Fallacies of Evolution Require Extreme Faith

AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Fallacies of Evolution Require Extreme Faith

The doctrines of a "no God" crowd require more faith than to believe in God. I will demonstrate this throughout this forum.

The Bigbang Doctrine


#1 I call it “doctrine” because it is a theory based on faith. It is not science nor does it adhere to the scientific method.  It is not observable, nor repeatable.

#2 This doctrine teaches that the whole universe came from a dot smaller than this one => .

#3 This dot came from absolutely nothing. Basically, “nothing exploded”. lol

The existence of the universe cannot come from nothing. Something must have been there and from that something it all came to be. If there was “absolutely nothing” in the past, then today we would have absolutely nothing.

Atheists criticize Christians for believing in miracles when in fact they are the ones who believe in extreme miracles. When I ask God to do something for me, it is like asking a friend for a hand to do something that otherwise would be impossible for me to do. The help of my friend is referred to by atheists as a miracle when in fact IT IS NOT a miracle.

Believing that the whole universe came from absolute nothing is IN FACT a miracle.

Nothing cannot produce something. This a fallacy and to believe this you need EXTREME FAITH.

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3627
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
              

                                                Make up your mind.  Are you discussing evolution or cosmology ?

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13591
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Would you buy the same tripe

Would you buy the same tripe you spewed above, if someone who claimed another pet deity were using this same argument to sell you their pet god?

NO, you would not.

Now, what we do have in human history that is abundantly documented is our species imagination in making up god/s throughout our written and oral history that YOU rightfully dismiss as being made up.

If I am going to place bets on a god existing, or the truth of humans making up gods, I am placing my bets on reality. You like the idea of having a super hero, and "god" is merely a psychological reflection of your wishful thinking.

If you can rightfully accept that Neptune is not required to make hurricanes, why would biology or the universe need a thinking "who" anymore than a hurricane would need Neptune to occur?

There is nothing new to our species behavior. You falsely believe in your god for the same reason the Ancient Egyptians falsely believed that the sun was a god, and they had more to point at than you do.

The universe is 14 billion years old. Our species is only 500,000 years old in it's current forum, and written communication is only several thousand years old. You'd have me believe that this cosmic Superman put all this in motion, sat on his hands, watches us suffer the entire time like lab rats, and then SUDDENLY, after all that time decides to step in?

And I find the fact that cockroaches and bacteria outnumbering humans a bit of a damper on the bullshit argument of plan or design.

And what makes you honestly think any human living now, or in the future will be remembered when our species goes extinct?

THIS is all there is and your utopia myth bullshit is just that. It is you projecting your desires on the world around you. We have one life, thats it. The universe was around before our species and it will be around long after our planet dies.

Making up comic book super heros vs super villains will not change reality. It doesn't work when Muslims, or Jews or Hindus or Shintoists do it. Humans like gaps and placebos when they cant find answers, it is easier than actually testing.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2385
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
yoohoo....

                        What existed before the big bang is called a singularity. We have no evidence available to call it anything else.  That the singularity was the size of a small dot>. seams rediculous to ME; physics does NOT  recognize any definite size to the singularity; There is no evidence YET for what it's size was,  but science keeps looking.                              My opinion of the rest of your post can be found here.                                                           http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/31241     

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

The doctrines of a "no God" crowd require more faith than to believe in God. I will demonstrate this throughout this forum.

Welcome, AtheistsNightmare.  Good luck demonstrating that atheists who base their beliefs on reason and evidence require more faith than the religious.  I predict you won't come close to being a nightmare.  Maybe annoying, but not convincing.

 

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

The Bigbang Doctrine


#1 I call it “doctrine” because it is a theory based on faith. It is not science nor does it adhere to the scientific method.  It is not observable, nor repeatable.

#2 This doctrine teaches that the whole universe came from a dot smaller than this one => .

#3 This dot came from absolutely nothing. Basically, “nothing exploded”. lol

The existence of the universe cannot come from nothing. Something must have been there and from that something it all came to be. If there was “absolutely nothing” in the past, then today we would have absolutely nothing.

You call it a doctrine because you know that your worldview is nothing more than faith-based.  It's a reversal and a rhetorical trick.  The big bang theory is based on solid evidence.  If you don't think the big bang theory is scientific, you might as well throw forensic science out the window too.  Both are about events that happened in the past.  By the way, I hope you're not a young earth creationist.  If you are, you have a lot of work to do.

The universe didn't come from nothing in the philosophical sense.  It came from the laws of quantum physics, which might have existed forever.  You said that the universe could not have come from nothing because something must have been there.  Then you said that if there was absolutely nothing in the past, there would still be absolutely nothing today.  Why is that the case, and how do you know?  So far all you have are assumptions.

 

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

Atheists criticize Christians for believing in miracles when in fact they are the ones who believe in extreme miracles. When I ask God to do something for me, it is like asking a friend for a hand to do something that otherwise would be impossible for me to do. The help of my friend is referred to by atheists as a miracle when in fact IT IS NOT a miracle.

Believing that the whole universe came from absolute nothing is IN FACT a miracle.

Nothing cannot produce something. This a fallacy and to believe this you need EXTREME FAITH. 

What does God help you with?  There is likely a reasonable physicalistic explanation.  And you keep bringing up how atheists have as much, if not more, faith than theists.  You sound like you feel guilty and embarrassed by faith, and mad and envious that we don't need as much of it.  I hope we can wake you from your nightmare.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
I would actually try to

I would actually try to explain why you are wrong and how the quantum foam is not in fact nothing.  I would start with inertia and then work my way through some basic quantum concepts.  I would then mention how virtual particle anti-particle pairs are created all the time in this quantum foam.  Which is not in fact nothing, but as close to nothing as we can possibly EVER physically get.  I would do all that, but I doubt that you would understand it.  Even if you have the mental capacity, you are clearly not interested in an argument.  The fact that you mention scientific method is laughable.

I also doubt that you are honestly trying to start an argument, you're just trying to cause some controversy.  Your name is also ironic, atheist nightmare.  I have had scarier bowel movements.  You carry the intellectual threat of a chimp with a typewriter, in that I'm more wary of you chucking the the typewriter at me, rather then some profound, paradigm shifting insight.

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3048
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare wrote:#1 I

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

#1 I call it “doctrine” because it is a theory based on faith. It is not science nor does it adhere to the scientific method.  It is not observable, nor repeatable.

#2 This doctrine teaches that the whole universe came from a dot smaller than this one => .

#3 This dot came from absolutely nothing. Basically, “nothing exploded”. lol

The existence of the universe cannot come from nothing. Something must have been there and from that something it all came to be. If there was “absolutely nothing” in the past, then today we would have absolutely nothing.

Atheists criticize Christians for believing in miracles when in fact they are the ones who believe in extreme miracles. When I ask God to do something for me, it is like asking a friend for a hand to do something that otherwise would be impossible for me to do. The help of my friend is referred to by atheists as a miracle when in fact IT IS NOT a miracle.

Believing that the whole universe came from absolute nothing is IN FACT a miracle.

Nothing cannot produce something. This a fallacy and to believe this you need EXTREME FAITH.

You are ignorant of the facts.

1 - it, "the big bang" can be examined through mathematical equations, which when fed in to a computer can be replicated. Sorry, but to be a human sitting in a spaceship (for a lack of a better word) would be annihilated within fractions of a nano second when the expansion took place.

2 - As for the '.' being the size of it I couldn't debate this; I don't know enough to say yes or no. Was it small? Yes, very very small.

3 - There was no "exploding" nor was there a "big bang". There was an expansion and it's the stupid media for contributing to the wrong terminology.

Also, it didn't come from "nothing". Again, I'd have to go in to string theory and quantum mechanics to explain more (which I can't & won't).

 

This common question bugged me for many years. I asked myself how did this all start? What is beyond the Universe? What is beyond the outside of that? Where did "god" come from? etc.

The "eureka" moment came when I realized that 1) no god needed to exist to "create" this universe. 2) there is no beginning or end, only change 3) and that every thing out side of this universe eventually wraps back around so even if you left this universe you would eventually come back to it.

As for "what" exists outside this universe, I don't know, energy? string-waves? I don't care. I'm not going to be around long enough to see it.

What I do know is that all gods are created by humans. They were created during a time of mystery when we didn't have science to explain the truth of nature. We used myths to explain every thing from the lightning to the thunder.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5098
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi there you Nightmare, you

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

The doctrines of a "no God" crowd require more faith than to believe in God. I will demonstrate this throughout this forum.

The Bigbang Doctrine


#1 I call it “doctrine” because it is a theory based on faith. It is not science nor does it adhere to the scientific method.  It is not observable, nor repeatable.

#2 This doctrine teaches that the whole universe came from a dot smaller than this one => .

#3 This dot came from absolutely nothing. Basically, “nothing exploded”. lol

The existence of the universe cannot come from nothing. Something must have been there and from that something it all came to be. If there was “absolutely nothing” in the past, then today we would have absolutely nothing.

Atheists criticize Christians for believing in miracles when in fact they are the ones who believe in extreme miracles. When I ask God to do something for me, it is like asking a friend for a hand to do something that otherwise would be impossible for me to do. The help of my friend is referred to by atheists as a miracle when in fact IT IS NOT a miracle.

Believing that the whole universe came from absolute nothing is IN FACT a miracle.

Nothing cannot produce something. This a fallacy and to believe this you need EXTREME FAITH.

 

 

Welcome to the site. 

It's important you understand the scientific method before bringing your guns to bear, Nightmare.

First an hypothesis is proposed and then data is gathered that more or less supports the hypothesis. Over time a series of hypotheses may be shown to support your initial hypothesis and all these hypotheses collectively are now called a scientific theory. As in the theory of evolution. 

At no time in the scientific method is anything ever proven to be absolutely true and at all times your hypothesis is open to being proven utterly false by new data. In fact, it's possible that a much loved hypothesis relating to the very nature of physics may be refuted by the findings of the LHC and multiple underlying hypotheses explaining subatomic particles may need a total re-think. This is normal in science. 

So, Nightmare, there's no extreme faith involved. Not even slight faith. Nor do you seem to adequately comprehend the nature of logical fallacy. It's not fallacious to say nothing produced something. It's either supported by the data or it's not supported by the data. And it's up to you to define the existence of nothing. As yet the existence of nothing has never been proven true. 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5098
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Additionally

 

 

I love your Avatar. So ethereal.  It reminds me of the time I went to a disco at Maroubra Seals in the summer 1987 and one of the glycol cylinders broke. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

                                                Make up your mind.  Are you discussing evolution or cosmology ?

Evolution in general (anything that evolves). I'm just getting started.


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Answer

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

                                                Make up your mind.  Are you discussing evolution or cosmology ?

Evolution in general (anything that evolves). I'm just getting started.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13591
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
AtheistsNightmare

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

                                                Make up your mind.  Are you discussing evolution or cosmology ?

Evolution in general (anything that evolves). I'm just getting started.

Do us a favor, change your name to Atheistsyawnfest. Glad you are getting started, we love to eat your arguments for breakfast, but hardly a "nightmare". Maybe in the sense that we see it so much and theism infects politics and education globally, and that theism is a "nightmare" in the sense that it has caused worldwide division and death. But we are NOT scared of your arguments at all, or any claim of invisible friend by any name, not just yours. To us trying to "scare" us with any argument of yours for an invisible friend would be like expecting us to be scared of Mickey Mouse.

We are not pushovers here. Your claims will get knocked around. Have at it, we are not scared of pretend invisible beings anymore than you should be afraid of Thor.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Answer

Brian37 wrote:

Do us a favor, change your name to Atheistsyawnfest. Glad you are getting started, we love to eat your arguments for breakfast, but hardly a "nightmare". Maybe in the sense that we see it so much and theism infects politics and education globally, and that theism is a "nightmare" in the sense that it has caused worldwide division and death. But we are NOT scared of your arguments at all, or any claim of invisible friend by any name, not just yours. To us trying to "scare" us with any argument of yours for an invisible friend would be like expecting us to be scared of Mickey Mouse.

We are not pushovers here. Your claims will get knocked around. Have at it, we are not scared of pretend invisible beings anymore than you should be afraid of Thor.

 

Dont' worry. I'm not your nightmare. The one in the picture is if you don't repent.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10595
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Funny. Yet another ignorant

Funny. Yet another ignorant theist makes a total fool of himself.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Answer for All

Scientific Method (in layman’s terms)

#1 The event has to be observable.
#2 Predictions (theories, hypothesis) are made as of why the event happens.
#3 Test the predictions by experimentation to confirm the cause or result of an event.
#4 If the experiment confirms the theory, then the theory is no longer a theory. It is a FACT.  

Example:

#1 Bunch of fish found dead near the coast of Australia (this is observable and repeatable. It happens often)
#2 Theory:  bacteria near the coast is killing them.
#3 Get small a sample of water and test for bacteria. If bacteria are found, dump a fish in it and observe if it dies. If it dies, grab another portion of water and remove the bacteria in it and dump another fish.
#4 When you see that the fish does not die the theory at point #2 has been confirmed. If it still dies, the theory has been falsified.

 

Going back to the BigBang, It is NOT OBSERVABLE nor does it repeat itself. You cannot experiment with something that you cannot reproduce. The whole doctrine is a theory that is far from being confirmed. It is totally based on assumptions (believes).

To me, the whole thing smells as much bullshit as the theory of “earth is flat and mounted on four elephants”. Hey, but what can you expect? Both fallacies came from the Catholic Church. Yes my friend, your doctrine of BigBand came from a catholic priest.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

 

The only observable fact they have is that the universe is expanding. This fact doesn’t mean that it came from a => . (dot) or a “primeval atom” or however you want to call it. You NEED EXPREME FAITH to believe this.

An expanding universe is a phenomenon revealed a long time ago by God to the prophets:

Zechariah 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens...

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.

 

This whole thing of the BigBang from nothing is useless garbage and sorry, I DO NOT believe such garbage.

Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

This is the end of "evolution of nothing into something". My next post will be about evolution of ???.

What is the mathematical probability of multiplying 0 x 0 and the result being 1? That is your bigbang.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10595
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:#1 I call it

Quote:
#1 I call it “doctrine” because it is a theory based on faith. It is not science nor does it adhere to the scientific method.  It is not observable, nor repeatable.

Wrong. On all counts.

Quote:
#2 This doctrine teaches that the whole universe came from a dot smaller than this one => .

Not exactly, but thanks for providing more evidence of your ignorance of science.

Quote:
#3 This dot came from absolutely nothing. Basically, “nothing exploded”. lol

Again you prove your ignorance.

Go back to grade school. You have nothing.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
The event does not need to

The event does not need to be observable.  It just needs to produce observable effects.  In fact, you don't really observe anything but photons and gravitons directly.  Everything else is observed by the exchange of photons and gravitons.

Also, look up "Cosmic Microwave Background," it's one of the observable effects produced by the big bang.

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Zaq wrote:The event does not

Zaq wrote:

The event does not need to be observable.  It just needs to produce observable effects.  In fact, you don't really observe anything but photons and gravitons directly.  Everything else is observed by the exchange of photons and gravitons.

Also, look up "Cosmic Microwave Background," it's one of the observable effects produced by the big bang.

Of course, observable science confirmed by actual experiments involving the phenomena in question (as opposed to silly-ass philosophical "thought experiments" like the one in your avatar) confirm the "scientific wild-ass guesses" often made in physics, which, for lack of a better term, amounts to "inventing" a 'puzzle piece' that matches up with all other 'puzzle pieces' that make up human knowledge.

Enter David Hume and Bob Spence, and how these 'philosophers' make so many astute 'observations' about how human knowledge is actually achieved... albeit, in a pontificating, nonsensical choice of words.

(yes, Bob Spence is very much something of a web philosopher that also fancies himself an educator on subjects other than scientific knowledge, yet... couldn't 'educate himself out of paper bag', much LESS in a class-room full of teens or preteens. Story for a REALLY rainy day...)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13591
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
AtheistsNightmare

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Do us a favor, change your name to Atheistsyawnfest. Glad you are getting started, we love to eat your arguments for breakfast, but hardly a "nightmare". Maybe in the sense that we see it so much and theism infects politics and education globally, and that theism is a "nightmare" in the sense that it has caused worldwide division and death. But we are NOT scared of your arguments at all, or any claim of invisible friend by any name, not just yours. To us trying to "scare" us with any argument of yours for an invisible friend would be like expecting us to be scared of Mickey Mouse.

We are not pushovers here. Your claims will get knocked around. Have at it, we are not scared of pretend invisible beings anymore than you should be afraid of Thor.

 

Dont' worry. I'm not your nightmare. The one in the picture is if you don't repent.

Once again, I am not even afraid of what you think your cartoon avatar is in the fantasy you swallowed. To even imply I should be afraid of the non existent is absurd. You might as well imply or directly threaten me with pink unicorns or Lex Luthor, it would still amount to a hollow threat.

There is no such thing as an invisible friend, by any name. God/s/deity/entity/super natural, are all the human projections of wishful thinking, including yours.

Now on a moral level, if you we are to play "lets pretend", for argument's sake only.

Lets pretend for a second your particular god was real? You think threats are a moral way to get people to follow? If threats are all it takes to lead, then you could easily be led by the likes of Kim Jong Un.

I don't bow to threats, and in the west our leaders are elected and are held to account by the population. The same cannot be said for your concept of a god.

I do not find "Might makes right" and "because I said so" and "because I will beat the shit out of you if you dont" is either adult or moral. It is the behavior of schoolyard bullies and tyrants.

I feel sorry for you because that is the morality you needlessly subject yourself to.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5098
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Given there's a

 

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

 

Dont' worry. I'm not your nightmare. The one in the picture is if you don't repent.

 

 

picture of white boy jesus in your avatar, I'm assuming you're implying here that your hypothetical god concept is actually a murderous torturer.

Boy. You've really sold me on it now.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Zaq wrote:The

Kapkao wrote:

Zaq wrote:

The event does not need to be observable.  It just needs to produce observable effects.  In fact, you don't really observe anything but photons and gravitons directly.  Everything else is observed by the exchange of photons and gravitons.

Also, look up "Cosmic Microwave Background," it's one of the observable effects produced by the big bang.

Of course, observable science confirmed by actual experiments involving the phenomena in question (as opposed to silly-ass philosophical "thought experiments" like the one in your avatar) confirm the "scientific wild-ass guesses" often made in physics, which, for lack of a better term, amounts to "inventing" a 'puzzle piece' that matches up with all other 'puzzle pieces' that make up human knowledge.

Enter David Hume and Bob Spence, and how these 'philosophers' make so many astute 'observations' about how human knowledge is actually achieved... albeit, in a pontificating, nonsensical choice of words.

(yes, Bob Spence is very much something of a web philosopher that also fancies himself an educator on subjects other than scientific knowledge, yet... couldn't 'educate himself out of paper bag', much LESS in a class-room full of teens or preteens. Story for a REALLY rainy day...)

wtf did I just miss?... when did this become a discussion about Bob, or naturalistic philosophy generally?  

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
RE: Vastet

The "ignorant theists" usually forgo registering. The "disturbed theists" do not, but that leaves out Poe's Law.

Ergo, it is a poe Sticking out tongue

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

#4 If the experiment confirms the theory, then the theory is no longer a theory. It is a FACT.  

Your understanding of the philosophy of science is weak.  In layman's terms, evolution is a fact.  You can also call it a true theory, an overwhelmingly well-supported theory, a verified theory.  A theory means "explanation."  It comes from the Greek word meaning "a looking at" or "viewing."  The Greeks distinguished between two activities: one of knowledge, and the other of practice.  "Theories" refer to attempts to know and understand truth, whereas "practices" refer to the application of the truths into skills.

 

AtheistsNightmare wrote:
 

Going back to the BigBang, It is NOT OBSERVABLE nor does it repeat itself. You cannot experiment with something that you cannot reproduce. The whole doctrine is a theory that is far from being confirmed. It is totally based on assumptions (believes).

The big bang left evidence of its occurrence that can be analyzed.  Police officers can solve crimes that weren't observed using similar methods -- they examine the effects on the universe of the hypothesized crime, and eventually verify which hypothesis is correct.  A theory is a more complicated version of a hypothesis; it's more supported by evidence, it contains laws, tested hypotheses, and facts, but still falls under the same category of "thing that explains." 

 

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

To me, the whole thing smells as much bullshit as the theory of “earth is flat and mounted on four elephants”. Hey, but what can you expect? Both fallacies came from the Catholic Church. Yes my friend, your doctrine of BigBand came from a catholic priest.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

I don't care if the big bang theory came from a Catholic priest, it's still true.  It could have come from a serial killer and it wouldn't make the theory false. 

 

AtheistsNightmare wrote:
  

This whole thing of the BigBang from nothing is useless garbage and sorry, I DO NOT believe such garbage.

Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

This is the end of "evolution of nothing into something". My next post will be about evolution of ???.

What is the mathematical probability of multiplying 0 x 0 and the result being 1? That is your bigbang.

The big bang came from quantum physics, which is something.

 


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

Vastet wrote:

Funny. Yet another ignorant theist makes a total fool of himself.

He sounds like a fan of Kent Hovind.  I wish young earth creationism would die...


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote: Kapkao wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Zaq wrote:

The event does not need to be observable.  It just needs to produce observable effects.  In fact, you don't really observe anything but photons and gravitons directly.  Everything else is observed by the exchange of photons and gravitons.

Also, look up "Cosmic Microwave Background," it's one of the observable effects produced by the big bang.

Of course, observable science confirmed by actual experiments involving the phenomena in question (as opposed to silly-ass philosophical "thought experiments" like the one in your avatar) confirm the "scientific wild-ass guesses" often made in physics, which, for lack of a better term, amounts to "inventing" a 'puzzle piece' that matches up with all other 'puzzle pieces' that make up human knowledge.

Enter David Hume and Bob Spence, and how these 'philosophers' make so many astute 'observations' about how human knowledge is actually achieved... albeit, in a pontificating, nonsensical choice of words.

(yes, Bob Spence is very much something of a web philosopher that also fancies himself an educator on subjects other than scientific knowledge, yet... couldn't 'educate himself out of paper bag', much LESS in a class-room full of teens or preteens. Story for a REALLY rainy day...)

wtf did I just miss?... when did this become a discussion about Bob, or naturalistic philosophy generally?  

 

Mike Reed's Flame Warriors? Bob weaseling in Humanitarianism in practically every post that is opinion? Bob being a confrontational humanitarianist with the wrong generation of people?

Bob receiving similar treatment in kind then determining that "(he) doesn't have the patience"? It was actually just a snarky side comment aimed at a person who knows quite a bit about human pursuits of knowledge, yet... attempts to impress his sense of personal values on deaf ears. Values, I might add, appear based on the meaningless ramblings of either Aristotle or Confucius that later gave rise to Christianity.  (Christianity basically being a variation on Judaism and early Christians being named "Proselytizing Jews" by the romans themselves.)

(Read: stoicism, cynicism, Neoconfucianism and "ethics". There's also the nonsecular origins of the term "ex nihilio", but it holds little relevance.)

 

I think I finally got the message across that one shouldn't proselytize to me about anything after year and a half of trying, on the boards... but who knows. Maybe some raver will come to RRS wearing bell-bottoms, a tie-dye and a leisure suit suggesting that I "keep an open mind".

Ineffectual educator is ineffectual, despite having one of the best lines of philosophy in his signature... that I have ever read.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
According the the bible, God

According the the bible, God is only please by faith, the more faith the better you are to him. So since Our nightmare has demonstrated that being an atheist requires much more faith than being Christian, we're better off having 'faith' in evolution and the big bang. Our nightmare is going to have to explain why he didn't have as much faith as us atheists.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Joker
atheist
Joker's picture
Posts: 180
Joined: 2010-07-23
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:According the the

EXC wrote:

According the the bible, God is only please by faith, the more faith the better you are to him. So since Our nightmare has demonstrated that being an atheist requires much more faith than being Christian, we're better off having 'faith' in evolution and the big bang. Our nightmare is going to have to explain why he didn't have as much faith as us atheists.

I am amused.


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Challenge For Vastet

My friend, you sound very arrogant.

Please indulge me. I challenge you to layout in this forum your best evidence that the universe came from a “primeval atom”.

Read carefully what I just said and don’t post theories as evidence. Don’t confuse one with the other. And again, your BEST piece of evidence.  Don’t make your atheists friends look bad.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Joker wrote:EXC

Joker wrote:

EXC wrote:

According the the bible, God is only please by faith, the more faith the better you are to him. So since Our nightmare has demonstrated that being an atheist requires much more faith than being Christian, we're better off having 'faith' in evolution and the big bang. Our nightmare is going to have to explain why he didn't have as much faith as us atheists.

I am amused.

I concur with you feelings of amusement.  I feel a long unused face muscle in a futile attempt at a smile.  ha...  * removes monocle and wipes it with breast pocket handkerchief .

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare wrote:My

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

My friend, you sound very arrogant.

Please indulge me. I challenge you to layout in this forum your best evidence that the universe came from a “primeval atom”.

Read carefully what I just said and don’t post theories as evidence. Don’t confuse one with the other. And again, your BEST piece of evidence.  Don’t make your atheists friends look bad.

I'm not sure who that is directed at, but I will take a crack at it.

first of all, some misconceptions... the universe didn't start from a point and exploded into existing space.  The universe was everything at all points in the development.  When it was 1 inch in diameter it was everything, when it was 1 foot in diameter it was everything, so on and so forth, it wasn't EXPANDING into something, it was everything... to say that it came from nothing... you are thinking of this as though you are observing the universe from the outside.  There is no OUTSIDE.  Ok, you ask for evidence I'll lay out a few basic concepts.  

Enter Hubble, good ole Hubble made some there observations about them there galaxies.  What he observed is that the almost everything is moving away from everything else.  And, that the further away galaxies are, the faster they are moving away from themselves... So if a galaxy 2,000,000 light years away form us is moving away twice as fast as one that's 1,000,000 l.y.   So what does this mean? well at first it wasn't understood very well, but imagine you are inside a ball of gunpowder as it explodes in space.  What you would expect to find is that everything will try to get away from everything else.  If you trace back the trajectory of the bits you will notice that they intersect at one point in the past...  Also, because the universe doesn't expand INTO space, but is space as it expands, the distances between the explosion bits will expand, which exactly what THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE is showing us.  

Enter the background radiation.  I'm not going to go into the famous history of the background radiation, it was at one time thought to be the result of bird poop on the radio telescope... very fun read.  Needless to say that it is relatively uniform and it is the same in every direction in the sky.  What does this mean? well, imagine you are inside that ball of gun powder again, but there is no SPACE for the explosion to blow into.  What you have is nothing but the initial explosion think of it as an ever expanding ball of energy, and you are now INSIDE that ball.  What you would expect to find is that the initial explosion will be relatively uniform everywhere you look in the sky... which exactly what THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE is showing us.

Yet another misconception is that the Big Bang theory actually makes predictions regarding the singularity, which it doesn't.  It says nothing regarding the origin of the primordial atom, or whatever you want to call it.  It simply explains why the universe is expanding and why it looks the way it does.  Physics as we know it break down in a singularity, so everything we think we know about that is theory only.  

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
spaco botilia amazo familia

Ktulu wrote:
AtheistsNightmare wrote:
My friend, you sound very arrogant.


Please indulge me. I challenge you to layout in this forum your best evidence that the universe came from a “primeval atom”.

Read carefully what I just said and don’t post theories as evidence. Don’t confuse one with the other. And again, your BEST piece of evidence.  Don’t make your atheists friends look bad.

I'm not sure who that is directed at, but I will take a crack at it.

It's in the title: Vastet.


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao

I have no idea what kind of point you're trying to make about Bob, but why did you quote me?


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Don't Deny the Facts

 

Ktulu wrote:

… the Big Bang theory actually … says nothing regarding the origin of the primordial atom, or whatever you want to call it.  It simply explains why the universe is expanding and why it looks the way it does. 

The guy who invented the theory, (a Catholic priest), says otherwise, quote:

"In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the evident expansion of the universe, if projected back in time, meant that the further in the past the smaller the universe was, until at some finite time in the past all the mass of the Universe was concentrated into a single point, a "primeval atom" where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

If this was true as you say that the BigBang makes no predictions about singularity, then why is it that atheists use this point to say God didn’t do it? Perhaps, you deny the “primeal atom” and singularity but right after you deny it you go ahead to explain it as if it was ever true.

Ktulu wrote:

Physics as we know it break down in a singularity, so everything we think we know about that is theory only.  

My friend, there is no need for you to explain to me how singularity works. IT NEVER HAPPENED. Even if it did, YOU NEVER SAW IT. You CAN NOT reproduce the event nor do any other human being. This is a fallacy and EXTREME FAITH required from those who want to believe in it.

I already showed biblical evidence stating the fact that the universe is expanding since GOD made it. Something that is expanding, doesn’t tell you when it started nor when it will stop. 

To compress a baby via mathematical computations to the point of singularity is RIDICULOUS and ABSURD. It goes against the very title of this website (not rational). A baby comes from billions of atoms that all together form a system, not a singular dot.

If we were debating about this topic a few decades back, you ALL would be making stupid arguments against the bible saying “the universe is static and never changing, It is eternal”. The evidence of an expanding universe only VALIDATES the word of the God of Israel, The one I worship.

 


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

 

Ktulu wrote:

… the Big Bang theory actually … says nothing regarding the origin of the primordial atom, or whatever you want to call it.  It simply explains why the universe is expanding and why it looks the way it does. 

The guy who invented the theory, (a Catholic priest), says otherwise, quote:

"In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the evident expansion of the universe, if projected back in time, meant that the further in the past the smaller the universe was, until at some finite time in the past all the mass of the Universe was concentrated into a single point, a "primeval atom" where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence."

I see that your reading comprehension is severely limited so I will underline .

Ktulu wrote:

… the Big Bang theory actually … says nothing regarding the origin of the primordial atom, or whatever you want to call it.  It simply explains why the universe is expanding and why it looks the way it does. 

let me dumb that down for you.  The Big Bang theory says nothing about where the original atom came from.  It says nothing about where it originated or how it started or who made it, or what was before that, or what color it favors.  It simply says that given the current trajectory of the galaxies, if you look back in time, they all seem to originate from the same direction.  once they are close enough, it only makes sense that they would be compressed by gravity.  The BB theory best explains the empirical observations.  Your quote says nothing regarding where the atom came from.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Continuation of my Original Post

Before I make my point, read the following paragraph from Wikipedia:


"The Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles. It would take thousands of years for some of these particles (protons, neutrons, and electrons) to combine and form atoms, the building blocks of matter. The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium. Eventually, clouds of hydrogen would coalesce through gravity to form stars, and the heavier elements would be synthesized either within stars or during supernovae."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

What do we have here?

#1 Energy converted into subatomic particles. 

NO SINGLE human being has ever seen energy turn into particles. This is RIDICULOUS. This is NOT observable, NOT repeatable, it is NOT science. It is a doctrine, a FALLACY. EXTREME FAITH is needed to believe this. The old trick of throwing thousands of years at it will not make it happen.

#2 These particles formed atoms and the first atom to be formed was hydrogen.

  Lord of Hosts! These people are eating crack. Again, no single human being has seen this happen nor it can be repeated.  Extreme faith is needed. Not science!!!

#3 From hydrogen we get all the matter in the universe we can see and touch. 

This is where we enter in the old fallacies of ALCHEMY. Somehow, we can turn gas into gold if we throw enough years at it. Again, NO ONE has seen hydrogen turn into something else than hydrogen. This is NOT observable, and NOT repeatable. I wish I could turn hydrogen into gold. Please indulge me and teach me how. You atheists know how to do this. You are wise! Lol
 

#4 Hydrogen combined with ??? to form stars. Please don’t miss the part where heavier elements synthesized within the stars.

I can’t believe the amount of garbage found in just ONE paragraph. Extreme faith needed at multiple steps. I call this THE MIRACULOUS ORIGIN.

A true Christian only needs to believe that a super energy power with rational capabilities created ALL things and continues to create things. This is the only faith needed. Everything else falls into place by natural laws of physics. 

An atheist, on the other hand, has to believe in the same super energy but WITHOUT rational capabilities. Then, EXTREME FAITH is needed at multiple points of their story. But it is not even their story!!! They had to borrow one from a Catholic Priest; a religion that has almost two thousand years of experience in manipulating and deceiving people.

Get a story of your own!! 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Zaq wrote:I have no idea

Zaq wrote:

I have no idea what kind of point you're trying to make about Bob, but why did you quote me?

Quote:
Of course, observable science confirmed by actual experiments involving the phenomena in question (as opposed to silly-ass philosophical "thought experiments" like the one in your avatar) confirm the "scientific wild-ass guesses" often made in physics, which, for lack of a better term, amounts to "inventing" a 'puzzle piece' that matches up with all other 'puzzle pieces' that make up human knowledge.

So there. Anything else?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

Talking to AtheistsNightmare is what it would be like to travel back in time and debate a flat earther.  They would quote Bible verse after Bible verse trying to prove the earth was flat.  Enter geocentrism, and it's the same story.  "But the Bible says the earth is the center of the solar system!  Look at all these verses."  And if that wasn't enough, our intellectual ancestors had to deal with the young earthers.  "Look at the genealogies in the Bible!  They only add up to 6,000 years."  Then people decided to actually study the earth instead of the Bible and, lo and behold, the Bible was wrong -- majorly wrong.

Start with nature first, AtheistsNightmare.  Truth should be your first goal, and your beliefs should arise from your sincere search for it.  The Bible-first approach to truth will fail every time.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3627
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare wrote: 

 


AtheistsNightmare wrote:
NO SINGLE human being has ever seen energy turn into particles. This is RIDICULOUS. This is NOT observable....

 

      

BTW AtheistNightmare, no human being has ever seen God create a man from the dust of the ground or a woman from Adam's rib .  It's not observable and can't be repeated.  Yet you accept this mythical explanation with out any reservations whatsoever.

    
AtheistsNightmare wrote:
Again, no single human being has seen this happen nor it can be repeated. 
              You accept the "fact" that God created angels and various other supernatural beings with the force of his will but no single human has ever observed this creation process and it can't be repeated.  You accept it as fact without reservation.   


AtheistsNightmare wrote:
  .... Again, NO ONE has seen hydrogen turn into something else than hydrogen. This is NOT observable, and NOT repeatable. "
 

 

                 

 

You accept the Biblical supernatural creation account as it is recorded in scripture even though no single human being was there to observe it.  It is not repeatable.   No problem, right ?

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus wrote:Talking

Philosophicus wrote:

Talking to AtheistsNightmare is what it would be like to travel back in time and debate a flat earther.  They would quote Bible verse after Bible verse trying to prove the earth was flat.  Enter geocentrism, and it's the same story.  "But the Bible says the earth is the center of the solar system!  Look at all these verses."  And if that wasn't enough, our intellectual ancestors had to deal with the young earthers.  "Look at the genealogies in the Bible!  They only add up to 6,000 years."  Then people decided to actually study the earth instead of the Bible and, lo and behold, the Bible was wrong -- majorly wrong.

Start with nature first, AtheistsNightmare.  Truth should be your first goal, and your beliefs should arise from your sincere search for it.  The Bible-first approach to truth will fail every time.

 

There's slight problem, here... "flat-earthers" and "geocentrism" existed long before any "Bible", unless you mean "great papyrus book" (literal translation.)

 

Yes, history and language are technically involved like that.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

AtheistsNightmare, have you ever seen a seed turn into a giant tree?  Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRhD_hv5Y1k


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Philosophicus

Kapkao wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:

Talking to AtheistsNightmare is what it would be like to travel back in time and debate a flat earther.  They would quote Bible verse after Bible verse trying to prove the earth was flat.  Enter geocentrism, and it's the same story.  "But the Bible says the earth is the center of the solar system!  Look at all these verses."  And if that wasn't enough, our intellectual ancestors had to deal with the young earthers.  "Look at the genealogies in the Bible!  They only add up to 6,000 years."  Then people decided to actually study the earth instead of the Bible and, lo and behold, the Bible was wrong -- majorly wrong.

Start with nature first, AtheistsNightmare.  Truth should be your first goal, and your beliefs should arise from your sincere search for it.  The Bible-first approach to truth will fail every time.

 

There's slight problem, here... "flat-earthers" and "geocentrism" existed long before any "Bible", unless you mean "great papyrus book" (literal translation.)

 

Yes, history and language are technically involved like that.

AtheistsNightmare represents part of the Christian tradition.  I could have said "Christian Bible," but I doubt anybody did or will misinterpret "Bible."  If someone made a thread arguing for an ancient Greek, Egyptian, or Indian version of a flat earth theory, I would have addressed their particular worldview. 


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

Before I make my point, read the following paragraph from Wikipedia:


"The Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles. It would take thousands of years for some of these particles (protons, neutrons, and electrons) to combine and form atoms, the building blocks of matter. The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium. Eventually, clouds of hydrogen would coalesce through gravity to form stars, and the heavier elements would be synthesized either within stars or during supernovae."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

... a lot of idiotic arguments from complexity sprinkled with severely poor humor... 

Unlike you, I have very good replies to your questions, however, since you ignore our questions I will ignore yours.  I hope that Kap is correct and you are a Poe, otherwise I pity any persons that have to regularly interact with you.  If you are truly interested in learning what the current scientific paradigm is, and why we believe that to be the best explanation for the observable universe, myself and the others here will do our best to get that across.  If you are just going to copy and paste tired old creationists' BS... I assure you you won't learn anything.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus wrote: Kapkao

Philosophicus wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:

Talking to AtheistsNightmare is what it would be like to travel back in time and debate a flat earther.  They would quote Bible verse after Bible verse trying to prove the earth was flat.  Enter geocentrism, and it's the same story.  "But the Bible says the earth is the center of the solar system!  Look at all these verses."  And if that wasn't enough, our intellectual ancestors had to deal with the young earthers.  "Look at the genealogies in the Bible!  They only add up to 6,000 years."  Then people decided to actually study the earth instead of the Bible and, lo and behold, the Bible was wrong -- majorly wrong.

Start with nature first, AtheistsNightmare.  Truth should be your first goal, and your beliefs should arise from your sincere search for it.  The Bible-first approach to truth will fail every time.

 

There's slight problem, here... "flat-earthers" and "geocentrism" existed long before any "Bible", unless you mean "great papyrus book" (literal translation.)

 

Yes, history and language are technically involved like that.

AtheistsNightmare represents part of the Christian tradition.  I could have said "Christian Bible," but I doubt anybody did or will misinterpret "Bible."  If someone made a thread arguing for an ancient Greek, Egyptian, or Indian version of a flat earth theory, I would have addressed their particular worldview. 

So it's partly an attack on medieval/Renaissance  hysteria, then? No complaints... just that are more amusing and mentally disturbed forms of superstitiousness found from that period. Something about ergot and rye...

As for "original (greek) bible" claims of fact.... well, that's a difficult subject to pin down with accuracy. Mostly because few people (if any) actually know what's in the damned thing. Even after Paul of Tarsus wrote his letters about whatever form Christianity was in at the time, holy men felt the need to add more and more to it with such lucid, reasonable claims (cough) as Original Sin (you're fucked before you are born), Revelations (borrowing, apparently, from zoroastrianism), Martyrdom (you get bonus points for being on the receiving end of punishment), Divine judgment/retribution (you're equally fucked after dying, too), Just War Theory (It's okay to kill heathens), Major prophets (some goat-sacrificers were more wrong than others), Second death (because if you can't scare them with lasting heat, try being wiped out of existence) Primus inter pares (some men are created more equal than others, but it depends on how many kids they've touched first), Purgatory ("sorry, kid... you must be this holy to ride." ), Usury (it's ok for Jews and heathens to lend money)

 ... and a bunch of other equally nonsensical garbage I can not be bothered to look up.


 

The less-than-scientific kookishness of RCC regarding the cosmos and Earth ranks as the fairly shallow end of "canonical stupid".

Yes, I really do have this much spare time on my hands and am having an episode of insomnia at present, for some reason. Don't mind me.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare wrote:My

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

My friend, you sound very arrogant.

"In America, woman can vote but horse can not! It is the other way around in my country"

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

Hey, AtheistsNightmare, check out this video about the creationist concept of "kind": 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY8SMVPubKo


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Refuted

Philosophicus wrote:
Talking to AtheistsNightmare is what it would be like to travel back in time and debate a flat earther.  They would quote Bible verse after Bible verse trying to prove the earth was flat. 

You are very wrong. First you have to learn what the Bible actually says before you go try to refute it. You hear a dumb ass say “the Bible says that cows fly” and then you jump very fast to refute that cows don’t fly. I agree with you. You can very easily refute that earth is not flat. The question is: Did you refute the Bible or the dumb ass?

If you read carefully what I just quoted a few posts back, you wouldn’t bring such stupid topic into light. Read carefully and let it be engraved into your brain:

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth… 

Does it say square or circle?

Here is another one:

Proverbs 8:27 When He prepared the heavens, I was there; when He set a circle on the face of the deep [earth]

Does it say square or circle? Here is another one:

Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Learn your facts before you bring them on.

Philosophicus wrote:
"But the Bible says the earth is the center of the solar system!  Look at all these verses." 

I challenge you to post a single verse from the Bible stating it is the center of the universe. You have nothing.

Philosophicus wrote:
"Look at the genealogies in the Bible!  They only add up to 6,000 years."  Then people decided to actually study the earth instead of the Bible and, lo and behold, the Bible was wrong -- majorly wrong. 

Well my friend, to be exact it is about 6170 years. I will go into this later on. I just hope you stick around and don’t quit. We will see if the current evidence of present population supports 6 thousand years or hundreds of thousands. Lol I will have so much fun. Let thy name be glorified for thee alone are God, Jehovah!!!


AtheistsNightmare
Theist
AtheistsNightmare's picture
Posts: 53
Joined: 2012-02-15
User is offlineOffline
@Ktulu

Ktulu wrote:

Unlike you, I have very good replies to your questions, however, since you ignore our questions I will ignore yours.  

If you think I have no good replies to your questions, look at the title of this forum. Then, analize the points I'm getting across. Some of you are already comparing them with the bible. I will ignore every dumb question that derails me from the topic. I will destroy your faith which has become an idol. Like I said, I'm just getting started.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3627
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare wrote:I

AtheistsNightmare wrote:
I will destroy your faith which has become an idol.

 

                                                           Oh, so you can guarantee that outcome ?

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3627
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
AtheistsNightmare

AtheistsNightmare wrote:

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth… 

Does it say square or circle?

 

      Does your God know the difference between a circle and a sphere ?  A circle exists on a two dimensional plane.  A circle being two dimensional is by definition flat.  A sphere exists in three dimensions which is coincidentally exactly the number of dimensions the planet Earth is.  Which term accurately describes the planet Earth,   a circle  ....or a sphere ?

 

AtheistsNightmare wrote:
  Learn your facts before you bring them on.

 

      Funny you should mention that.  I was going to say the same thing to you.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

AtheistsNightmare wrote:
I will destroy your faith which has become an idol.

 

                                                           Oh, so you can guarantee that outcome ?

 

I can guarantee that methane is combustible. 3 bean burritos + Chili Cheese Dogs + 4 hours (give or take) + lit match=

"Come on, Christians... let's see a lil smoke!"

[/redneckishness]

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)