|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Feb 12, 2010 16:22:37 GMT
Look guys, lay off Eccles. He obviously has issues and needs to see some Christian charity - especially as I can't see him winning a popularity contest where atheists gather to talk about things atheists talk about. You're right Al. Eccles, sorry about the Melbourne Cup crack. If you want to share your negative experiences with Archbishop Hart in public, feel free to do so. We are not easily shocked when it comes to clerical misdemeanours. BTW, those of us who were at the Christian Brothers reckoned the guys in Jesuits got off lightly, but I believe you when you say they were as bad as they were.
|
|
eccles
New Member
My Old Horse Chester
Posts: 25
|
Post by eccles on Feb 13, 2010 0:50:47 GMT
I will never be silenced. That is good. But until you begin making sense, no one will pay much attention. What did Hart do? Give you a bad tip for the Melbourne Cup? Must have been pretty bad if you're still nursing the grudge after nearly three decades. After a good night's sleep, I have decided to tell what happened between me and Hart - Father Denis Hart as he was then. He was Master of Ceremonies at St. Patrick's Cathedral. Melbourne. First, even though he and I were more or less friendly, he still acted as though he was still a school prefect. He objected to me calling him Denis. "Father" was how I was supposed to address him. I thought that was a bit uppish on his part. The Cathedral organist, Sergio de Pieri had been my teacher and we were very close friends. My father and I had built a pipe organ in our home and Sergio did a broadcast on ABC National Radio on it. When I got to the Cathedral for the Solemn High Mass on Sundays, I would prepare the organ for Sergio. Sometimes when the Choir was on leave the Dean would ask me to play the organ during the Mass. I was one of the collectors for High Mass and I was also a member of the Parish Council by invitation so I was in good standing at the Cathedral. One Sunday The head collector told me to take one collection very quickly to the Sacristry as the Vicar General needed it immediately. I moved quickly to the Sacristry without running. My parents and I used to sit in the front pew. The next Sunday Hart came up to me and told me he did not want me running around the Cathedral and did not want me near the organ any more. I wanted to leave straight away, but my father said "stay for Mass". After Mass he took us to the Sacristry and found Fr.Hart. Dad really told him off to such an extent that Hart got on his knees to apologise to us. In the meantime I had resigned as collector and from the Parish Council. We continued to go to the Cathedral for a few years after that. I do not hold a grudge against him. I am not that type of person. I will say that if I ever bunped into him again, I would say "Hello Denis". He is Archbishop, but so what. Serve him right.
|
|
eccles
New Member
My Old Horse Chester
Posts: 25
|
Post by eccles on Feb 13, 2010 1:28:22 GMT
I would like to explain why I became Atheist. It has nothing to do with Christianity or any dislike I had of it. As far as being shanghied into Catholicism as a baby by my strongly belieiving parents I put up with that until I was sure I could not upset my mother for turning Atheist. I certainly did not like Roman Catholicism. If i had wanted to stay as a Christian I would have turned to the Anglican Church where, at least most parishes have good organs, good choirs and beautiful music, not the rubbish served up in Catholic Churches these day with guitars, etc.
I always had an intense interest in Science. At school I did Physics and Chemistry. I taught myself all I could about Astronomy and Astrophysics. My logical mind soon became convinced that there had been no creation by a "Creator/God", that the Universe in some form or another has always existed in on form or another. One fundamental Law of Nature: Matter can neither be created on destroyed. Matter/Energy can not come from nothing.
I kept on wishing to leave the Chuirch but had to find a way to do it in a way that my mother would not be upset. We used to go to a nearby Itallan Church run by the Capuchines. At one Easter Sunday Mass the priest was one who considered himself a bel canto tenor and would turn up the PA for not only his "singing" but his sermons. I had had it. I walked out halfway through the Mass and told my parents I woud wait in the car until the finish. When we got home I told Dad, I will never be going to Mass again. He knew I did not believe and agreed that I was right. We told Mum and she agreed, but was sad.
As you know I hate the bible. Since getting the Internet and freeing myself from the restraints of the Church I have been able to learn the truth about Judeo/Christianity. I have covered that well in previous posts. As I suppose I have to agree that people have a right to their beliefs, that extends to Atheists too. It is why Atheists are coming out to claim our rights. It is not our obligation to prove there is no "God". Christians have no proof there is a "God". All their so-called proof is based on circular logic and anonymous texts that cannot be verified. Why is Christianity the only Religion to be right. How about Hinduism or even the Ancient Egyptian Religion or the pagan Relgions of the Greeks and the Romans.
It defies logic.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 15, 2010 11:20:35 GMT
What about atheism, for that matter? Why should it be the only position to be right? By the nature of things, if there are several competing and contradictory positions they can't all be right. And what is your opinion on the "big Bang" theory? Your views seems to presuppose the "steady state" version of the universe is true, which does not seem to be the predominant view at present.
|
|
eccles
New Member
My Old Horse Chester
Posts: 25
|
Post by eccles on Feb 15, 2010 13:14:56 GMT
I started to write a reply when a storm put out the power. Good having Laptop as spare.
I do support the "Big Bang Theory" I was around in the days of famous British Astronomer Fred Hoyle who changed his mind and dropped the Steady State Theory for the Big Bang Theory. Unfortunately the brainles press misunderstood wha was being said nd cookd up the name "Big Bang"
The evidence for the Big Bang was found by two American Radio Astronomers who found the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation with their primative Radio Telescope. CMB's discovery in 1964 by radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson comfirmed the "Big Bang Theory and that has been confirmed many times with more sensitive instruments on Earth and in Space.
The Big Bang Thoery does no pre-suppose that it came from nothing. According to one of the fundamental Laws of nature Matter/Energy has always existed and can neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore there is no need for some "Supernatural" Creator/God" as there is no such thing as the "Supernatural".
You see how Scientists can change their minds with new discoveries whereas Religious people have closed minds.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 15, 2010 14:18:56 GMT
You seem to assume that there is nothing outside nature, or outside time and space. Where did they come from?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 15, 2010 14:22:32 GMT
BTW you seem to think scientists and religious believers have no common ground. Quite some time ago, on one of the other threads, I linked to an article from the British magazine STANDPOINT which points out that the original proposer of the Big Bang theory was a priest-physicist called Lemaitre and that part of the delay in its adoption was due to hostility from some scientists who assumed it must be a form of covert religious apologetics. This doesn't mean the Big bang version proves God exists, or that all atheists are bigots; but it does suggest the closed minds are not all on one side.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Feb 15, 2010 21:50:45 GMT
ring ding ding!!!!!! conspiracy alert...and guess what this one has lasted nearly 2000 years !!!!! Eccles is that the one in Manchester? Anyway...you know, it takes astonishing arrogance for an individual like you to claim that you know the hidden knowledge that has somehow been missing for 2 millenia, also astonishing because you are saying you know more than hundreds of biblical scholars who have spent a lifetime studying, haven't your views already been plagiarised by some else?-Dan Brown..perhaps you may be able to sue? As for your parting shot "I will never be silenced"...with all due respect, who cares?...you can only exist in a universe where Christianity exists-if it didnt you would quickly loose your raison d'etre. By the way, regarding all the blah, blah, blah about what happened to you years ago-get over it.
|
|
eccles
New Member
My Old Horse Chester
Posts: 25
|
Post by eccles on Feb 15, 2010 22:41:53 GMT
You seem to assume that there is nothing outside nature, or outside time and space. Where did they come from? Hiberncus, I shall answer your question only, the others are stupid questions from people who have closed minds. The definition of "Universe" is EVERYTHING. There is no "Outside" so there is nowhere for "they" to come from. I know it is a hard concept to understand. But it is not as hard as trying to understand many Catholic doctrines like the Holy Trinity. When it is questioned the answer given by the Church is that it is a "mystery" and must be believed by all Catholics without question. As I said before Scientists are questioning all the time and are open to new discoveries.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 16, 2010 11:45:14 GMT
If there is by definition nothing outside the universe why do physicists seem to spend so much time specualting about parallel universes, etc? If your view was unchallengeable as you think it is, surely these would be contradictions in terms? You seem to treat an axiom as a dogma. (Note to readers; an axiom is a statement which is taken to be true for the purpose of a particular argument; a dogma is something that is unquestionably true.)
|
|
eccles
New Member
My Old Horse Chester
Posts: 25
|
Post by eccles on Feb 16, 2010 13:16:08 GMT
If there is by definition nothing outside the universe why do physicists seem to spend so much time specualting about parallel universes, etc? If your view was unchallengeable as you think it is, surely these would be contradictions in terms? You seem to treat an axiom as a dogma. (Note to readers; an axiom is a statement which is taken to be true for the purpose of a particular argument; a dogma is something that is unquestionably true.) Physicists have the advantage to be able to speculate. Many of those "Speculations" have been found to be true. This about dogma being unquestionably true is a moot point. The Church uses that excuse to make Catholics believe in not only "God", but crazy ideas about Mary being a virgin and the Immaculate Conception. and Jesus being divine and the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Some of those doctrines were not made until about 300 years after Christ by Church Fathers of "questionable minds" The Immaculate Conception was solemnly defined as a dogma by Pope Pius IX in his constitution Ineffabilis Deus on 8 December 1854. (As late as that). Remember Hibernicus, I went through all that indoctrination at Roman Catholic Jesuit College, so I am not dumb on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Feb 16, 2010 15:14:11 GMT
I hate to say it Eccles but the only reason your responding to Hibernicus is that you think you can win him to your way of thinking and because when someone gives you a taste of your own medicine (as I did) you don't like it and therefore get the idea in your mind that that person is "stupid" or has a "closed" mind-unlike your own gloriously open one- to be honest with you,I never met soemone like you who offers their opinions (always maquerading them as proven fact) and not been completely closed minded and open to change. Over a year ago certain individual called Hazelireland conducted a campaign where he cast scorn and derision on the teachings of the Catholic faith-thankfully he has been since expelled-I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be right now as you are not adding anything to this forum. I am happy to see others like Hemingway who on the whole are respectfult and are interested in discussion. You on the other are here with an axe to grind-I dont think that should be allowed on our forum. I am of course asking for a degree of rationality from you in observing that you really shouldn't be here anymore.
|
|
|
Post by regenskuechl on Feb 16, 2010 15:50:26 GMT
If there is by definition nothing outside the universe why do physicists seem to spend so much time specualting about parallel universes, etc? If your view was unchallengeable as you think it is, surely these would be contradictions in terms? You seem to treat an axiom as a dogma. (Note to readers; an axiom is a statement which is taken to be true for the purpose of a particular argument; a dogma is something that is unquestionably true.) Wrong! A religious dogma is something believed to be unquestionally true by the followers of some religion.Example : It is a muslim dogma that Muhammad was the last and greatest prophet. For non-muslims this is not a dogma. And the different dogmas of different religions like to contradict each other. So how can you logically say that a dogma in general is always unquestionably true. And if you do not think my example of a muslim dogma is unquestionably true, than how can you say that catholic dogmas must be true. If muslim dogmas can be wrong then for sure you must give in to the thought that catholic dogmas might also be in error. I hate to say it Eccles but the only reason your responding to Hibernicus is that you think you can win him to your way of thinking and because when someone gives you a taste of your own medicine (as I did) you don't like it and therefore get the idea in your mind that that person is "stupid" or has a "closed" mind-unlike your own gloriously open one- to be honest with you,I never met soemone like you who offers their opinions (always maquerading them as proven fact) and not been completely closed minded and open to change. Over a year ago certain individual called Hazelireland conducted a campaign where he cast scorn and derision on the teachings of the Catholic faith-thankfully he has been since expelled-I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be right now as you are not adding anything to this forum. I am happy to see others like Hemingway who on the whole are respectfult and are interested in discussion. You on the other are here with an axe to grind-I dont think that should be allowed on our forum. I am of course asking for a degree of rationality from you in observing that you really shouldn't be here anymore. But you see, in real live the catholic church also has to deal with people who, for some reason, have an axe to grind with her. So why should that be forbidden in a forum that especially is a good place to talk things out and find a together reasoning. For a catholic it should be of interest to read why people are so angry at his church, so that he can learn how to possibly deal with angry anticatholic axegrinders. And eccles has shown good will in giving this forum explanations about his reasons for his hard feelings. Why do you not try to understand and answer him in a modern and modest catholic way instead of your calling for the holy Inquisition ?
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Feb 16, 2010 21:08:38 GMT
If there is by definition nothing outside the universe why do physicists seem to spend so much time specualting about parallel universes, etc? If your view was unchallengeable as you think it is, surely these would be contradictions in terms? You seem to treat an axiom as a dogma. (Note to readers; an axiom is a statement which is taken to be true for the purpose of a particular argument; a dogma is something that is unquestionably true.) Wrong! A religious dogma is something believed to be unquestionally true by the followers of some religion.Example : It is a muslim dogma that Muhammad was the last and greatest prophet. For non-muslims this is not a dogma. And the different dogmas of different religions like to contradict each other. So how can you logically say that a dogma in general is always unquestionably true. And if you do not think my example of a muslim dogma is unquestionably true, than how can you say that catholic dogmas must be true. If muslim dogmas can be wrong then for sure you must give in to the thought that catholic dogmas might also be in error. I hate to say it Eccles but the only reason your responding to Hibernicus is that you think you can win him to your way of thinking and because when someone gives you a taste of your own medicine (as I did) you don't like it and therefore get the idea in your mind that that person is "stupid" or has a "closed" mind-unlike your own gloriously open one- to be honest with you,I never met soemone like you who offers their opinions (always maquerading them as proven fact) and not been completely closed minded and open to change. Over a year ago certain individual called Hazelireland conducted a campaign where he cast scorn and derision on the teachings of the Catholic faith-thankfully he has been since expelled-I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be right now as you are not adding anything to this forum. I am happy to see others like Hemingway who on the whole are respectfult and are interested in discussion. You on the other are here with an axe to grind-I dont think that should be allowed on our forum. I am of course asking for a degree of rationality from you in observing that you really shouldn't be here anymore. But you see, in real live the catholic church also has to deal with people who, for some reason, have an axe to grind with her. So why should that be forbidden in a forum that especially is a good place to talk things out and find a together reasoning. For a catholic it should be of interest to read why people are so angry at his church, so that he can learn how to possibly deal with angry anticatholic axegrinders. And eccles has shown good will in giving this forum explanations about his reasons for his hard feelings. Why do you not try to understand and answer him in a modern and modest catholic way instead of your calling for the holy Inquisition ? [/blockquote] Incorrect answer!! don't you know the rule of proper debate?? You don't refer to the Inquisition or the Nazis....otherwise you are proving to yourself that you don't want a debate. Again I can't understand why atheists are tolerated here. Why do I feel like I have no support on this Hibernicus? No atheist who has ever come on to this site has ever come on here in goodwill-believe me...I've been on this site since the start more or less. Atheists come on here to have a laugh-I don 't think they should be afforded it at my expense and neither do I need to come on here and have my faith greeted with derision as it is in the media and daily life in general. Now, the jokes over lads - piss off back to Atheists.ie or whereever else you come from, youve long outstayed your welcome.
|
|
eccles
New Member
My Old Horse Chester
Posts: 25
|
Post by eccles on Feb 16, 2010 23:15:39 GMT
Ok, you asshole bigoted ROMAN Catholics. Some of you have been infiltrating Atheist Ireland, so what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you think you can persecute us Atheists, we can persecute you "Roaming Cattleticks". You are all the bloody same, "Holier Than Thou", act like robots at Mass, not interested in what is going on and so pissed off with it so you are dying for it to end. I often wonded why, in the real Mass, the Tridentine Mass the priest finished with "Ite, Missa Est" and the congregation would say "Deo Gratias" - "Thanks be to God" that crap is over for an other Sunday. Some people did not wait that long. They sat in the back pews and as soon as the priest put Jesus-in-a-piece-of-bread back in his little cell they were out the door as fast as they could go. I've seen it. My father used to call those people the "backsliders".
I'm pissed off with all this, so go ahead, make my day. BAN ME.
|
|