Is the bible a fairy tale?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3449 Jul 29, 2013
spudgun wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly. There is no evidence of a soul. And it makes no sense that a deity would judge us on the basis of beliefs, and not on actions, which would be a lot fairer. To think we live forever as souls is just wishful thinking.
If you do not have faith you will be judged on your actions. I hope you have never sinned because only perfection is allowed in heaven. My soul is made perfect because Jesus paid the price of my sin. You want to pay for your own sins, God will accommodate you.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3450 Jul 29, 2013
spudgun wrote:
<quoted text>The God hypothesis does not answer big questions either, as no explanation is given for who made God.
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3451 Jul 29, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>You have limited the scope of exactly what everything unknown can be,
to your definition. I'm not sure if reality conforms to the conceptions of anyone , let alone you. I assure you a singular universe is only a concept , that YOU have limited yourself to.

Penrose contends that looking at the inflationary phase of the early universe, is like looking at "v" while looking at the universe itself is like looking at "V". Maybe you could visualize it in the model here.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JQfP3bPVjus/UUVpgbH...

To understand his hypothesis of the aeons of time you would for all intents be seeing a scalar transition from a inflationary phase to the expanding universe, that could have repeated itself once or twice,
or even an infinite number of times. Too which he points to bands in the CMB here.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IdE-xwjB1Kc/TPDOZ_U...

All that is in the CCC or conformal cyclic cosmology model of the universe. In which if you follow the cosmology of universe modeling is somewhat a variation of an oscillating universe. But is incorporating what we know now about the universe, and makes hypothesis about that inflationary period, and the CMB.
But as a final note I can only say that wiser men than us consume themselves today as well back for thousands of years ago about the constraints of this universe.
We simply cannot answer all the questions yet, and even the brightest of them got some things wrong, historically speaking.

So what the hell makes you think you can determine the definition of constraints and limitations of this or any other universes?
It's not my definition it what the word means. The word multi verse was created to include your multi parallel multi verses.

"The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of existence,[1][2][3][4] including planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy"

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3452 Jul 29, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
If you do not have faith you will be judged on your actions. I hope you have never sinned because only perfection is allowed in heaven. My soul is made perfect because Jesus paid the price of my sin. You want to pay for your own sins, God will accommodate you.
It's not something that we believe in so I don't understand your need to continue to point out your religious beliefs as though we believe them as well.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3453 Jul 29, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Most of the 'weight' of an astronaut in low earth orbit is due to tidal effects. Because of the typical size of spacecraft, the 'gravitational field' across a spacecraft is on the order of a millionth of the corresponding field on earth. hence the term micro-gravity. In this context, a 100 kg astronaut would 'weigh' the same as a tenth of a microgram would on earth. But, again, grams, kilograms, and micrograms are not units of weight. They are units of mass. And the mass is the same in orbit as on earth.
Weight is the measurement of gravity not of mass. The mass of Neil Armstrong stayed the same but he weighted a lot less on the moon then on earth. Because gravity is stronger on earth then on the moon. So the mass was the same the weight changed with the power of gravity. Weight is a measurement of gravity not mass.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3454 Jul 29, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>I'm sorry, but I'm not betting my soul on anything in all actuality. No matter how silly it seems to you that I feel the way that I do, it seems just a silly to me that you think that "god" created all of these different planets "just because"... not only that, but he only placed life on one of them... it's just too much. I just cannot see any purpose for a creator. It's extremely difficult for me to see a creator in the biblical form even more so than just saying a creator. I also find it very hard to even think about a creator having such an interest in humans at the level that the bible says.
We don't know why God created all the planets and we don't know that God only placed life on one planet.

The reason for the interest in humans is because he created us in his own image for a reason. He places men higher in heaven then angels because we lived, angels only know heaven and are in the presents of God always never to be tested.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3455 Jul 29, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>It's not something that we believe in so I don't understand your need to continue to point out your religious beliefs as though we believe them as well.
I was addressing spuds questions.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3456 Jul 29, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't know why God created all the planets and we don't know that God only placed life on one planet.
The reason for the interest in humans is because he created us in his own image for a reason. He places men higher in heaven then angels because we lived, angels only know heaven and are in the presents of God always never to be tested.
Please explain what the bible says the reason was for the creation of man.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#3457 Jul 29, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Most of the 'weight' of an astronaut in low earth orbit is due to tidal effects. Because of the typical size of spacecraft, the 'gravitational field' across a spacecraft is on the order of a millionth of the corresponding field on earth. hence the term micro-gravity. In this context, a 100 kg astronaut would 'weigh' the same as a tenth of a microgram would on earth. But, again, grams, kilograms, and micrograms are not units of weight. They are units of mass. And the mass is the same in orbit as on earth.
You've really confused him **now**--- you said mass is not the same as weight.

When he just "knows" that isn't true...

<laughing out loud>

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#3458 Jul 29, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
And 100% myth from one to the other...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3459 Jul 29, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
And you believe this is the life form that started life on earth?
Certainly protists were not the first life. Bacteria are certainly closer. What was before them, we do not know for certain right now. We have some evidence for how the chemistry of some early life differed from that of today's bacteria, but we don't have complete evidence.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3460 Jul 29, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
No they have weight. All mass has weight. Space would be bent by their existence although it is so small it is easily written off as weightlessness.
The bending of space (actually, it is spacetime) is due to mass, not weight).
Every time they make contact with a speck of dust there is resistance to the free fall. Again it's very little and easily written off. But weight and gravity is still there.
Well, you seem to have proven my point via reductio ad absurdum.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3461 Jul 29, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said you had to go faster then light. I used this (Einstein's example) as a simple example. I also said this has been tested. They used 2 atomic clocks one in Death Valley the other on a 747 flying for a week straight. The two clocks we no longer in sync with each other.
yes, I am familiar with this experiment and others.
Your second point is incorrect. The observers would appear if able to be observed by the speeder the speeder would see a very fast moving earth (observers).
And this is wrong. If both are moving are moving at constant velocity, then both see the other's clocks as moving slower. This is often called the twin paradox.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3462 Jul 29, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Weight is the measurement of gravity not of mass. The mass of Neil Armstrong stayed the same but he weighted a lot less on the moon then on earth. Because gravity is stronger on earth then on the moon. So the mass was the same the weight changed with the power of gravity. Weight is a measurement of gravity not mass.
More specifically, weight is the *resistance* to gravity. The ground on earth has to resist the gravity of earth and *that* resistance is the weight. That resistance is lower on the moon because of a lower force of gravity. But, for example, if you are in an elevator accelerating downwards, your weight will be less, even on earth. If you are in one accelerating upwards, your weight will be larger. Now, most elevators only accelerate for a short period of time, but if you stand on a scale, you can actually measure the changes in your weight.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3463 Jul 29, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
A bit irritable, aren't we.
The bible gives us far more then science and far more important info then science.
Simply false.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3464 Jul 29, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
There are many views on multi verses and the Big Bang. All are still highly speculative.
I total disagree with time being uncaused. Time is not a by product or an uncaused. Time is the first thing to exist with out it nothing can exist and because it was first it cannot be uncaused.
Time is the paradox of the Big Bang.
No, it cannot be caused because causality requires time.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#3465 Jul 29, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Weight is the measurement of gravity not of mass. The mass of Neil Armstrong stayed the same but he weighted a lot less on the moon then on earth. Because gravity is stronger on earth then on the moon. So the mass was the same the weight changed with the power of gravity. Weight is a measurement of gravity not mass.
That is why 200 pounds falls at the same velocity as 2 pounds. Eh?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3466 Jul 30, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Certainly protists were not the first life. Bacteria are certainly closer. What was before them, we do not know for certain right now. We have some evidence for how the chemistry of some early life differed from that of today's bacteria, but we don't have complete evidence.
Ok it doesn't seem rather impossible for life to have billions and billions of positive mutations to get to where we are today when in most Likely hood the odds show life would mutate to a dead end and become extinct far easier?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3467 Jul 30, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok it doesn't seem rather impossible for life to have billions and billions of positive mutations to get to where we are today when in most Likely hood the odds show life would mutate to a dead end and become extinct far easier?
Worthless opinions from a liar with no proof of god, here to spread his failed cult of stupidity.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3468 Jul 30, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't know why God created all the planets and we don't know that God only placed life on one planet
Utter rubbish drivel from your imagination and not grounded in any facts.

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
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 7 min ChristineM 3,828
A Universe from Nothing? 26 min u196533dm 450
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 35 min ChristineM 10,046
News New Jersey woman will get to use '8THEIST' lice... 54 min Eagle 12 2
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 1 hr Into The Night 749
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr UR Failing 43,126
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Eagle 12 18,481
News Why I quit atheism 2 hr Thinking 694
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 5 hr IB DaMann 5,676
More from around the web