Split from pedophile priest thread

[Boojum]

Heuristic, without the “s”, is a method of problem-solving that uses math to achieve solutions without understanding why or even how the math works.

Sorry, ultimate fail from the start. The word is maths, short for mathematics. Now go back to the beginning and try again. In English. Not American English, because that is a contradiction in terms, it's either English or it isn't, and if it isn't create your own fucking language. I don't care who you are.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Boojum

[Tasty]

But he neglects to inform that children of atheists are also indoctrinated into believing there is no god, also into believing that belief in god or faith in a higher power are signs of weakness and intellectual inferiority.

Jeysus. My wife and I do not believe in God but do not "indoctrinate" our daughter into any belief (on non-belief) system. The local school that she attends is a Catholic controlled school as are most of the schools in Ireland. The Principle knows that we are non-believers and asked if we would like our daughter to not attend any religous studies or pastimes. We said that we would rather she make up her own mind about what she believes, therefore she goes to school normally with all her friends and attends all the usual Catholic shenanigans but knows that we do not believe. We, unlike the school, do not "indoctrinate her with our views but will let her make up her own mind with as varied an education as she can get.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Tasty

[Cosmic Dick]

Heuristic, without the “s”, is a method of problem-solving that uses math to achieve solutions without understanding why or even how the math works.

Sorry, ultimate fail from the start. The word is maths, short for mathematics. Now go back to the beginning and try again. In English. Not American English, because that is a contradiction in terms, it's either English or it isn't, and if it isn't create your own fucking language. I don't care who you are.

Do you speak French Boojum?

Perfectly without any grammatical errors?

If you learn't your English in USA or Canada would you not use the same word?

Wind your neck in Boojum, you may be good with the English language but you haven't got a patch on Miles Mathis.

[BudFan]

Jesus did not found the Catholic Church. That was down to Constantine essentially. And it was much less than 2000 years ago

Hey Arnie,

We regard ourselves as the Church founded by JC ~2000 years ago, shortly before his death. He explicitly appointed Peter as the head of this Church, as you will no doubt know better than me. Peter went to the Romans and, although he didnt find an especially warm welcome at first, the Church did take root and really took off with Constantines conversion, and his building of St Peters basillica a coupla hundred years later. Constantine simply revered and formalised what Peter brought from Christ himself, he did not founded any new institution off his own bat.

Our Christians are entirely entitled to disagree as regards of our origins, though we are quite secure in our position! Of course, non-Catholics Christians have to adopt the position you describe, or they would undermine the legitimacy of their own institutions

It is my belief that in a few generations, (in europe), catholic and eastern orthodox christians will be the only significant groups of Christians left. For sure the protestant churches of the UK are in terminal decline. I hope this will lead to a softening of the view of catholicism in the Uk and generally better relations.

:wink:

Edited April 25, 2010 by BudFan

[weed_G]

Question for the atheists- do you believe in the existence of an objective reality?

I think George Carlin covers that:

George Carlin On Religion

CD

plainly carling believes in 'objective reality' ...does that mean you do too CD?

[Cosmic Dick]

plainly carling believes in 'objective reality' ...does that mean you do too CD?

I really haven't looked in to it that deeply, but on the basic level, yes.

I believe that things do exist without any human conscious knowledge, bacteria for example, they have always existed before we ever invented the microscope.

CD

[Boojum]

Heuristic, without the “s”, is a method of problem-solving that uses math to achieve solutions without understanding why or even how the math works.

Sorry, ultimate fail from the start. The word is maths, short for mathematics. Now go back to the beginning and try again. In English. Not American English, because that is a contradiction in terms, it's either English or it isn't, and if it isn't create your own fucking language. I don't care who you are.

Do you speak French Boojum?

Perfectly without any grammatical errors?

If you learn't your English in USA or Canada would you not use the same word?

Wind your neck in Boojum, you may be good with the English language but you haven't got a patch on Miles Mathis.

Fair comment. I shouldn't post at stupid o'clock in the morning after an award winning skinfull of beer

[Cosmic Dick]

Fair comment. I shouldn't post at stupid o'clock in the morning after an award winning skinfull of beer

Damn, that took the wind out of my sails, I was looking forward to an argument...

I've already typed it up ready..., it's about maths and magic, shall I pm it to you anyway?

CD

[Arnold Layne]

Jesus did not found the Catholic Church. That was down to Constantine essentially. And it was much less than 2000 years ago

Hey Arnie,

We regard ourselves as the Church founded by JC ~2000 years ago, shortly before his death. He explicitly appointed Peter as the head of this Church, as you will no doubt know better than me.

Yes, I know that Roman Catholics regard themselves as such - that after all is the whole Reformation argument in a nutshell. And I can see some evidence of Peter being called a "Rock" and a foundation, but being appointed as "Head"? Still, as you know, this is the very heart of the Reformation debate.

Me, I carry no mandate one way or the other now. Jesus is just alright with me, as the Byrds sang - but the Christianity bit just aint my cup of tea. Peter and Paul both went astray IMH. As do we all. The notion of a final authority, infallible in nature is something I just cannot swallow. But I'm a root and branch heretic, so that's no surprise

I take your point about the decline of traditional Reformed churches, but: Episcopalian-ism (including Anglicanism) is still very strong and essentially growing as far as I know. But more importantly, the non aligned "house" churches and Fellowships of Charismatic nature are growing at a rate of knots. Your Catholic take-over may not be quite so easy. And as for sorting out the date of Easter .... Good luck!

[sam-i-am]

I'm sorry CD, I'm a bit of a simpleton. While you've read and understood it could you summarise it in layman's terms for me please, thanks

Layman's terms, much simplified, okay?

In the experiment there is a light source, then a wall with two slits, then another wall, this last one being the detector which displays the interference pattern.

If one single photon per second is going through one or the other slit, over a long period of time the detector will still display the intereference pattern.

Modern science claims that this shows the particle/wave duality, and that the individual photon is interfering with itself, as there is nothing else there to interfere with it.

But is there anything else there?

Yes, everything is emmiting an E/M field, it's just that it's not visible light and therefore will not show up on our detector, and it is this E/M field that causes the intereference pattern.

Thinking of it in a more practical way (although not quite correct, layman's terms), what temperature is the wall with the two slits in it? If I was to point an Infrared detector at it, it would be quite bright, it is radiating an E/M field, as is any other object or person in the test area.

According to Miles Mathis, the part of the experiment that is specifically causing the interference pattern is the small section of wall between the two slits.

CD

edit punctuation

Thanks CD

That's an interesting theory, but if it's the wall causing the interference pattern, why isn't it there when the photons electrons or whatever are only sent through the one slit?

[Cosmic Dick]

Thanks CD

That's an interesting theory, but if it's the wall causing the interference pattern, why isn't it there when the photons electrons or whatever are only sent through the one slit?

I know Mathis answers this point in his document, but I can't recall the precise answer he gives, so, I'll check and then put it in laymans.

[sam-i-am]

Question for the atheists- do you believe in the existence of an objective reality?

I think George Carlin covers that:

George Carlin On Religion

CD

I really must be a simpleton, I just can't see the relevance of that link to the question. It just seems to me to be a bog standard anti religion rant.

Anyhoos.... if you do believe in the existence of an objective reality, this is impossible to verify so.... do you consider your belief in an objective reality an act of faith?

[Cosmic Dick]

Anyhoos.... if you do believe in the existence of an objective reality, this is impossible to verify so.... do you consider your belief in an objective reality an act of faith?

I haven't given it that much thought, to be honest.

Although, I'm now thinking I wouldn't use the word faith, not being religious, I just believe.

What is your point? Are you asking if I can justify my belief?

Well, as far as I'm aware, I'm not a turkey, and my head is not on the block come christmas.

[Cosmic Dick]

That's an interesting theory, but if it's the wall causing the interference pattern, why isn't it there when the photons electrons or whatever are only sent through the one slit?

Checked Mathis on this, and there he only concerns with the detector in the slit breaking the interference pattern, which will not answer you satisfactorily, so I'd rather give you my own answer, in layman's.

Forget the two slits for now, what if there was only one slit in the wall? Then you still get interference, but it produces a different pattern, instead of constructive or destructive, it would just spread the light out, which is precisely what you see, the line projected on the back wall will be wider than the slit, and more diifuse, no sharp line showing the exact edge of the slit.

CD

[sam-i-am]

Anyhoos.... if you do believe in the existence of an objective reality, this is impossible to verify so.... do you consider your belief in an objective reality an act of faith?

I haven't given it that much thought, to be honest.

Although, I'm now thinking I wouldn't use the word faith, not being religious, I just believe.

What is your point? Are you asking if I can justify my belief?

Well, as far as I'm aware, I'm not a turkey, and my head is not on the block come christmas.

I don't have a point, If I focus on the destination I miss the journey

I'm interested, I'm learning. The thing about the belief faith thing is, which is it? or is it something different? Does it's nature change once you give it a name? How can we know anything?

I'm a bit too stoned for the double slit thingy right now, I'll get back to you tomorrow