Is the bible a fairy tale?

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#1790 May 25, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Dark matter like the wind we observe indirectly. But seeing the effect of something is synonymous with seeing something.
We saw the effects of the explosion, but how do we know it exploded?
You must remember that you are trying converse with an ex-con who thinks punching people in the face is good.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1791 May 25, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody has ever observed dark matter.
You observe an effect of something, and attribute the effect to dark matter.
In this sense, we have never observed a flower. We have observed an effect (light reflected) and attribute the effect to a flower.
Nobody has ever observed dark matter.
It would be big news if they had.
Well, being *dark* means it doesn't interact with light, so *seeing* dark matter via reflected light will not happen. But that only shows your definition of 'observe' is un-naturally restrictive.

When we take a picture of a galaxy using a CCD camera, is that an observation? What if it is an infrared image? Is *that* an observation?

Do we observe an alpha particle when we see a spark of light on a screen? Have we observed neutrons?
Andre

Durban, South Africa

#1792 May 25, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Andre, the NASA story has been debunked countless times. It never happened:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/672/...
Thanks. If you read carefully, you will notice that I commented on is lack of credibility as it is a hoax. Some people will grasp at anything sensational without investigating it for credibility. It seems people are generally gullible - and accept anything that supports their view.

“ IT'S A CHOICE !!!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#1793 May 25, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
De mooiste pot in de wereld wordt geteeld in Amsterdam. De vrouw en ik hebben beiden Noorwegen Zweden en Denemarken bezocht.
De Zweden en de Noren zijn leuke mensen heel weinig godsdienst deze landen.
Dank u voor het toestaan &#8203;&#8203;van mij om te oefenen door Nederlandse
Leef lange en bloeien mijn lieve. ;)
Het is mij een genoegen! U bent ook zeer informatief ... IK verbleef in Zweden voor een maand of zo ... Ook een bezoek aan Denemarken, per boot (ferry) als ik het me goed herinner ... Ja, de Noren zijn erg aardige mensen.. Leef lang en voorspoedig ook! Ps. IK HEB net de nieuwe Star Trek film ...:)
Andre

Durban, South Africa

#1794 May 25, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not up to US to prove your silly (and ugly) book is wrong.
It *IS* up to *YOU* to prove it's not fiction.
Can you do that?
No?
We thought as much... if you HAD PROOF?
You would have long since presented it...!
My dear friend, you make allegations which you cannot prove. Look through your posts and see if there are any that presents any reliable, trustworthy sources that support your point.
Your initial remark to which I responded was something in the order that religion is the greatest disaster or something to that effect. Which was quite easy to refute.
Then the claim that Jesus is not a historical figure etc. It is refuted by almost all serious scholars and no scholarly views to support your argument. Yet I have presented you with the conclusion that almost all serious scholars have come to (Christian or non-Christian)- Jesus as a historical figure is so sure that they regard any other conclusion as absurd.
Your other claim was about the supposed false prophecies. That only showed ignorance on your part, or failure to critically examine your "evidence"
Your comments have yet again confirmed my belief that your arguments are more emotional than based on fact. Evidence of that is the poor quality of the material you refer me to for the purposes of "supporting" your view (in fact it does a great deal of damage to your argument if one examines it carefully)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1795 May 25, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>My dear friend, you make allegations which you cannot prove.
I don't have to prove a question: all I have to do, is ASK it.

You?

You are the one who MUST PROVE YOUR ANSWER, or else be called a liar.

Here's the question: CAN YOUR PROVE YOUR BIBLE WAS WRITTEN BY A GOD?

Your answer ought to be good for a laugh at least.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1796 May 25, 2013
Andre wrote:
Then the claim that Jesus is not a historical figure etc.
Can you SHOW the actual HISTORICAL EVIDENCE of your ... "jesus"?

Hint: if you resort to CHRISTIAN "historians"? You lose-- they have an agenda, and cannot be trusted to be objective about facts.

Can you do this? Cite a NON-CHRISTIAN (and non-Jew too) historian who can then show HISTORICAL facts that demonstrate your jesus was real?

I've got $100 that you cannot.....

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1797 May 25, 2013
Andre wrote:
Your initial remark to which I responded was something in the order that religion is the greatest disaster or something to that effect.

Which was quite easy to refute.
Really? If it was SO easy? WHY DID YOU FAIL?

Hmmmm.....

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1798 May 25, 2013
Andre wrote:
Your other claim was about the supposed false prophecies.
All the bible "prophecies" are 100% false.

I can safely claim that UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE OTHERWISE.

It is a SAFE bet to presume false, when presented with insanity.

And claiming the bible's "prophecies" are real? Is insane to a large degree.

So far? You haven't shown EVEN ONE that was not false in one or more ways.

Hint: it's not a "prophecy" if it's written AFTER the alleged events...

Hint: it's not a "prophecy" if people DELIBERATELY fabricate a story to match some old book's claims.
Daisy de la Torres

Dallas, TX

#1799 May 25, 2013
The Earth is 6,000 years old!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1800 May 25, 2013
Daisy de la Torres wrote:
The Earth is 6,000 years old!
Your ... "proof" is?

What?

You have none?

We thought as much... the insane asylum is *that* way... just follow the little men in white coats.
Imhotep

Sevierville, TN

#1801 May 25, 2013
Daisy de la Torres wrote:
The Earth is 6,000 years old!
Really?

How old were the dinosaurs? 6k?

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#1802 May 25, 2013
Daisy de la Torres wrote:
The Earth is 6,000 years old!
and pigs fly.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1803 May 25, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Dark matter like the wind we observe indirectly. But seeing the effect of something is synonymous with seeing something.
We saw the effects of the explosion, but how do we know it exploded?
Because you see the explosion.

To observe an effect is to observe and effect.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1804 May 25, 2013
Daisy de la Torres wrote:
The Earth is 6,000 years old!
You're only off by a factor of 750,000.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1805 May 25, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
In this sense, we have never observed a flower. We have observed an effect (light reflected) and attribute the effect to a flower.
<quoted text>
Well, being *dark* means it doesn't interact with light, so *seeing* dark matter via reflected light will not happen. But that only shows your definition of 'observe' is un-naturally restrictive.
When we take a picture of a galaxy using a CCD camera, is that an observation? What if it is an infrared image? Is *that* an observation?
Do we observe an alpha particle when we see a spark of light on a screen? Have we observed neutrons?
Observing a flower is a qualitatively DIFFERENT process than what you claim as observing dark matter.

If you observe dark matter, as observing a flower, then it will be valid to say you observe dark matter.

It has not happened.

Nobody has observed dark matter.

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#1806 May 25, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you see the explosion.
To observe an effect is to observe and effect.
You only observe the effects of an explosion.
When you see these effects you know it was an explosion.

Why then cannot seeing the effects of dark matter be considered seeing it as an explanation the same way as the explanation of seeing the explosion?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1807 May 25, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
and pigs fly.
Oh, they do!

Have you ever been to a Pink Floyd concert?

<laughing>

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1808 May 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Observing a flower is a qualitatively DIFFERENT process than what you claim as observing dark matter.
If you observe dark matter, as observing a flower, then it will be valid to say you observe dark matter.
It has not happened.
Nobody has observed dark matter.
Once again, since dark matter doesn't interact strongly with light, we will never observe it using your definition of 'observe'. Fortunately, people understand that observation *always* requires a sequences of causal links, often quite long sequences.

Once again, is it an observation when we take a picture? How about if the camera uses infrared rather than visual light? Or when we use scintillation screens and chlorine to detect neutrinos?

Most scientists would consider *all* of those to be observations. And the observation of dark matter isn't qualitatively different than those.
Imhotep

Fayetteville, NC

#1809 May 26, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, since dark matter doesn't interact strongly with light, we will never observe it using your definition of 'observe'. Fortunately, people understand that observation *always* requires a sequences of causal links, often quite long sequences.
Once again, is it an observation when we take a picture? How about if the camera uses infrared rather than visual light? Or when we use scintillation screens and chlorine to detect neutrinos?
Most scientists would consider *all* of those to be observations. And the observation of dark matter isn't qualitatively different than those.
You are wasting your time with butt crack
For him one plus one plus one equals one.

E.G.
Big daddy, Junior and the spook

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
John 3:16 4 min superwilly 72
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 min Gary Coaldigger 20,596
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 5 min Uncle Sam 244,898
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 25 min Thinking 10,791
Atheists should stop feeding the stereotypes 3 hr NightSerf 18
News Si Robertson, 'Duck Dynasty' Star, Says Atheist... 6 hr thetruth 42
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 8 hr ChristineW 14,659
More from around the web