] Even without dark energy, a negatively curved universe expands forever, with gravity barely slowing the rate of expansion. With dark energy, the expansion not only continues but accelerates."
    You'll have to define exactly what you mean by "last forever", since there are three possible postulated fates for an open universe.
    Thermite can burn in a vacuum.

    what does that mean for your statement
    That would be because thermite contains its own oxygen, thus meaning it can produce flames. The same cannot be said of the sun, which is not burning as we typically understand it (it is undergoing nuclear fusion and producing oxygen, rather than consuming it)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Harika wrote: »
    We don't know yet if the universe will last forever, at the moment it looks like it, although the future does not look very bright.

    Without matter there is no universe and as matter can be destroyed it cannot be the answer.

    Harika wrote: »
    Dark matter is hypothetical but required to keep everything going, we know that it is there but don't know what it is. Same with Dark energy. So as long as this is not proven to be able to be destroyed or not to last forever, it is legit.
    Isn't it fantastic to have something as answer where you know it cannot be refuted because it cannot be measured and only indirectly observed. :D

    You seem to be alluding to something I know not what.

    No matter. You can leave the exotics aside as the answer I was looking for is mentioned in the laws of thermodynamics as understood by students of science in secondary and undergraduate courses.

    The OPs point was that nothing lasts forever and my response is that there is something that lasts forever and we have now established that it is not matter, dark matter, dark energy or the universe.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Amari Damaged Jet


    Any evidence for a god yet?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    That would be because thermite contains its own oxygen, thus meaning it can produce flames. The same cannot be said of the sun, which is not burning as we typically understand it (it is undergoing nuclear fusion and producing oxygen, rather than consuming it)

    burning as we understand it involves flames or intense heat or both.

    The sun is frequently referred to as burning regardless of how it does it so qualifies under intense heat.
    burning thermite produces intense heat, though not as intense as the sun.

    both thermite and the sun are capable of producing heat and light in a vacuum.

    the claim that nothing can burn in a vacuum has been refuted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    No matter. You can leave the exotics aside as the answer I was looking for is mentioned in the laws of thermodynamics as understood by students of science in secondary and undergraduate courses.

    The OPs point was that nothing lasts forever and my response is that there is something that lasts forever and we have now established that it is not matter, dark matter, dark energy or the universe.

    You're contradicting yourself. Festus, you brought up the 1st law of thermodynamics "Matter/Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another" (thus basically saying matter/energy last forever)...but you then say matter doesn't last forever.
    Which is it?


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Any evidence for a god yet?

    depends on what you mean by "evidence" and "a god"

    I do have to ask because I was under the impression that an atheist was someone who believed in the doctrine that there is no god - understandable given the etymology of the term atheist - from the Greek atheos - no god.

    Now I'm given to understand that an atheist is a person who simply lacks of belief in the existence of God.

    As there is no longer a cohort making the claim that God does not exist the implication is that the existence of God accepted and the issue for atheists is one of personal faith, or the lack thereof. This also allows for the probably that all atheists are actually agnostic with the implication that true atheists do not exist as the term atheist is now nothing more than a label that ultimately means nothing.

    That being the case why would anyone want evidence?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    You're contradicting yourself. Festus, you brought up the 1st law of thermodynamics "Matter/Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another" (thus basically saying matter/energy last forever)...but you then say matter doesn't last forever.
    Which is it?

    You might want to read the First Law of thermodynamics again and then take a look at what you have just posted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    I do have to ask because I was under the impression that an atheist was someone who believed in the doctrine that there is no god - understandable given the etymology of the term atheist - from the Greek atheos - no god.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't I and others here corrected you on that? Atheists (at least myself and people I know) do not believe there is no god. We lack a belief. We lack a positive belief for a god, because we haven't been convinced.
    If you're going to try and criticize someone's beliefs/lack of beliefs, you might want to ask them to define their beliefs.. Just like I and others here have asked you plenty of times to define what you mean by god (bit rich of you of all people to say to others to define god)
    You might want to read the First Law of thermodynamics again

    Let's see...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
    "The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
    That page contains, among others, two sections, one for a closed universe, one for an open universe. If there was a scientific consensus for a closed universe (as you said, although not using the term consensus), why would that page contain the section on an open universe, or not say something like "an open universe has been refuted"?
    ...you were saying?

    I'm looking at several sites discussing the topic, and so far, all of them say either flat or open universe. None of them say closed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    ABC101 wrote: »
    Your hatred of anything religious is your undoing.

    From Wikipedia...

    Types of school[edit]
    Primary education is generally completed at a national school, a multidenominational school, a gaelscoil or a preparatory school.

    National schools date back to the introduction of state primary education in 1831. They are usually controlled by a board of management under diocesan patronage and often include a local clergyman.[11][12] The term "national school" has of late become partly synonymous with primary school in some parts. Recently, there have been calls from many sides for fresh thinking in the areas of funding and governance for such schools, with some wanting them to be fully secularised.[13]

    As of 2010 mainstream primary schools numbered as follows:[14]

    Type of school Number (total: 3165) Percentage of total (to 1d.p.)(citation needed)

    Roman Catholic 2,884 91.1%
    Church of Ireland (Anglican) 180 5.7%
    Multi-denominational 73 2.3%
    Presbyterian 14 0.4%
    Inter-Denominational 8 0.3%
    Muslim 2 0.1%
    Methodist 1 <0.1%
    Jewish 1 <0.1%
    Quaker 4 <0.1%
    Other/Unknown 1 <0.1%

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

    As over 91% of PRIMARY schools are R.C.

    YOU DENY the positive role they have played in the development of Ireland as it is today.

    Your hatred of Religious orders makes you blind to the facts.

    You're blind to the many negative aspects of one religion dominating state education.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    lazygal wrote: »
    You're blind to the many negative aspects of one religion dominating state education.

    Precisely. I didn't even know about Protestantism (to say nothing of other religions) before my teens.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭ABC101


    lazygal wrote: »
    You're blind to the many negative aspects of one religion dominating state education.

    So obviously you do not believe anything positive can be said about Irish education system to date. Because there just so happened to be a religious person on the board of management.

    And what many negative aspects are you referring to here? Specify please?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    ABC101 wrote: »
    So obviously you do not believe anything positive can be said about Irish education system to date. Because there just so happened to be a religious person on the board of management.

    And what many negative aspects are you referring to here? Specify please?

    Forcing children not of the dominant faith to be indoctrinated and wear religious symbols such as crosses on uniforms. The time spent on indoctrination which would be better spent doing something useful. The fact that despite attempts some schools don't teach students about their sexuality properly but outsource it to groups like pure in heart. The refusal of religious schools to distribute material from groups dealing with homophobia on the grounds of ethos. The distribution of pro-life information to primary school children.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭ABC101


    lazygal wrote: »
    Forcing children not of the dominant faith to be indoctrinated and wear religious symbols such as crosses on uniforms. The time spent on indoctrination which would be better spent doing something useful. The fact that despite attempts some schools don't teach students about their sexuality properly but outsource it to groups like pure in heart. The refusal of religious schools to distribute material from groups dealing with homophobia on the grounds of ethos. The distribution of pro-life information to primary school children.

    Is that it???? Is that the SUM total of your list of negative points... which obviously greatly outweigh all the teachings about English, IRish, Maths, Science, Geography, History, Tech Drawing, and numerous other subjects????

    My God.... well I never... the shock horror of having to learn all these subjects with a tiny cross stitched into my jumper.

    I would perfer Not to be educated... if I had my way again I would prefer to remain ignorant than to be put through such torture.

    Being more serious and less sarcastic... your propensity to highlight these very minor things and ignore the great good that education has done for MILLIONS of Irish over the last 200 years is disappointing.

    You require to recalibrate your priorites.

    Furthermore... if all these things which you quote in your post above are True and horrific.... how come there are only a handful of people such as yourself who are so vocal?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    lazygal wrote: »
    Forcing children not of the dominant faith to be indoctrinated and wear religious symbols such as crosses on uniforms. The time spent on indoctrination which would be better spent doing something useful. The fact that despite attempts some schools don't teach students about their sexuality properly but outsource it to groups like pure in heart. The refusal of religious schools to distribute material from groups dealing with homophobia on the grounds of ethos. The distribution of pro-life information to primary school children.

    Do you understand what the Constitution says about education?

    Do you understand what Catholic ethos is in a Catholic school?

    Do you understand that if parents want their children educated in a Catholic school that is their right?

    Who are you do decide on what proper sex education is?

    No one is forcing you to send you children to a Catholic school if that is not what you want. You have every right to educate your children at home, yourself, answerable to no one but the Department of Education in this life and God in the next.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    It's handy that the churches control education so they can continue to peddle the line that we need to thank them for saving us all from ignorance and be grateful for the book learning because the state would never have bothered. It's also handy that the churches indoctrinate children to.save their parents the bother and churn out children who've been taught church doctrine is fact so the cycle can continue. I'm interested how you can call me blind when you have the attitude that you need to be graceful for education, something which is a very basic right, not a favour to be conferred by private interests like.churches. I feel sorry for you that you feel you have to remain grateful for something that you deserve, despite the churches telling you it's only.because of them you're able to read and write.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Festus wrote: »
    Do you understand what the Constitution says about education?

    Do you understand what Catholic ethos is in a Catholic school?

    Do you understand that if parents want their children educated in a Catholic school that is their right?

    Who are you do decide on what proper sex education is?

    No one is forcing you to send you children to a Catholic school if that is not what you want. You have every right to educate your children at home, yourself, answerable to no one but the Department of Education in this life and God in the next.

    Would you home school if your children had no choice of school but that of no denomination?


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Atheists (at least myself and people I know) do not believe there is no god.

    Therefore you are agnostic. Thank you.

    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Let's see...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
    "The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."

    So your previous posting regarding matter/energy was completely wrong.

    energy can be neither created nor destroyed so this refutes the poster who said that nothing lasts forever as energy does according to the laws of physics last forever.

    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    That page contains, among others, two sections, one for a closed universe, one for an open universe. If there was a scientific consensus for a closed universe (as you said, although not using the term consensus), why would that page contain the section on an open universe, or not say something like "an open universe has been refuted"?
    ...you were saying?

    If the universe is open it means it has surroundings and whatever is in those surroundings interacts with the universe. If this is true what are the surroundings and what is interacting with this universe?
    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    I'm looking at several sites discussing the topic, and so far, all of them say either flat or open universe. None of them say closed.

    Whether the universe is open or not has no effect on the ability to create or destroy energy as ultimately all open systems are surrounded by other systems until you have one massive closed system or the universe is infinite. If the universe is infinite it is closed because infinity has no surroundings. If the universe is open as far as energy is concerned it means that energy can be transferred in or out. An open system still does not allow for the creation or destruction of energy.

    What were you saying?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    lazygal wrote: »
    Would you home school if your children had no choice of school but that of no denomination?

    yes


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    lazygal wrote: »
    You're blind to the many negative aspects of one religion dominating state education.

    The fact that there are more Catholic schools than any others is surely down to the demographics?

    Are you suggesting that there should be equal numbers of denominational schools or are you suggesting that all schools should be secular atheist?
    Or are you suggesting that the numbers of particular denominational, pre-denominational and non denominational schools should be somehow manipulated by the state?

    Either way I'm not sure I appreciate your particular form of democracy.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    I don't suppose anyone else wants to get back to the topic of discussion - existence of god?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Make your claim and state your case. Supporting evidence would be appreciated


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    I'm someone who pokes holes in other people's positive claims. Which is what I've been doing this whole time. Think of me as the guy who plays black in chess.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Festus wrote: »
    The fact that there are more Catholic schools than any others is surely down to the demographics?

    Are you suggesting that there should be equal numbers of denominational schools or are you suggesting that all schools should be secular atheist?
    Or are you suggesting that the numbers of particular denominational, pre-denominational and non denominational schools should be somehow manipulated by the state?

    Either way I'm not sure I appreciate your particular form of democracy.
    The majority are Caucasian. Suppose we had schools which favoured Caucasian children, would that form of democracy be ok?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    lazygal wrote: »
    The majority are Caucasian. Suppose we had schools which favoured Caucasian children, would that form of democracy be ok?

    Are you equating racism with freedom of religion and freedom of conscience?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    I'm someone who pokes holes in other people's positive claims. Which is what I've been doing this whole time. Think of me as the guy who plays black in chess.

    So what you are really saying is you are negative and are only interested in destruction.

    Are you afraid to play white?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Festus wrote: »
    Are you equating racism with freedom of religion and freedom of conscience?

    No, I'm asking which majority interests determination school enrolment policy. Why is differentiation based on race different from religion?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    lazygal wrote: »
    No, I'm asking which majority interests determination school enrolment policy. Why is differentiation based on race different from religion?

    The element of choice! I can not choose my race.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    Festus wrote: »
    So what you are really saying is you are negative and are only interested in destruction.

    Are you afraid to play white?

    Nope. I don't like it when other people don't question some of their most closely held beliefs. As Bertrand Russell said "In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted."
    I do that for other people.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    lazygal wrote: »
    No, I'm asking which majority interests determination school enrolment policy. Why is differentiation based on race different from religion?

    Perhaps you can clarify what your issue is - the majority of schools in this country are Catholic because the majority of people living in this country claim to be Catholic. Race is irrelevant and I don't see where you are going with enrolment policies.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Nope. I don't like it when other people don't question some of their most closely held beliefs.

    Do you question your most closely held beliefs on atheism?

    Or do you prefer us to do that for you?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    Festus wrote: »
    Do you question your most closely held beliefs on atheism?

    Since atheism is a position on a question
    Q: Have I been convinced there is a god?
    A: No

    then I do not have a belief. There is nothing there for me to actually question. For me, atheism is not a belief. It's a lack of belief in the positive claim there is a god. It is not the same as a a positive belief in the negative claim there is no god.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Festus wrote: »
    Perhaps you can clarify what your issue is - the majority of schools in this country are Catholic because the majority of people living in this country claim to be Catholic. Race is irrelevant and I don't see where you are going with enrolment policies.

    Why is the majority religion legitimate as a reason for school enrolment and patronage but the majority race isn't?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Festus wrote: »
    Do you question your most closely held beliefs on atheism?

    Or do you prefer us to do that for you?

    Not believing there is any such thing as a God is pretty much all the questions I need to ask. Do you ever wonder if you'rd worshiping God in the wrong way and question whether another Christian denomination might really be the correct one?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    lazygal wrote: »
    Why is the majority religion legitimate as a reason for school enrolment and patronage but the majority race isn't?

    because we are not racist :confused::confused::confused:

    Your issue is still unclear. What is upsetting you about race and education?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Festus wrote: »
    because we are not racist :confused::confused::confused:

    Your issue is still unclear. What is upsetting you about race and education?

    I'd like to know why religion is a legitimate reason for segregation of the education system and race isn't. Why does a majority religion get to dominate education but other majority reasons like race aren't a good reason to segregate children?


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    lazygal wrote: »
    Do you ever wonder if you'rd worshiping God in the wrong way...

    While it is possible to worship God in the wrong way that is easily rectified by proper cathecesis.
    lazygal wrote: »
    ...and question whether another Christian denomination might really be the correct one?

    I'm pre-denominational so Nope!


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement