Is the bible a fairy tale?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1227 May 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>

Considering life exists and all life requires is physics and chemistry I'd say you were PROFOUNDLY ignorant.(shrug)
Is that so?

Then take ONLY your physics and chemistry and make life.

...what are you waiting for?

.......

Why are you hesitating? Get to it, Miller Urey. Careful with that lightning.

Moron.
Thinking

Tisbury, UK

#1228 May 13, 2013
I'm certainly not waiting for all the scriptard cu*ts to f**k off.

Believers have delayed progress enough already.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
...what are you waiting for?
........

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1229 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No investigation is useful because the god-free universe like ours is provided in the question.
I would not investigate a universe for evidence of god if it is already stipulated to be absent in the identical universe.
Idiot.
The exercise is incoherent.
No, I am asking for an observational difference between a universe like ours without a God and a universe like ours with a God. We all acknowledge the laws of physics and chemistry. How do you think the universe would be any different without a deity?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1230 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Then take ONLY your physics and chemistry and make life.
In case you didn't know, there is a fairly standard way to produce new life. And it operates solely through the laws of physics and chemistry.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1231 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
I said everything that begins to exist must have a cause.
Prove this. I claim that this is not only false, but KNOWN to be false. Take any virtual particle.

And, why not 'everything that is caused has a physical cause'? This is equally, if not more, justified.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1232 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, little one.
(A) "theos" - god; (B) "atheos" - no god.
Eventually, embracing (A) means "theism"
Eventually, embracing (B) means "atheism".
Theism is the belief there is a god. Atheism is the belief that there is no god.
It's very simple. You don't have to rely on me saying it, and, thank god (pun), I don't have to rely on you saying the other, since you are a proven imbecile.
"Atheism - system of thought developed around the denial of God's existence. Atheism, so defined, first appeared during the Enlightenment, the age of reason" (Random House Encyclopedia).
Forgive me, but I like to pepper you with academic sources proving you wrong and me right.
Of course, you will never admit you are wrong, for example, on the thrashing I gave you on simultaneous causality.
Repeating bullsh*t has never worked.

I mean just look how many bibles your cult printed and here you still are - a creationist losing so painfully to atheists online.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1233 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
...what are you waiting for?
For you to prove the god you're lying about. But you already knew that. And ran away howling like the cowards they brainwash you to be at the discovery institute.
KJV

United States

#1235 May 13, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
"No, we do NOT know there is a God. If anything, it seems an extremely unlikely scenario."
And the better scenario? Nothing exploding to create everything?"

How many times do I have to point out that this is NOT what thew BB theory says?
Riggggghhhhhhjtttttttt.

The Big Bang starts at the explosion and doesn't dare try to explain what exploded. There was nothing before the Big Bang and everything after the Big Bang how do you get from one to the other? Sure science can't tell you.
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#1236 May 13, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I am asking for an observational difference between a universe like ours without a God and a universe like ours with a God. We all acknowledge the laws of physics and chemistry. How do you think the universe would be any different without a deity?
There wouldn't be a universe without God. God is energy and the universe is an astral projection of the mind/imagination of that God. It is limitless and ever expanding.
KJV

United States

#1237 May 13, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Watch the DVD "The Star of Bethlehem". God spells it out for all men to see. "

Which language does he spell it in?
Well seeing your a female I guess I understand your confusion.
KJV

United States

#1238 May 13, 2013
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>wow, you really do have brain damage.
Yes he does.
KJV

United States

#1239 May 13, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
So I was thinking, "If I believed the story of the Star of Bethlehem at all, which explanation could I believe?" Casting about the internet, I found these:

http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/BethlehemSt...

Here are properties of the Star that can be obtained from the story.

It appeared during the reign of Herod.
Magi came to Jerusalem because they had seen it.
Herod and his people had NOT seen it.
The Magi had observed the Star "at its rising."
The Magi were sent to Bethlehem because of an old prophecy.
The Magi did not return to Jerusalem.

The Problem of Dates

The Matthew story says the star appeared while Herod was king. Helpfully, the historian Flavius Josephus (a Romanized Jew) recorded that Herod died shortly after a lunar eclipse and shortly before the feast of Passover. These events are determined by the motion of the Moon, which is very well understood, which allows calculation of such dates. There were two lunar eclipses which fit - one in March of 4 BCE and another in January of 1 BCE. The 4 BCE eclipse appears to be generally favored. This means that Herod died early in 4 BCE, but in any case not later than 1 BCE.

What Might Explain it?

The usual approach is to look at all possible astronomical phenomena and try to figure out if any of them might have been interpreted as the Star. The usual list follows.

Bright meteor
Comet
Supernova
Miracle
Story (fiction)
Something familiar in the sky

Analysis (Brief)
Only the Magi saw the Star, and therein lies a clue. This is good, because clues are scarce. Among other things, Magi studied astrology. The astrology of that time was a Hellenized (Greekified) form that was the origin of the horoscopes we see today. Magi watched the sky, looking for things from which to divine the future. Here you have people looking at the sky; they would notice anything interesting.

Meteor: Bright meteors can be crossed off the list rather quickly because of their very short duration. Even a really bright fireball last less than 10 seconds. That's not long enough to lead anyone anywhere.

Comet: It turns out that astrologers paid little attention to comets since they appear randomly and show no pattern. If comets were taken as omens, it was for evil.

Supernova: A bright supernova explosion ("new star") would have been bright enough for everyone to see it. Herod would not need to ask the Magi when it appeared.

Miracle: If the Star were a miracle, there is no use in looking for an astronomical explanation for the story.

Story: If the Star never existed and is a story told for theological reasons, then no astronomical explanation will ever work. But we aren't ready to write the Star off like that just yet.

Something familiar: How could something familiar sky be seen as the famous star? Recall properties 2 and 3 above. Herod and the people did not see the Star; they had to ask the Magi about it. Whatever it was, it was not obvious to the casual observer.

Bad Science

What was the Star? of Bethlehem, that is. Frederick A.(Rick) Larson, a lawyer from College Station, TX, was sponsored to speak at SMU by the Dallas Christian Leadership and SMU Office of the Chaplain on Thursday 10 April 2003. Professors Cotton and Scalise attended the presentation, which contained all the mistakes that a novice astronomer and historian would make. Larson was operating way outside his area of expertise. This is forgivable.

After the presentation, Professors Cotton and Scalise told him about The Star of Bethlehem : The Legacy of the Magi by Michael R. Molnar. But that was back in 2003. He's still giving the same flawed presentation.*NOW* he's a pseudoscientist.

continued...
The DVD called the Star of Bethlehem
Explains it all.
KJV

United States

#1240 May 13, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
The above explanation is more in tune with how astrologers would have thought. The whole bit about the 'star' physically leading them and then fixing itself over Bethlehem would fit in more with the kind of exaggerations that come from a story being retold many times.
The Star of Bethlehem.(5 stars)

Frederick A. Larson, Stephen Vidano (393)
Larger image

List Price:$12.95
Price:$11.38

FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25.

You Save:$1.57 (12%)
In Stock
Ships from and sold by Amazon.com . Gift-wrap available.

Want it delivered by Wednesday, May 15?
Order within 21hr 32min, and choose One-Day Shipping at checkout.

Add to Cart
KJV

United States

#1241 May 13, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Just "wrong"
Please elaborate. "

Why? His only claim was that an uncaused niverse is impossible. He didn't support hs idea. I simply pointed out that the idea is wrong. When/if he attempts to support his idea, I will show how his justifications fail.
How does it fail? Why does it fail?
Who are you to make such a claim?
KJV

United States

#1242 May 13, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong.
Prove your point.

You've basically have said nothing was there just before the Big Bang. Where the hell did all this come from when there was nothing?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1243 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
No, little one.
(A) "theos" - god; (B) "atheos" - no god.
Eventually, embracing (A) means "theism"
Eventually, embracing (B) means "atheism".
Theism is the belief there is a god. Atheism is the belief that there is no god.
It's very simple. You don't have to rely on me saying it, and, thank god (pun), I don't have to rely on you saying the other, since you are a proven imbecile.
And all the while you leave OUT the part where theISM means BELIEF in God. However we're all quite used to your intellectual dishonesty by now.
Buck Crick wrote:
"Atheism - system of thought developed around the denial of God's existence. Atheism, so defined, first appeared during the Enlightenment, the age of reason" (Random House Encyclopedia).
Forgive me, but I like to pepper you with academic sources proving you wrong and me right.
Hmm, yes. Many of those "academic" sources you used (if you noticed) were PHILOSOPHICAL and THEOLOGICAL books, and as such were philosophically/theologically biased. I on the other hand am biased to the actual literal meaning of the terms being used. However if you would LIKE me to use your sources instead then here ya go:
Buck Crick wrote:
"Atheism (from the Greek a-, not, and theos, god) is the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no God, the use has become the standard one" (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy).
Note that it is quite happy to point out a "widely used sense merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism." Thereby in this context atheism pertains to simple lack of belief whereas agnosticism pertains to actual knowledge. So while you can rant and whine and rave as much as you like about atheists "believing" there is no God even if just ONE atheist disagrees with you and decides that atheism IS simply lacking in belief then there is no reason why they cannot hold that position just because YOU claim English does not allow them that luxury. You do not own the English language as anyone who's met Chuck Idemi will agree. ALSO the term as I've been describing it is STILL valid since such is the fluid nature of languages - they evolve. So try as you might you cannot constrain your theological enemies into restrictive pigeon-holes of your choosing.

And would you like further academic sources?

a DISbelief in the existence of deity.(Merriam Webster)

DISbelief or LACK of belief in the existence of God or gods.(Oxford Dictionary)

One who DISbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.(American Heritage Dictionary)

a person who denies or DISbelieves the existence of a supreme being.(Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary)

(emphasis mine in all cases)

Of course like with many words, there are in some of those books alternative slightly differing definitions, some of which more conducive to the positive affirmation which you prefer. But while you choose what YOU like, I can choose what I like, and others can choose what THEY like and all are EQUALLY valid. So while you LOVE to caricature ALL atheists as mere fundie counterparts, all you can do is thank God He gave you Skippy the Skeptic. Other than that however, my usage was based STRICTLY on the LITERAL translation of the syntax.

Which you ignored.(shrug)
Buck Crick wrote:
Of course, you will never admit you are wrong, for example, on the thrashing I gave you on simultaneous causality.
As usual you are a legend in your own mind, Mr Black Knight.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1244 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No investigation is useful because the god-free universe like ours is provided in the question.
I would not investigate a universe for evidence of god if it is already stipulated to be absent in the identical universe.
Idiot.
The exercise is incoherent.
No it isn't. For what you fail to realise is that BOTH universes in the example are the SAME ONE. Or if you wanna look at it another way, they are TWO universes and BOTH are available for observation. Which is WHY both examples were provided in the first place.

So the first way - we are both inhabiting the same universe (unfortunate for me and the rest of us, but hey) and some claim it was poofed into existence by (a) God. And maybe it is. They than have to demonstrate that claim.

Second way. One universe poofed into existence by God, in the second God is absent. Those who are pro-God can explain the specific differences between the God universe and the non-God universe so the mechanisms God used can be determined.
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#1245 May 13, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
The DVD called the Star of Bethlehem
Explains it all.[/QUOTE]The star of Bethlehem never happened, Christians have combined 3 separate prophecies. The 3 wise men, the visiting kings, and the kings bearing gifts. If the magi came from the east and followed the star, the star would've been in the west from their perspective, not the east. Stars also do not stand over a certain place, they are too high up in the sky. I also do not believe the magi would have any knowledge of Hebrew prophecy. This event is not in the bible and is in a book that wasn't canonized. It simply never happened.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1246 May 13, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Pay attention. And sit up straight.
I didn't say "everything" must have a cause.
I said everything that begins to exist must have a cause.
An atemporal causal agent, whatever it is, would be timeless and spaceless. Timeless and spaceless verities do not require a cause, and, arguably, could not be caused, as there logically would be no "non-existence" associated with it.
No causality is necessary, and the infinite regression argument does not apply.
I can explain the logic for you; I cannot understand it for you.
A timeless and spaceless entity cannot act without time nor exist without space. It is therefore non-existent by definition. If I am wrong then this causeless cause need not be intelligent, therefore we can point out that Poly was correct in pointing out the universe could be uncaused. Or while you THINK your position does not require a cause I claim it does and you can't demonstrate otherwise.

No matter what, you're screwed, as to claim your position is the most valid one requires nothing short of blatant hypocrisy on your part. Such is the fundie modus operandi.
KJV

United States

#1247 May 13, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>No, I am asking for an observational difference between a universe like ours without a God and a universe like ours with a God. We all acknowledge the laws of physics and chemistry. How do you think the universe would be any different without a deity?
The one with out God would be an empty void. The one with God looks like this one.

"How do you think the universe would be any different without a deity?"

No space, or time, no energy and no matter. These were all created by God so remove God and you remove everything. In other words there cannot be a universe with out a creator. Something does not spring forth out of nothingness with out God.

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
Atheists should stop feeding the stereotypes 1 hr Shizle 9
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 2 hr Shizle 10,638
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Paul Porter1 20,497
Is the Christian god good? 5 hr Shizle 3
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 6 hr Eagle 12 244,720
Atheist believe, they are just hiding!!! 7 hr Richardfs 18
There is no meaning without God 11 hr Shizle 3
More from around the web