“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#61 Aug 23, 2012
Pahu wrote:
<quoted text>
Your denial of the facts presented does not alter them. Your denial of the logic based on scientific facts is probably because they threaten your erroneous preconceptions.
You haven't presented any facts. The Bible cannot be consider factual by any stretch of the imagination.

Facts cannot require any particular religious bias. Facts must be the same for Buddhists as they are for Christians, if not, they are NOT facts.

Since: Dec 08

Madison, AL

#62 Aug 23, 2012
"Pahu: It is true that science limits itself the a study of God’s creation, but we can use logic, based on the facts of science, to conclude a supernatural cause of the universe appearing from nothing."

Serpent: Incorrect, Your first statement is dishonest, in that science does not recognize "god", so to say that it is the study of gods' creation is wrong.

Pahu: The statement is true.

Serpent: Since science does not recognize the supernatural, no conclusion of the supernatural may be derived.

Pahu: Some scientists admit a supernatural cause:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quot...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bio...

Serpent: At one time, lightning was thought to come from god. Science did not accept this, and discovered the cause of lightning. Because we have not yet discovered the circumstance for the primordial soup, does not mean that there is a god.

Pahu: God often uses natural phenomenon to achieve His goals.

Pahu: The Bible is scientifically accurate. The Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate. I am not aware of any scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible:
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science...

Serpent: Incorrect..... There is not enough water in the whole of the earth to cover the world…

Pahu: If the earth were leveled, the existing oceans would cover the earth over a mile deep.

Serpent:…it is impossible for a human to survive in the digestive track of a fish for three days, the sun cannot stop in the sky for a battle to proceed, donkeys and serpents do not have the ability to speak, nor is there any fossil evidence that they ever could…

Pahu: From a human perspective, you are right, but you need to remember that God produced those miracles.

Serpent:…mankind is more than 6000 years old.

Pahu: Perhaps, but a lot of evidence indicates the earth is not more than 10,000 years old.

"Serpent: If god crated man in his own image, than he is subject to his own moral laws.

Pahu: A logical error."

Serpent: Not at all.

Pahu: Your conclusion does not follow your premise. In logic, that is called a non sequitur, which is Latin for “it does not follow.”

Pahu: "When did God break His own laws."

Serpent: When he murdered.

Pahu: When did He murder?

"Serpent: There is not a single prophesy in the bible that was not self-fulfilling, and therefore void, or false.

Pahu: For example?"

Serpent: It is easier for you to give an example of a prophesy that was fullfilled.

Pahu: Bible Prophecies 1
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/

Bible Prophecies 2
http://www.100prophecies.org/

Bible Prophecies 3
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible-proph...

Bible Prophecies 4
http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evi...

Bible Prophecies 5
http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.h...

Serpent: As far as the accuracy of the bible and it's texual purity..... So? It is still flawed and tells a story of a monster god. It contains such gross logical fallacy that one should be embarrassed to claim to believe any of it.

Pahu: Why do you believe God is a monster?
Why do you believe the Bible contains gross logical fallacies?

Since: Dec 08

Madison, AL

#63 Aug 23, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't presented any facts. The Bible cannot be consider factual by any stretch of the imagination.
Facts cannot require any particular religious bias. Facts must be the same for Buddhists as they are for Christians, if not, they are NOT facts.
The facts I presented are scientifically valid facts without any religious bias.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#64 Aug 23, 2012
Pahu wrote:
<quoted text>
The facts I presented are scientifically valid facts without any religious bias.
No, they are religious dogma clearly driven by religious bias.

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Sweden

#65 Aug 23, 2012
The bible is a book of fairy tales

creationism isn't science the bible doesn't contain science and facts
The serpent was right

Orefield, PA

#67 Aug 23, 2012
Pahu wrote:
<quoted text>
Your denial of the facts presented does not alter them. Your denial of the logic based on scientific facts is probably because they threaten your erroneous preconceptions.
And your invention of "facts" does not make them real facts.

I am sure that you lie to yourself because the truth threatens your false reality.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#68 Aug 23, 2012
Malakai wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's look at a "science fairy tail"
Science tells us now, that the universe started when a singularity started to expand. This of course is ludicrous sense we know of many laws of physics this would break. First off look at the gravitational pull you would have over come for this to have happened. The universe started to exist once the singularity started to expand this would also mean that the laws of phyics also start at that Exact same time. With all the mass in the whole universe (they claim) was the size of a pin head. That black hole would have such a large gravitational pull that as soon as this made up expansion started the laws of phyics would slam this pin head size singularity back together.
Fairy Tail!
All the mass in the whole universe smaller then the tip of a pin!
Fairy Tail!
The type of singularity at the beginning of the Big Bang is different than the type in a black hole. For that matter, perhaps you need to learn exactly what it means to be a singularity. it simply means that some variable in our model becomes infinite, which is a sign that our model is breaking down. that's what happens when you only use general relativity to model the early universe. If, however, you include quantum effects, that singularity may we 'smoothed out' to give either a previous contracting universe and a 'Big Bounce' or a multiverse from which ours splits off.

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

#69 Aug 24, 2012
Pahu wrote:
Pahu: In the real world, every effect has a cause,
Polymath: Well, by definition of the word 'effect', every 'effect' has a 'cause', but there are events that are not effects. In other words, there are events that are not caused.
Pahu: Such as?
Pahu:…including the universe…
Polymath: Please support the claim that the universe is an effect.
Pahu:…which did not exist before it existed, and therefore there was nothing, from which the universe appeared. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause, therefore the cause of the universe was supernatural.
Polymath: One fallacy after another.
Pahu: What’s false about it?
Polymath: At the quantum level, the universe is inherently probabilistic. It is not causal. There are many situations where more than one possibility exists for a given situation. In other words, there is no *specific* effect from a given event. An example can be found in any number of decay events where more than one decay is possible. There is NOTHING that causes one decay to happen instead of another. it is simply a probability that one or the other will happen.
Furthermore, the probabilistic nature of reality at the quantum level can be demonstrated. Causality cannot explain what is actually seen in experiments because a causal connection necessarily leads to regularities that are not seen in practice.
Pahu: Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates the cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing.
Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their ‘quantum vacuum’ is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not ‘nothing’.
http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.ht...
In the real world, there is no supernatural.

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

#70 Aug 24, 2012
Pahu wrote:
<quoted text>
The facts I presented are scientifically valid facts without any religious bias.
Except for the "conditions"(If the world had no oceans than the flood could have happend), and the supernatural, which is what you are trying in vain to present as real and scientific. In your weak, and laughable defense of the big book of fairy tales, you even go to the "allegory" buffet. In other words, anything that flies in the face of reality is allegory, or magic. LOL!!! I am almost suppised that you have the nerve to even use the words science or logic!!!

Sorry, you lose. Your whole concept depends on supernatural events, and since there is no supernatural, and science does not recognize the supernatural, this thread that you started is a hoax.
Malakal

United States

#71 Aug 24, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>The type of singularity at the beginning of the Big Bang is different than the type in a black hole. For that matter, perhaps you need to learn exactly what it means to be a singularity. it simply means that some variable in our model becomes infinite, which is a sign that our model is breaking down. that's what happens when you only use general relativity to model the early universe. If, however, you include quantum effects, that singularity may we 'smoothed out' to give either a previous contracting universe and a 'Big Bounce' or a multiverse from which ours splits off.
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

"According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity."

Now what were you saying?

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

#72 Aug 25, 2012
Malakal wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
"According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity."
Now what were you saying?
That doesn't prove that there is a god.
At one time, mankind did not know what lightning was, or why there were earthquakes, or why volcanos erupted. All of those things were "proof" of god. Guess what, we now know what all of those things are, and it has nothing to do with a sky-pixie. The latest desperate gambit for the godbots is to find something else that isn't fully understood, and try to say it's proof of god. Sorry, it's not, it is just another thing to be solved by science, not attributed to magic.

Since: Dec 08

Madison, AL

#73 Aug 27, 2012
Mikko wrote:
The bible is a book of fairy tales...
[/quote]

How do you explain the fact that the Bible contains hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies? such as:

Bible Prophecies 1
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/

Bible Prophecies 2
http://www.100prophecies.org/

Bible Prophecies 3
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible-proph...

Bible Prophecies 4
http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evi...

Bible Prophecies 5
http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.h...

[quote]creationism isn't science...[/quote]

Nor is evolutionism, but unlike evolutionism, creationism is based on known laws of physics, biology, etc.

[/quote]...the bible doesn't contain science and facts
The Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate. We are not aware of any scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible. We have listed statements on this page that are consistent with known scientific facts. Many of them were listed in the Bible hundreds or even thousands of years before being recorded elsewhere.

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science...
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#74 Aug 27, 2012
EdSed wrote:
Science disproves all gods currently defined, especially Abrahamic ones and these...
http://www.godchecker.com/
Religions are man-made and parent-inflicted.
The reasoning in Post 1,(Pahu's) is extremely simplistic. Nobody can prevent anyone's belief in some sort of magical creator of the universe but don't drag science into it.
Religion = superstition
Theology = mythology
It's 2012. Get real.
hi, I like your comments lots of times. you seem like a sort of non-arrogant hard atheist! do you have a place we can go to to see how all gods currently defined are disproven, rather than just be proven silly? Try this definition - God exists and is defined as all that exists. I enjoy teasing hard atheists with that one. obviously it has no resemblance to a fundie god. it is extreme fundamentalism versus extreme pantheism. not at all the same.

Since: Dec 08

Madison, AL

#75 Aug 27, 2012
Serpent: Except for the "conditions"(If the world had no oceans than the flood could have happend),

Pahu: When did I say that?

Serpent:...and the supernatural, which is what you are trying in vain to present as real and scientific.

Pahu: As I have proved, the facts of science demand the supernatural.

Serpent: In your weak, and laughable defense of the big book of fairy tales, you even go to the "allegory" buffet. In other words, anything that flies in the face of reality is allegory, or magic. LOL!!! I am almost suppised that you have the nerve to even use the words science or logic!!!

Pahu: If you are going to reject the use of allegory to deny the authenticity of the Bible, then you will have to reject the authenticity of nearly every other book ever written.

Also, how do you account for the fact that that "book of fairy tales" contains hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies? such as:

Bible Prophecies 1
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/
Bible Prophecies 2
http://www.100prophecies.org/
Bible Prophecies 3
http://www.al laboutthe journey.org/bible-prophecies-fulfilled.htm
Bible Prophecies 4
http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evi...
Bible Prophecies 5
http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.h...

Serpent: Sorry, you lose. Your whole concept depends on supernatural events, and since there is no supernatural, and science does not recognize the supernatural, this thread that you started is a hoax.

Pahu: I have proved the existence of the supernatural. Where is your evidence that there is no supernatural?
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#76 Aug 27, 2012
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
That doesn't prove that there is a god.
At one time, mankind did not know what lightning was, or why there were earthquakes, or why volcanos erupted. All of those things were "proof" of god. Guess what, we now know what all of those things are, and it has nothing to do with a sky-pixie. The latest desperate gambit for the godbots is to find something else that isn't fully understood, and try to say it's proof of god. Sorry, it's not, it is just another thing to be solved by science, not attributed to magic.
there are a lot of things to be solved by science. but there are more things not to be attributed to magic. the ones that are neither are to be unsolved, lived with, and wondered at with interest - and that is the joy of agnosticism. not knowing is the base from which one should begin in all candor. and one should not rush to abandon it to claim a knowledge one does not have. I am also an atheist, a nonbeliever, but I make no knowledge claim. my guess is is that there is much that cannot be known. that is no excuse for believing in something evil or ridiculous. but it is also not something to be uncomfortable with and try to wipe out with an unproven scientific certainty. the joy of science is in not be conclusively sure, and in always being open to new evidence.

Since: Dec 08

Madison, AL

#77 Aug 27, 2012
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
That doesn't prove that there is a god.
At one time, mankind did not know what lightning was, or why there were earthquakes, or why volcanos erupted. All of those things were "proof" of god. Guess what, we now know what all of those things are, and it has nothing to do with a sky-pixie. The latest desperate gambit for the godbots is to find something else that isn't fully understood, and try to say it's proof of god. Sorry, it's not, it is just another thing to be solved by science, not attributed to magic.
But remember, God uses natural phenomenon to achieve His goals.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#78 Aug 27, 2012
Pahu wrote:
Serpent: Except for the "conditions"(If the world had no oceans than the flood could have happend),
Pahu: When did I say that?
Serpent:...and the supernatural, which is what you are trying in vain to present as real and scientific.
Pahu: As I have proved, the facts of science demand the supernatural.
Serpent: In your weak, and laughable defense of the big book of fairy tales, you even go to the "allegory" buffet. In other words, anything that flies in the face of reality is allegory, or magic. LOL!!! I am almost suppised that you have the nerve to even use the words science or logic!!!
Pahu: If you are going to reject the use of allegory to deny the authenticity of the Bible, then you will have to reject the authenticity of nearly every other book ever written.
Also, how do you account for the fact that that "book of fairy tales" contains hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies? such as:
Bible Prophecies 1
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/
Bible Prophecies 2
http://www.100prophecies.org/
Bible Prophecies 3
http://www.al laboutthe journey.org/bible-prophecies-fulfilled.htm
Bible Prophecies 4
http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evi...
Bible Prophecies 5
http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.h...
Serpent: Sorry, you lose. Your whole concept depends on supernatural events, and since there is no supernatural, and science does not recognize the supernatural, this thread that you started is a hoax.
Pahu: I have proved the existence of the supernatural. Where is your evidence that there is no supernatural?
no you have not proven the existence of the supernatural. no one has to prove the nonexistence of the supernatrual unless they claim they have proof. the person making the claim of knowledge and proof has the burden of proof. you just use sophistry and call it logic.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#79 Aug 27, 2012
Malakal wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
"According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity."
Now what were you saying?
Don't get your cosmology from 'popular' science sites. They frequently get it wrong. The singularity of a black hole is a dynamically stable one: it doesn't change over time. The singularity of the Big Bang is a dynamic one: it comes about because we can't extend time backwards any further. The two types of singularity (and there are others) are very different and have different properties.

yes, there is a singularity in our models when we are working with the very early universe. This type of singularity typically means that the laws we are working with no longer describe the situation well. This is no surprise in the case of the Big Bang because general relativity is not a quantum theory and we *know* that quantum effects become relevant. The problem is that we do not have a tested theory of quantum gravity--there are several options, but none have been tested.

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

#80 Aug 27, 2012
Pahu wrote:
Serpent: Except for the "conditions"(If the world had no oceans than the flood could have happend),
Pahu: When did I say that?
Serpent:...and the supernatural, which is what you are trying in vain to present as real and scientific.
Pahu: As I have proved, the facts of science demand the supernatural.
Serpent: In your weak, and laughable defense of the big book of fairy tales, you even go to the "allegory" buffet. In other words, anything that flies in the face of reality is allegory, or magic. LOL!!! I am almost suppised that you have the nerve to even use the words science or logic!!!
Pahu: If you are going to reject the use of allegory to deny the authenticity of the Bible, then you will have to reject the authenticity of nearly every other book ever written.
Also, how do you account for the fact that that "book of fairy tales" contains hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies? such as:
Bible Prophecies 1
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/
Bible Prophecies 2
http://www.100prophecies.org/
Bible Prophecies 3
http://www.al laboutthe journey.org/bible-prophecies-fulfilled.htm
Bible Prophecies 4
http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evi...
Bible Prophecies 5
http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.h...
Serpent: Sorry, you lose. Your whole concept depends on supernatural events, and since there is no supernatural, and science does not recognize the supernatural, this thread that you started is a hoax.
Pahu: I have proved the existence of the supernatural. Where is your evidence that there is no supernatural?
Pahu: When did I say that?
.
Post #62
.
.
Pahu: As I have proved, the facts of science demand the supernatural.
.
No you haven't, not even close.
.
.
Pahu: If you are going to reject the use of allegory to deny the authenticity of the Bible, then you will have to reject the authenticity of nearly every other book ever written.
.
wrong again. But if you want to supply an example, I would love to see it.
.
.
"Also, how do you account for the fact that that "book of fairy tales" contains hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies? such as:"

The Harry Potter books contain fulfilled prophecies too!!! I guess you think that's all fact? I feel bad that you can't figure out how that is done, but again, I have a feeling that you would buy amazing snake oil too. The "prophecies" you cling to are all contained in a single collection, they are vauge, and self-fulfilling in most cases, and are not ever independently verified.
.
.
Pahu: I have proved the existence of the supernatural. Where is your evidence that there is no supernatural?
.
Again, No you haven't. Asking someone to prove a negititve is childish, and shows desperation. I say I have proved that pink, fluffy, flying unicorns exist. Where is your evidence that they do not? Feel like an idiot yet? LOL!!!! If not, than present your evidence. LOL!!!!!

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

#81 Aug 27, 2012
Pahu wrote:
<quoted text>
But remember, God uses natural phenomenon to achieve His goals.
If you would care to prove that absolutly ridiculas claim, I could use the laugh!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Siro is writing a new book 5 min Siro 2
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 15 min woodtick57 760
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 28 min Friend of all 14,431
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Igor Trip 231,727
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 3 hr Morse 1,418
10) Experts debate reality of God (May '10) 11 hr Thetruth 8,933
Evidence for God! Wed Morse 181

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE