StarGateWars Forums

[KMA]Avenger wrote:nice to see you completely missed the point as usual...


if you had bothered to find out what the council of Trent was all about you would also dismiss those very same sources you provided for 1 very simple reason...the vaticans evil council of Trent proves those sources are false!

First of all, which sources?
Second of all, i did read it, Loled, and just replied as i replied cause, well honestly there is truth of what I said. You choose to dismiss my sources as it isnt backing your argument up.

Infact the council of Trent backs my argument up


"""The counter reformation is basically why the catholic church saw that they were no longer supported so to speak and changed their ways for political reasons.
"""
by force or any other means...


Besides, ... and get this.... the council of Trent were in 1545–1563 time frame.

The counter reformation movement ended in 1648.

Now just look at that. A lot can change in 100 ish years.


i don't simply dismiss a source because it doesn't fit my argument, i dismiss them when its provably wrong and the Vaticans evil council of Trent proves they are wrong....

Again, hearsay, no real evidence, just this council says so. 18 years of say what over 1000 years organised church is a long time indeed.

Evil? How the hell would you know what is good and what is evil?

you can tell what kind of council it was just by looking at its edicts, conclusions and instructions.

if the council of Trent was not a blatant act of evil directed at the masses by what's supposed to be a holy institution-i don't know what is!

The catholic church is no more holier than you and me. The church is made up of people, People are inheritable evil. the is no doubt that evil things will come to pass.

excommunicating and or killing a person and their entire family simply because they prefer to go by what the bible says rather than what church doctrine dictates (because of the council of Trent) is what in your eyes...an act of kindness, a non-event or maybe neither good nor evil???

Evil act, yes, but, you cant just blame the whole church on one radicals Trent for 18 years.

IMO it is just a way of having of a country/countries political control. At the same time making sure noone gets the wiser.

Using a 'reverse' example.
Evolution leads to eugenics...just ask Hitler.
Hitler was an atheist. Although an upright moral man.

Mister Sandman wrote:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:You choose to dismiss my sources as it isnt backing your argument up.

i don't simply dismiss a source because it doesn't fit my argument, i dismiss them when its provably wrong and the Vaticans evil council of Trent proves they are wrong....

[KMA]Avenger wrote:Hitler was an atheist?

where do you get your info from?!?!

“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”
Adolf Hitler

Once born a Catholic always a Catholic.

“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”
Adolf Hitler

Hitler often associated atheism with Germany's communist enemy.

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf.


In an attempt to justify Nazi intolerance he recommends militantism, which he associates with Christianity's rise to Roman state religion, as a model for the Nazis in their pursuit of power, while simultaneously lamenting the demise of Pre-Christian Roman Religion,

“I may not be a light of the church, a pulpiteer, but deep down I am a pious man, and believe that whoever fights bravely in defense of the natural laws framed by God and never capitulates will never be deserted by the Lawgiver, but will, in the end, receive the blessings of Providence.”
Adolf Hitler.


want some more Hitler/religious quotes???

As we know, Hitler was a politically cunning man. His public and written statements is propaganda. Mainly to appease the laymen.




according to historian Michael Rissmann, young Hitler was influenced in school by Pan-Germanism and began to reject the Catholic Church, receiving Confirmation only unwillingly. A boyhood friend reports that after Hitler had left home, he never again attended a Catholic Mass or received the Church's Sacraments


http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

for an atheistic bunch they sure did like their photos taken with the catholic clergy

Hitler Oath:

I swear by God,
this holy oath,
to the Führer of the German Reich and people.
Adolf Hitler...

thats REALLY atheistic!!!

Sure is. God can be used as an tool ro manipulate people.

and if Hitler was an atheist why did he allow some of his top officials to marry in catholic churches...

Cant pass the age old tradition of marrying in a church.


Take the swastika, it was from Buddhism and Jainism, both religions with no deity and atheistic principles. The symbol of the nazi party was chosen for that reason. Because they believed there was no deity, unless it was the party itself, and were atheists.

and just for the record...the council of Trent and the counter-reformation are STILL in affect...that's right! the Vatican is STILL hell bent on persecuting everyone who doesn't bow at the popes feet and acknowledge him as the "infallible".

Id disagree with you, why? because there is no council of Trent meeting, unless you have some evidence saying otherwise that council still meets.

They may be hell bent on persecuting everyone who doesn't bow at the feet of the pope and acknowledge him as the "infallible". Wait, I know many Catholics who don't and don't get persecuted.... um oh wow....

Mister Sandman wrote:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:You choose to dismiss my sources as it isnt backing your argument up.

i don't simply dismiss a source because it doesn't fit my argument, i dismiss them when its provably wrong and the Vaticans evil council of Trent proves they are wrong....

now you presume to know what i'm thinking before i do?

i've already told you that mainstream sources are not credible because the Vatican, its teachings, crimes and dogma PROVE they are wrong!

Let me tell you, No they dont. And ive already told you why they dont. Trent proves only the Catholic Church has done evil acts in the past.

IMO you think all sources that are not yours are not credible.

i dont believe (and find it hard to believe you do) man is inherently evil, man is more prone to commit acts of sin than good, but deep down, what man doesn't want to do good?!

Just take a look around the world and tell me that man doesnt do evil things. Man has a choice, they are more prone to do evil things because they are easier, or come off a temptation, i.e greed.
Evil acts may be done in the name of good. Ask hitler.

Hitchkok wrote:2) none of my answers negate the existence of god. gods existence can't be disproven

Sarevok wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:2) none of my answers negate the existence of god. god's existence can't be disproven (nor proven, mind you) scientifically, because god is not a scientific concept. personally, i choose not to believe in god.

And what if you could find evidences of things that are unexplainable by science, and can never be done so?

Juliette wrote:Sarevok, who said what? What is your text, what is someone else's text? That colourcoded **filtered** confuses the holy sunshine out of me.

Sarevok wrote:Sorry, gonna try cutting some old stuff out, to reduce post length

Sarevok ideas
Hitchkok ideas

So, that the pressure inside the small universe pushed itself apart. But this pressure would have to overcome the gravitation pull of the matter against each other. Same as why the earth doesn't explode due to pressure inside the core, or the sun for that fact.
it does. we know it as volcanic eruptions, or sun spots. differenc is, when those happen the pressure is relieved, by going somewhere, so a worldwide catastrophe is avoided. in the case of the entire cosmos, it doesn't have where to go, hence, the big bang.
That is against tiny gravitational forces. Even the gravity within a neutron star isn’t strong enough to cause ejections of material like that of solar flairs or volcanic eruptions.
i don't see your point. gravity doesn't cause ejections of matter, pressure does.

a) plasma is also matter. it is super heated gas. when the universe begun expanding, the pressure was relieved, and the plasma begun cooling into gas, and later fluids and solids
So, plasma is matter. When matter is at a critical density, it collapses due to gravity.
that is wrong. pressure is a much stronger force than gravity, but it decays with regards to volume (that is, distance cubed (to the 3rd power)), where as gravity decays with regards to distance squared (to the second power). i.e. increase in density (decrease in volume), would make the ratio pressure/gravity greater, until a critical density would make the pressure higher, and would cause a matter to be more likely to "explode", than to "implode"
Since this critical density was obviously obtained in the early universe (as the matter of the universe in the size of a pin head, would be at a greater density, that that of simply the core of a star being compressed) how was it able to escape it’s own gravity.
as explained, the decrease in size, caused an increase in the pressure/gravity ratio, hence the big bang

b) why does it matter at what point did the matter became dominant over energy? actually, i'm not sure it did. for all i know, we might be living in a cosmos more plentyful in energy than matter.
It matters, since if the universe was not 100% energy at the start, it would have collapsed upon itself. Hence my question, if it was energy at the start, when did matter form, and how could pressure push it apart? If it was matter, how did the pressure exceed that of a black hole of universal proportions.
you didn't show that "if the universe was not 100% energy at the start, it would have collapsed upon itself.", which voids that argument. and i explained why the pressure exceeded that of a black hole.
That can't happen. If that was true, wouldn't the pressure in a black hole, also push itself apart? Or simply chunks of super compressed matter out?
And matter didn't exist in the first place. I thought i read that, or you said, there was plasma, or something else, then matter. Or am i mistaken? But if I’m wrong. Correct me
the pressure in a black hole might cause the same, when it reaches a critical mass (rather, a critical density). but the black hole won't tear itself apart. there will be somthing akin to a volcanic eruption, which will push the black hole under the critical density.
I have 2 problems with that claim.
1) There are theorised black holes at the centre of galaxies, which basically hold the whole thing together. If this is true, then exactly how massive does a black hole need to become? Since in order for one to be large enough to keep the galaxy from spreading apart into the universe, it would need a fair bit of matter.
i don't know. as i said, i'm not an asto-physichist. i took some courses, and know the basic concepts, but for the exact figures you'll have to ask someone who dedicates his life to it.

2) Black holes are a singularity. The only observable size of one is where the event horizon exists, which would be probably proportional in some way to the amount at the singularity. So, how would something like a volcanic eruption from the singularity help its cause? Since the material excreted would need to travel faster then the speed of light, for the radius of the black hole. And since as any object with a mass, which gets closer to the speed of light, it’s mass become infinite.

a) you're confusing concepts here.
black holes aren't a singularity. the term "black hole" is a confusing one. it is neither black, nor a hole. it is an object, with dimensions, and mass. we call it a hole, since the gravitational pull it exerts means nothing can "get out". we call it black, since neither can light, meaning we can't see inside.
the "event horizon" is the point (actually, a shell, an imaginary skin of zero width encircling the black hole in a specific distance) beyond which light cannot escape the pull of the black hole. it is the closest to the black hole we can see.
b)youre point regarding moving faster than light is only valid assuming there is no propellent. assuming a propellent, the speed could be lower than the speed of light. now, i'm not proposing that someone put an engine on that lump of matter trapped in the black hole, but think again about a volcano. there isn't just one push, which sends matter flying. it's a continous process, until the pressure is relieved. now, i can't tell you if this is happening in space, and i doubt anyone in this world can. but it's a possible procces.

what do you mean before? why did anything had to be "before"? what will you answer if i'll answer you what was before god?
truth is, no one knows what was before. there are theories, ranging from a previous universe that collapsed into itself, to a sinite dot that was "always" there.
If you asked that question, I would say God always existed. If you then say the universe before the "spatially finite beginning" always existed, then what caused it to change from what it was, to being expanding? God didn’t need a cause. The universe to being expanding needed a cause. But since nothing else exists apart from the universe, nothing could be this “initial cause”. Nothing could cause a change in pressure to start it expanding, nothing could trigger it.
you touched the exact core of why i choose not to believe in god. because you can explaine everything by seeing "it's god's doing". and, while it can be comforting, it's not helpful. now, we might not know how the universe started, but we can keep investigating. and what ever conclusions we will receive will be more helpful than leaving it as "it's god's doing"

4a) If nothing, then where did all this matter come from? If we maintain the law of physics which states "Matter/Energy can no be created nor destroyed", we can not have made it all from nothing at the start
exactly. where does that say that once the amount was zero?
Just to clarify, and remove this part of the question. You believe something of the universe always existed. In no matter what form. Just cause this part was about if there was nothing. And if you think there was always something, this part is irrelevant

4b) If something, then what something. What kicked the whole thing off, and why at that point in eternity?
pressure, and because that time had the right conditions. had it not, it would have happened at a "later" (again, if all is static, then what's "later" and what's "prior"?) point. and then you would have asked why was it at that later point.
And exactly what conditions would affect it? Nothing would change, as you said, it would remain static…
we don't know. that's way we keep investigating,
If we cannot observe outside our universe, and an external factor is what kicked the whole thing off, then what started the external factor? Eventually something had to start the whole chain of events off, no?
again, i can just ask you "what started god?".
and i never said something external started the whole thing off.

If that were so. Wouldn’t the CMB be also moving away at a certain speed? If it is, what is this speed, if it is known
think of a flashlight on the end of a train that is going away from you. if that train would move in a sufficient speed, the light would turn to the blue end of the spectrum, and you would see it as greenish, or bluish (if the train would be moving toward you, you would see it as redish) note, sufficient speeds are fractions of light-speed, so a 300MPH bullet train won't quite cut it (although, you can hear the same kind of effect with the train's horn, which will sound higher in pitch when coming towards you, and lower when going away). this is what we call the Doppler effect. the matter in the universe is the flashlight. the cosmic microwave radiation is the light. and it turns out that everywhere we look, it's greenish. the CMB isn't an object. it is the sum of light emitted by matter when the big bang occured
I understand shifts in frequency with relation to moving objects. And thus the apparent moving away of the CMB with relation to earth, which would support the theory of the big bang. Though wouldn’t the universe expanding, no matter its origin, also give a similar result?
I have another question but. You explained that the CMB is almost uniform, and slight variations of the CMB would support the notion that galaxies were able to form due to the non-uniform distribution of material in the universe. I read that cosmologists claim that a non-uniform distribution rate of 1 in 10^4 is needed, but that, once we remove the effects of the earth, solar system, and galaxy movements, we only have a non-uniform distribution of 1 in 10^5. Which is to low of an uniformity to allow bodies to form
there is much we don't know and don't understand. tradionally, the scientific way to deal with the unexplained is to theorise, and put those theories to the test. the thorie "it is god's doing" has one major fault in this respect: it can't be put to the test, hence, not a scientifically valid theorie.
currently, the accepted theorie regarding the point you raised is that of "black-matter", and "black-energy", which are matter and energy that don't emit signatures our instruments recognise.

Hitchkok wrote:2) none of my answers negate the existence of god. gods existence can't be disproven

Cause it’s impossible to prove a negative, being God doesn’t exist. Agreed. I just love the way you took a fragment. read on: "god's existence can't be disproven (nor proven, mind you) scientifically, because god is not a scientific concept". the accepted definition for a scientific concept, by the way, is one that can be DIS-proven scientifically. so before attempting to prove god scientifically, take a minute to reflect on what will happen should you fail.
Did you notice that I did “read on” in like 3 lines? I addressed a statement imbedded in another. If you’d prefer I didn’t, then ok
i did notice. and yes, i would prefer you not to take my conclusions without considering my assumptions. (taking my assumptions without considering my conclusions i have no problem with)

Sarevok wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:2) none of my answers negate the existence of god. god's existence can't be disproven (nor proven, mind you) scientifically, because god is not a scientific concept. personally, i choose not to believe in god.

And what if you could find evidences of things that are unexplainable by science, and can never be done so?

like what?
heavy objects lifted without direct contact? we call it magnetism.
a flick of a switch that makes the night as bright as day? we call it electricity.
water being pumped up without apparent energy being applied? we call it capilary properties.
a sheep being born of an un-impregnated sheep? we call it cloning.
i can go on. and on.
fact is, once you'll find a phenomenon that isn't explained by science, science will adapt. science is NOT a dogma. it is an attempt at describing the world around us, and foreseeing phenomenons not yet seen. it is very possible that on another world, an other set of theories was evolved that is totally different than our own, but not less (or more) accurate. it will be based on a different set of assumptions. but for both sets, the assumption of god is an assumption they do very well without.
Ok. So since when did I claim example like that as evidence? Heck, things like that aren’t even used as proof in the bible.
“heavy objects lifted without direct contact? we call it magnetism.” Does that work when the object is not a metal? Like a rock?
actually, yes. we know some non metallic elements to display magnetic charectaristics, and some rocks are embedded with iron ores, and are also susceptible to magnetic manipulations.
“water being pumped up without apparent energy being applied? we call it capilary properties.” Erm, ok? I know that’s how you can do it, but what’s that got to do with proof/disproof of anything in the bible?
it goes to show that what was once a "miracoulos event" is today an easily explained everyday event.
“a sheep being born of an un-impregnated sheep? we call it cloning.” Eh? Would not implanting an egg inside a sheep be called impregnation? Thus it was impregnated
semantics. had i said "a virgin sheep giving birth", would you be satisfied?
And now what I would ACTUALLY like disproved…
Things such as inoperable tumours disappearing by themselves, despite having X-rays of them clearly visible
People walking in with clearly maimed body parts, which can’t be repaired, and walking out with perfectly functioning parts
Claims of things to come, with specific detail, that occur centuries after they were claimed to happen. as i already said, we don't know everything. we can choose to investigate it, or we can choose to accept it as "god's doing". accepting it as "god's doing", will mean we will never be able to understand it and reproduce it.