let's make fun of atheists

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#226 May 12, 2013
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
Except he isn't real, do you believe in the avengers, now that's brain damage.
No-- Thor is FAR MORE real than your dead-jew-on-a-stick, silly boy!

I mean-- he has his own COMIC BOOK.

And he's in any number of movies too-- do you want a list?

I see you do admire All Mighty Thor-- he's cool.

Thor does not suffer fools, though-- especially pansy-azzed ones like your dead-jew-on-a-stick...

.... I mean-- would Thor EVER turn the other cheek?

Hardly! He'd SMASH the other cheek with his Mighty Hammer, though.

But ONLY if it was deserved.

In contrast to your dead-jew-on-a-stick, who tortures people who refuse to cow-tow to his massively over-inflated EGO.

I mean-- what's with all the TORTURE your dead-jew-on-a-stick does?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#227 May 12, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm starting to believe in something.
Like that you are a childish trolling moron.
Yep.

Which is why I have turned to .... sarcasm.

:D

It totally blows his puny mind, too....

<laughing>

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#228 May 12, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
How is believing in Thor any different from believing in your god?
Indeed-- he is an ATHEIST with respect to Thor.

Which I find kinda stupid, as Thor is obviously the superior deity here.

I mean-- if you are going to choose one imaginary being over another? Why not go with one you can actually RESPECT?

Hmmm?

;)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#229 May 12, 2013
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
One day, every knee will bow, every person will confess, and every non believer, will burn in hell.
Not Thor. Thor would SMASH your puny, pansy-assed dead-jew-zombie.

I mean, seriously? What's your pansy-jew gonna do? Throw WINE at Thor? Maybe your dead-jew will try escaping over water?

Get real.

Thor does not respect candy-azzed zombie-wannabes.

Why should we?

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#230 May 13, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Indeed-- he is an ATHEIST with respect to Thor.

Which I find kinda stupid, as Thor is obviously the superior deity here.

I mean-- if you are going to choose one imaginary being over another? Why not go with one you can actually RESPECT?

Hmmm?

;)
Carchar will dance with Loki in the worst part of Asguard...against his will.
Thinking

Wigton, UK

#231 May 13, 2013
Getting Thor hammered may delay Thor hammering jesus.
Wine is terribly expensive in Scandinavia.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Not Thor. Thor would SMASH your puny, pansy-assed dead-jew-zombie.
I mean, seriously? What's your pansy-jew gonna do? Throw WINE at Thor? Maybe your dead-jew will try escaping over water?
Get real.
Thor does not respect candy-azzed zombie-wannabes.
Why should we?

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#233 May 13, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
They're written in English why can't you read them?[/QUOTE]
creagrish?

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#234 May 13, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>They're written in English why can't you read them?[/QUOTE]

I can read them, but they're just invalid, because they aren't attached to a credible source.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#235 May 13, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
Carchar will dance with Loki in the worst part of Asguard...against his will.
Without a doubt. If one of the other non-christian hells doesn't get him first....

... <laughing>

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#236 May 13, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Getting Thor hammered may delay Thor hammering jesus.
Wine is terribly expensive in Scandinavia.
<quoted text>
I suspect Thor prefers beer or mead anyhow.

:)

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#238 May 15, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
How is believing in Thor any different from believing in your god?
They have three things to prove.
1-That there is any supernatural deity.
2-That their deity is the true one.
3-That what they claim about their deity is true.
They have not proven at least one of these things. Not one.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#239 May 15, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>They have three things to prove.
1-That there is any supernatural deity.
2-That their deity is the true one.
3-That what they claim about their deity is true.
They have not proven at least one of these things. Not one.
Though he claims the 50 links he sent me do prove it all.
First of all, if he can't get it down in point form, then he is obviously just throwing out links without knowing much about them.
Second, I'm not going to read for hours on end through tons of creation mumbo jumbo when I know none of it is backed by a credible source.
Third, it'll probably just say something along the lines of "this star exists/existed, therefore since they used that star in the bible, it must all be true." That's how these people think, with not a hint of ratiocination.

For example, if I wanted to prove that the bible is wrong about the Earth's age, I would simply say "the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, whereas the bible says it's 6'000 years old."
I would not send the person to a ton of sites with every tiny detail in it, and not even bother to summarize.

It's a boring tactic people like him use.
Somehow he expects us to look at all the links, not want to read them, and say "okay, you win, there's a god."
We are not speaking to others with rational minds here.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#241 May 17, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Nope all wrong. Go figure.[/QUOTE]

Aww, no defense, you lose.
KJV

United States

#242 May 18, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>You haven't given us a single credible source, only links to creation sites.
We're here to make fun of you hence the threads title.

The FSM Prayer:

Our spaghetti who are on the stove
Great be your aroma, The sauce is coming, my meal be done, On the stove as it is in the dinning room, Give us some garlic bread and forgive the extra Parmesan as we add more, and lead us not to the bathroom and deliver us from Gods word, I'm not a man.
KJV

United States

#243 May 18, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
They're written in English why can't you read them?"

creagrish?
"Capitalizing Atheism - Why Atheism Shouldn't be Capitalized
Atheism & Atheist are Not Proper Nouns to Capitalize
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
One of the earliest signs that a person doesn't really understand what atheism is comes when they spell "atheism" or "atheist" with a capital A in the middle of a sentence. In English, this is only grammatical with proper nouns and thus this signals that the person imagines atheism to a be a proper noun — in other words, When you see someone inappropriately capitalizing atheism, beware."
KJV

United States

#244 May 18, 2013
Lacez wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>They're written in English why can't you read them?"

I can read them, but they're just invalid, because they aren't attached to a credible source.
Ya like your science is credible.

http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_radio....

Scientists have dated lava rock samples from various active volcanoes with the radiometric method. Because the formation of these rocks has recently been observed, radiometric dating should not give them an age of millions of years.[72] Yet there are many such examples. Consider the following:

Rock which was formed in 1986 from a lava dome at Mount St. Helens volcano was dated by the potassiumargon method as 0.35 ± 0.05 million years old.[73]

Rocks from five recent lava flows at Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand were dated using the potassium-argon method, and resulted in dates ranging from <0.27 to 3.5 million years — but one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975.[74]

Salt Lake Crater on Oahu was determined to be 92–147 million years, 140–680 million years, 930–1,580 million years, 1,230–1,960 million years, 1,290–2,050 million years, and 1,360–1,900 years old, using different radiometric dating methods.[75]

How did 1,000-year-old carbon-dated trees in the Auckland volcanic field of New Zealand get buried under 145,000-465,000 year old potassium-argon-dated lava rock?[76]

One explanation given by scientists for some of these incorrect dates is that excess argon was retained in the rocks when they solidified from a molten state. According to theCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences,“It is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale.... The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon.”[77]

But if excess argon can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should this dating method be trusted for rocks ofunknown age?
http://www.oocities.org/stuball127/dating.htm...

"Geologists often say that the percentage of anomalies is low. But there are quite a number of rather outstanding anomalies in radiometric dating that creationists have collected. These anomalies are reported in the scientific literature. For example, one isochron yielded a date of 10 billion years. A Rb-Sr isochron yielded a date of 34 billion years. K-Ar dates of 7 to 15 billion years have been recorded. It's also not uncommon for two methods to agree and for the date to be discarded anyway. Samples with flat plateaus (which should mean no added argon) can give wrong dates. Samples giving no evidence of being disturbed can give wrong dates. Samples that give evidence of being disturbed can give correct dates. The number of dates that disagree with the expected ages is not insignificant. I don't know what the exact percentage is.
Many dates give values near the accepted ones. But even these often differ from one another by 10 or 20 percent. And quite a few other dates are often much, much farther off. Whatever is making some of these dates inaccurate could be making all of them inaccurate."[2]
KJV

United States

#245 May 18, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>They have three things to prove.
1-That there is any supernatural deity.
2-That their deity is the true one.
3-That what they claim about their deity is true.
They have not proven at least one of these things. Not one.
"The best evidence for design can be seen in the nature of the universe and how it came to be. The process of discovery continues, since one of the fundamental properties of the universe, dark energy (or the cosmological constant), was discovered late in the last century. New studies continue to add to our knowledge about the universe and its extremely unlikely makeup.

The Big Bang
The Big Bang theory states that the universe arose from a singularity of virtually no size, which gave rise to the dimensions of space and time, in addition to all matter and energy. At the beginning of the Big Bang, the four fundamental forces began to separate from each other. Early in its history (10^-36 to 10^-32 seconds), the universe underwent a period of short, but dramatic, hyper-inflationary expansion. The cause of this inflation is unknown, but was required for life to be possible in the universe.

Excess quarks
Quarks and antiquarks combined to annihilate each other. Originally, it was expected that the ratio of quarks and antiquarks to be exactly equal to one, since neither would be expected to have been produced in preference to the other. If the ratio were exactly equal to one, the universe would have consisted solely of energy - not very conducive to the existence of life. However, recent research showed that the charge ½parity violation could have resulted naturally given the three known masses of quark families.1 However, this just pushes fine tuning a level down to ask why quarks display the masses they have. Those masses must be fine tuned in order to achieve a universe that contains any matter at all.

Large, just right-sized universe
Even so, the universe is enormous compared to the size of our Solar System. Isn't the immense size of the universe evidence that humans are really insignificant, contradicting the idea that a God concerned with humanity created the universe? It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen.2 Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 10^59 larger,3 the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 10^80 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 10^21 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.

Early evolution of the universe
Cosmologists assume that the universe could have evolved in any of a number of ways, and that the process is entirely random. Based upon this assumption, nearly all possible universes would consist solely of thermal radiation (no matter). Of the tiny subset of universes that would contain matter, a small subset would be similar to ours. A very small subset of those would have originated through inflationary conditions. Therefore, universes that are conducive to life "are almost always created by fluctuations into these 'miraculous' states," according to atheist cosmologist Dr. L. Dyson.4

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_g...
KJV

United States

#246 May 18, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>They have three things to prove.
1-That there is any supernatural deity.
2-That their deity is the true one.
3-That what they claim about their deity is true.
They have not proven at least one of these things. Not one.
Part 2

"Just right laws of physics
The laws of physics must have values very close to those observed or the universe does not work "well enough" to support life. What happens when we vary the constants? The strong nuclear force (which holds atoms together) has a value such that when the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass is converted into energy. If the value were 0.6% then a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. If the value were 0.8%, then fusion would happen so readily that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Other constants must be fine-tuned to an even more stringent degree. The cosmic microwave background varies by one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of diffuse gas, since no stars or galaxies could ever form. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist solely of large black holes. Likewise, the ratio of electrons to protons cannot vary by more than 1 part in 10^37 or else electromagnetic interactions would prevent chemical reactions. In addition, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational constant were greater by more than 1 part in 10^40, then electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing the formation of stars and galaxies. If the expansion rate of universe were 1 part in 10^55 less than what it is, then the universe would have already collapsed. The most recently discovered physical law, the cosmological constant or dark energy, is the closest to zero of all the physical constants. In fact, a change of only 1 part in 10^120 would completely negate the effect.

Universal probability bounds
"Unlikely things happen all the time." This is the mantra of the anti-design movement. However, there is an absolute physical limit for improbable events to happen in our universe. The universe contains only 10^80 baryons and has only been around for 13.7 billion years (10^18 sec). Since the smallest unit of time is Planck time (10^-45 sec),5 the lowest probability event that can ever happen in the history of the universe is:

1/1080 x 1/1018 x 1/1045 =1/10143"

KJV

United States

#247 May 18, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>They have three things to prove.
1-That there is any supernatural deity.
2-That their deity is the true one.
3-That what they claim about their deity is true.
They have not proven at least one of these things. Not one.
Part 3

"So, although it would be possible that one or two constants might require unusual fine-tuning by chance, it would be virtually impossible that all of them would require such fine-tuning. Some physicists have indicated that any of a number of different physical laws would be compatible with our present universe. However, it is not just the current state of the universe that must be compatible with the physical laws. Even more stringent are the initial conditions of the universe, since even minor deviations would have completely disrupted the process. For example, adding a grain of sand to the weight of the universe now would have no effect. However, adding even this small amount of weight at the beginning of the universe would have resulted in its collapse early in its history.

What do cosmologists say?
Even though many atheists would like to dismiss such evidence of design, cosmologists know better, and have made statements such as the following, which reveal the depth of the problem for the atheistic worldview:

"This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine-tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."
"Polarization is predicted. It's been detected and it's in line with theoretical predictions. We're stuck with this preposterous universe."
"In all of these worlds statistically miraculous (but not impossible) events would be necessary to assemble and preserve the fragile nuclei that would ordinarily be destroyed by the higher temperatures. However, although each of the corresponding histories is extremely unlikely, there are so many more of them than those that evolve without "miracles," that they would vastly dominate the livable universes that would be created by Poincare recurrences. We are forced to conclude that in a recurrent world like de Sitter space our universe would be extraordinarily unlikely"

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_g...
KJV

United States

#248 May 18, 2013
Lacez wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Nope all wrong. Go figure. "

Aww, no defense, you lose.
Are you sure about that? Look behind you!

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
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 min replaytime 79,965
News People's forum - Get off the fence of religious... (May '10) 6 hr blacklagoon 3 62
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Wed Eagle 12 - 32,581
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Wed The pope 258,485
News Atheist inmate wins right to practice his faith... (Aug '15) Sep 16 blacklagoon 3 91
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) Sep 15 xfrodobagginsx 101
News Atheist billboards to mock Romney, Obama faith (Aug '12) Sep 15 superwilly 47
More from around the web