Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258478 comments on the Webbunny tumblelog story from Jul 18, 2009, titled Atheism requires as much faith as religion?. In it, Webbunny tumblelog reports that:

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Webbunny tumblelog.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#171646 Jul 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Yet there is no evidence of Jesus, except you saying you can prove Jesus. You can prove there is another hypothesis that has
more speculation. If Jesus could be proven it would have been done.

I may find this a more plausible explanation , but it too is based on speculation.
The External Evidence: Christian

Another long paragraph could be devoted to writings of the early church fathers, some of whom had close contact with New Testament personalities. Jesus' disciple John, for example, later became bishop of the church at Ephesus. One of his students was Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, and a student of his, in turn, was Irenaeus of Lyons. The centerpiece in all of their writings was Jesus the Christ ("Messiah").

Apart from such living personal links to Jesus, both geographical and temporal tangencies appear in Justin Martyr. Born of pagan parents around A.D. 100 in Nablus (between Judea and Galilee), Justin tried and abandoned various philosophical schools until he found in Christianity the one true teaching. As a native of the Holy Land, Justin mentions sites associated with Jesus, such as the Bethlehem grotto in which he was born, and even such details as Jesus working as an apprentice carpenter in the shop of his foster father Joseph, where they specialized in producing such agricultural implements as yokes for oxen and plows.

External Evidence: Jewish

The Jewish rabbinical traditions not only mention Jesus, but they are also the only sources that spell his name accurately in Aramaic, his native tongue: Yeshua Hannotzri—Joshua (Jesus) of Nazareth. Some of the references to Jesus in the Talmud are garbled—probably due to the vagaries of oral tradition—but one is especially accurate, since it seems based on written sources and comes from the Mishna—the earliest collection of writings in theTalmud. This is no less than the arrest notice for Jesus, which runs as follows:

He shall be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and lured Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. Anyone who knows where he is, let him declare it to the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#171647 Jul 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Yet there is no evidence of Jesus, except you saying you can prove Jesus. You can prove there is another hypothesis that has
more speculation. If Jesus could be proven it would have been done.

I may find this a more plausible explanation , but it too is based on speculation.
Part 3

Four items in this statement strongly support its authenticity as a notice composed before Jesus' arrest: 1) The future tense is used; 2) Stoning was the regular punishment for blasphemy among the Jews whenever the Roman government was not involved; 3) There is no reference whatever to crucifixion; and 4) That Jesus was performing "sorcery"— the extraordinary or miraculous with a negative spin—is quite remarkable. This not only invokes what historians call the "criterion of embarrassment," which proves what is conceded, but accords perfectly with how Jesus' opponents explained away his miraculous healings: performing them with the help of Beelzebul (Luke 11:18).

Moreover, the first-century Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, twice mentions "Jesus who is called the Christ" in his Jewish Antiquities. In the second of these, he tells of the death of Jesus' half-brother James the Just of Jerusalem (20:200). And two books earlier, in the longest first-century non-biblical reference to Christ, he tells of Jesus midway through his discussion of events in Pontius Pilate's administration:

At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.(18:63)

This is the recent, uninterpolated text that replaces the traditional version which, unfortunately, had suffered early interpolation. For a more detailed evaluation of Josephus and his references to Jesus, please see my separate article on Josephus in this series.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#171648 Jul 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Yet there is no evidence of Jesus, except you saying you can prove Jesus. You can prove there is another hypothesis that has
more speculation. If Jesus could be proven it would have been done.

I may find this a more plausible explanation , but it too is based on speculation.
Part 4

External Evidence: Secular

Cornelius Tacitus, one of the most reliable source historians of first-century Rome, wrote in his Annals a year-by-year account of events in the Roman Empire under the early Caesars. Among the highlights that he reports for the year A.D. 64 was the great fire of Rome. People blamed the emperor Nero for this conflagration since it happened "on his watch," but in order to save himself, Nero switched the blame to "the Christians," which is the first time they appear in secular history. Careful historian that he was, Tacitus then explains who "the Christians" were: "Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus" (15:44). He then goes on to report the horrors that were inflicted on the Christians in what became their first Roman persecution.

Tacitus, it should be emphasized, was not some Christian historian who was trying to prove that Jesus Christ really lived, but a pagan who despised Christians as a "disease," a term he uses later in the passage. Had Jesus never even existed, he would have been the first to expose that pathetic phantom on whom such cultists placed their trust. Were no other references to Jesus available, this passage alone would have been sufficient to establish his historicity. Skeptics realize this, and so have tried every imaginable means to discredit this passage—but to no avail. Manuscript analysis and computer studies have never found any reason to call this sentence into question, nor its context.

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus also recorded events of the first century in his famous Lives of the Twelve Caesars. He, too, regarded the Christians as a sect "professing a new and mischievous religious belief" (Nero 16) and doubtless cited "Christus" as well, spelling his name "Chrestus" (Claudius 25). That the vowels "e" and "i" were often interchangeable is demonstrated by the French term for "Christian" to this day:chretien.

Pliny the Younger was the Roman governor of Bithynia—today, the northwestern corner of Turkey—and about the year 110 he wrote the emperor Trajan (98-117 A.D.), asking what to do about the Christians, a "wretched cult" whom he mentions eight times in his letter. Christ himself is cited three times, the most famous instance referring to Christians "...who met on a fixed day to chant verses alternately among themselves in honor of Christ, as if to a god..." (Letter No. 96). Trajan's response, interestingly enough, suggests that Christians not be hunted out.(Ibid., No. 97). But again, if Christ were only a mythical character, these hostile sources would have been the first to emblazon that fact in derision.

Other ancient secular sources, such as Theudas and Mara bar Serapion also bear witness to the historicity of Jesus. But any further evidence clearly comes under the "beating a dead horse" category so far as this article is concerned. Nothing more is necessary in view of the overpowering evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was no myth, but a totally historical figure who truly lived. Skeptics should focus instead on whether or not Jesus wasmore than a man. That, at least, could evoke a reasonable debate among reasonable inquirers, rather than a pointless discussion with sensationalists who struggle to reject the obvious.





This Web site is part of NAMB's major mission objective committed to sharing Christ. More>

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#171649 Jul 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Yet there is no evidence of Jesus, except you saying you can prove Jesus. You can prove there is another hypothesis that has
more speculation. If Jesus could be proven it would have been done.

I may find this a more plausible explanation , but it too is based on speculation.
"H. G. Wells, British writer, 1866-1946

When asked which person left the most permanent impression on history, he replied that judging a person’s greatness by historical standards:

“By this test, Jesus stands first.”

“I am a historian, I am not a believer, but I must confess as a historian that this penniless preacher from Nazareth is irrevocably the very center of history. Jesus Christ is easily the most dominant figure in all history.”

“Christ is the most unique person of history. No man can write a history of the human race without giving first and foremost place to the penniless teacher of Nazareth.”

Kenneth Scott Latourette, former President of American Historic Society

In A History of Christianity:

“It is evidence of His importance, of the effect that He has had upon history and presumably, of the baffling mystery of His being that no other life ever lived on this planet has evoked so huge a volume of literature among so many people and languages, and that, far from ebbing, the flood continues to mount.”

“As the centuries pass by, the evidence is accumulating that measured by its effect on history, Jesus is the most influential life ever lived on this planet. The influence appears to be mounting.”

“No other life lived on this planet has so widely and deeply affected mankind.”

George Bancroft, great American historian

“I find the name of Jesus Christ written on the top of every page of modern history.”"

http://www.why-jesus.com/history.htm

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#171650 Jul 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Man didn't create time, just ways to measure it. But time at the same time , time itself is a human construct. It 8is a dimension we have discovered ways to measure.
You need to go back and read that response of mine AND the post I was responding too.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#171651 Jul 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>You mean the time we record didn't exist. It is possible
Time exists , beyond the constraints of "our time".
"You mean the time we record didn't exist"

Nope.

"It is possible Time exists , beyond the constraints of "our time"."

If that's the case then the universe always existed and science is wrong with its date of 13.7 billion year.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#171652 Jul 10, 2013
Buddha? Thousands easily. Mithras certainly had some as well.

Jewish people certainly would have killed Zeus worshipers.

Socrates is a philosopher not a god, glad to educate you again.

Many so called Christian martyrs were put to death for crimes like anyone else in those days, they just wailed it was because they were Christian. Persecution complex. Zealots will be zealots Dave and zealots were the foundation of the Christian faith. In those days zealots weren't afforded the same patience we give them today.

We see zealots in most religions willing to die for their faith. In South America we see people willing die for their fish god. Does that mean there really was a walking, talking flying fishman in South America?

Again your argument only shows there were Christians in a barbaric time. No proof for Jesus.
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>How many people martyred themselves for Zeus? Jupiter? Buddha? Mithra? Socrates?

How many were martyred within 30 years of the events causing those religions?

How many Christians were martyred within 30 years of the event that caused that religion?

You can bet something happened.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#171653 Jul 10, 2013
Redoran wrote:
<quoted text>Man created the division of a day.
Who cares?

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#171654 Jul 10, 2013
Sorry but opinions are not facts.
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>"H. G. Wells, British writer, 1866-1946

When asked which person left the most permanent impression on history, he replied that judging a person’s greatness by historical standards:

“By this test, Jesus stands first.”

“I am a historian, I am not a believer, but I must confess as a historian that this penniless preacher from Nazareth is irrevocably the very center of history. Jesus Christ is easily the most dominant figure in all history.”

“Christ is the most unique person of history. No man can write a history of the human race without giving first and foremost place to the penniless teacher of Nazareth.”

Kenneth Scott Latourette, former President of American Historic Society

In A History of Christianity:

“It is evidence of His importance, of the effect that He has had upon history and presumably, of the baffling mystery of His being that no other life ever lived on this planet has evoked so huge a volume of literature among so many people and languages, and that, far from ebbing, the flood continues to mount.”

“As the centuries pass by, the evidence is accumulating that measured by its effect on history, Jesus is the most influential life ever lived on this planet. The influence appears to be mounting.”

“No other life lived on this planet has so widely and deeply affected mankind.”

George Bancroft, great American historian

“I find the name of Jesus Christ written on the top of every page of modern history.”"

http://www.why-jesus.com/history.htm

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#171655 Jul 10, 2013
Secular proof of king Herod or Pilate doing these things?

Nope. Fail.
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>Did Jesus Really Exist?
By Paul L. Maier, The Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History, Western Michigan University

"No, he didn't!" some skeptics claim, thinking that this is a quick, powerful lever with which to pry people away from "the fable of Christianity." But the lever crumbles at its very first use. In fact, there is more evidence that Jesus of Nazareth certainly lived than for most famous figures of the ancient past. This evidence is of two kinds: internal and external, or, if you will, sacred and secular. In both cases, the total evidence is so overpowering, so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus' existence. And yet this pathetic denial is still parroted by "the village atheist," bloggers on the internet, or such organizations as the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

The Internal Evidence

Aside from the many Messianic predictions in the Old Testament, not one of the four Gospels or the 23 other documents in the New Testament would make an ounce of sense if Jesus had never lived. Did the whole cavalcade of well-known historical personalities in the first century A.D. who interacted with Jesus deal with a vacuum? Did Herod the Great try to terminate an infant ghost? Did the Jewish high priests Annas and Caiaphas interview a spirit? Did the Roman governor Pontius Pilate judge a phantom on Good Friday, or Paul and so many apostles give their lives for a myth?

No one doubts that the above names are well known from both sacred and secular sources, as well as archaeological evidence, and are therefore historical. The same is clearly true of Jesus of Nazareth. But why, then, is Jesus not permitted the "luxury" of actually having lived as did the rest of these? Why the double standard here?

From the internal, biblical evidence alone, therefore, Jesus' existence is simply categorical. And yet there is an abundance of additional extrabiblical information on this question.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#171656 Jul 10, 2013
Redoran wrote:
<quoted text>In elementary school I learned that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. The teach explained that the thought/theory was from Einstein. Yes, it was my 7th grade class. I stand corrected, first year in junior high. That means that everything that exists has always existed. So whatever occurred "before the Big Bang" is "us" in effect. We are simply an accumulation of " Legoed (assembled)stardust".
You're still stuck in 7th grade.

Wikipedia:
If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.

A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science.

From Nova:

"For decades, every attempt to describe the force of gravity in the same language as the other forces—the language of quantum mechanics—has met with disaster

S. JAMES GATES, JR.: You try to put those two pieces of mathematics together, they do not coexist peacefully.
The laws of nature are supposed to apply everywhere. So if Einstein's laws are supposed to apply everywhere, and the laws of quantum mechanics are supposed to apply everywhere, well you can't have two separate everywheres.

BRIAN GREENE: In the years since, physics split into two separate camps: one that uses general relativity to study big and heavy objects, things like stars, galaxies and the universe as a whole...

...and another that uses quantum mechanics to study the tiniest of objects, like atoms and particles. This has been kind of like having two families that just cannot get along and never talk to each other...
There just seemed to be no way to combine quantum mechanics...

and general relativity in a single theory that could describe the universe on all scales.

So here's the question: if you're trying to figure out what happens in the depths of a black hole, where an entire star is crushed to a tiny speck, do you use general relativity because the star is incredibly heavy or quantum mechanics because it's incredibly tiny?

Well, that's the problem. Since the center of a black hole is both tiny and heavy, you can't avoid using both theories at the same time. And when we try to put the two theories together in the realm of black holes, they conflict. It breaks down. They give nonsensical predictions. And the universe is not nonsensical; it's got to make sense.

BRIAN GREENE: It's a little known secret but for more than half a century a dark cloud has been looming over modern science. Here's the problem: our understanding of the universe is based on two separate theories. One is Einstein's general theory of relativity—that's a way of understanding the biggest things in the universe, things like stars and galaxies. But the littlest things in the universe, atoms and subatomic particles, play by an entirely different set of rules called, "quantum Mechanics"

These two sets of rules are each incredibly accurate in their own domain but whenever we try to combine them, to solve some of the deepest mysteries in the universe, disaster strikes.

Take the beginning of the universe, the "big bang." At that instant a tiny nugget erupted violently. Over the next 14 billion years the universe expanded and cooled into the stars, galaxies and planets we see today. But if we run the cosmic film in reverse, everything that's now rushing apart comes back together, so the universe gets smaller, hotter and denser as we head back to the beginning of time.

As we reach the big bang, when the universe was both enormously heavy and incredibly tiny, our projector jams. Our two laws of physics, when combined, break down.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#171657 Jul 10, 2013
Nice fairy tale about the supposed John. Of only he had documented something about Jesus. Guess he was to busy with the lads eh? Just came long after Jesus, he converted to Christianity, sorry not proof Jesus existed.

The Talmud only mentions a yeshua which was a very common name at the time. Yeshua was stoned and hung by the neck. The so called Jesus of Nazareth in the Talmud is an outright lie as Nazareth did not exist at the time.

Sorry, no proof of Jesus. You fail again.
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>The External Evidence: Christian

Another long paragraph could be devoted to writings of the early church fathers, some of whom had close contact with New Testament personalities. Jesus' disciple John, for example, later became bishop of the church at Ephesus. One of his students was Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, and a student of his, in turn, was Irenaeus of Lyons. The centerpiece in all of their writings was Jesus the Christ ("Messiah").

Apart from such living personal links to Jesus, both geographical and temporal tangencies appear in Justin Martyr. Born of pagan parents around A.D. 100 in Nablus (between Judea and Galilee), Justin tried and abandoned various philosophical schools until he found in Christianity the one true teaching. As a native of the Holy Land, Justin mentions sites associated with Jesus, such as the Bethlehem grotto in which he was born, and even such details as Jesus working as an apprentice carpenter in the shop of his foster father Joseph, where they specialized in producing such agricultural implements as yokes for oxen and plows.

External Evidence: Jewish

The Jewish rabbinical traditions not only mention Jesus, but they are also the only sources that spell his name accurately in Aramaic, his native tongue: Yeshua Hannotzri—Joshua (Jesus) of Nazareth. Some of the references to Jesus in the Talmud are garbled—probably due to the vagaries of oral tradition—but one is especially accurate, since it seems based on written sources and comes from the Mishna—the earliest collection of writings in theTalmud. This is no less than the arrest notice for Jesus, which runs as follows:

He shall be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and lured Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. Anyone who knows where he is, let him declare it to the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#171658 Jul 10, 2013
The Josephus passages are Christian forgeries and this is well known. No way would he have called Jesus the Christ. Regardless Josephus never met Jesus so even if we forgive the forgery it is at best hear say.
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>Part 3

Four items in this statement strongly support its authenticity as a notice composed before Jesus' arrest: 1) The future tense is used; 2) Stoning was the regular punishment for blasphemy among the Jews whenever the Roman government was not involved; 3) There is no reference whatever to crucifixion; and 4) That Jesus was performing "sorcery"— the extraordinary or miraculous with a negative spin—is quite remarkable. This not only invokes what historians call the "criterion of embarrassment," which proves what is conceded, but accords perfectly with how Jesus' opponents explained away his miraculous healings: performing them with the help of Beelzebul (Luke 11:18).

Moreover, the first-century Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, twice mentions "Jesus who is called the Christ" in his Jewish Antiquities. In the second of these, he tells of the death of Jesus' half-brother James the Just of Jerusalem (20:200). And two books earlier, in the longest first-century non-biblical reference to Christ, he tells of Jesus midway through his discussion of events in Pontius Pilate's administration:

At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.(18:63)

This is the recent, uninterpolated text that replaces the traditional version which, unfortunately, had suffered early interpolation. For a more detailed evaluation of Josephus and his references to Jesus, please see my separate article on Josephus in this series.

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#171659 Jul 10, 2013
These have already been answered. The Tacitus line is a forgery from the 1500s. No imperial roman would have called Jesus the Christ. Again even if we overlook that he did not live during the time of Jesus nor did any of your other failed examples. At best they are quoting what was told to them by Christians. Again no proof for Jesus.
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>Part 4

External Evidence: Secular

Cornelius Tacitus, one of the most reliable source historians of first-century Rome, wrote in his Annals a year-by-year account of events in the Roman Empire under the early Caesars. Among the highlights that he reports for the year A.D. 64 was the great fire of Rome. People blamed the emperor Nero for this conflagration since it happened "on his watch," but in order to save himself, Nero switched the blame to "the Christians," which is the first time they appear in secular history. Careful historian that he was, Tacitus then explains who "the Christians" were: "Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus" (15:44). He then goes on to report the horrors that were inflicted on the Christians in what became their first Roman persecution.

Tacitus, it should be emphasized, was not some Christian historian who was trying to prove that Jesus Christ really lived, but a pagan who despised Christians as a "disease," a term he uses later in the passage. Had Jesus never even existed, he would have been the first to expose that pathetic phantom on whom such cultists placed their trust. Were no other references to Jesus available, this passage alone would have been sufficient to establish his historicity. Skeptics realize this, and so have tried every imaginable means to discredit this passage—but to no avail. Manuscript analysis and computer studies have never found any reason to call this sentence into question, nor its context.

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus also recorded events of the first century in his famous Lives of the Twelve Caesars. He, too, regarded the Christians as a sect "professing a new and mischievous religious belief" (Nero 16) and doubtless cited "Christus" as well, spelling his name "Chrestus" (Claudius 25). That the vowels "e" and "i" were often interchangeable is demonstrated by the French term for "Christian" to this day:chretien.

Pliny the Younger was the Roman governor of Bithynia—today, the northwestern corner of Turkey—and about the year 110 he wrote the emperor Trajan (98-117 A.D.), asking what to do about the Christians, a "wretched cult" whom he mentions eight times in his letter. Christ himself is cited three times, the most famous instance referring to Christians "...who met on a fixed day to chant verses alternately among themselves in honor of Christ, as if to a god..." (Letter No. 96). Trajan's response, interestingly enough, suggests that Christians not be hunted out.(Ibid., No. 97). But again, if Christ were only a mythical character, these hostile sources would have been the first to emblazon that fact in derision.

Other ancient secular sources, such as Theudas and Mara bar Serapion also bear witness to the historicity of Jesus. But any further evidence clearly comes under the "beating a dead horse" category so far as this article is concerned. Nothing more is necessary in view of the overpowering evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was no myth, but a totally historical figure who truly lived. Skeptics should focus instead on whether or not Jesus wasmore than a man. That, at least, could evoke a reasonable debate among reasonable inquirers, rather than a pointless discussion with sensationalists who struggle to reject the obvious.





This Web site is part of NAMB's major mission objective committed to sharing Christ. More>

“The King of R&R”

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#171660 Jul 10, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>I would sue that teacher for lying
All right, I am willing to listen. Tell me the truth. IOW, where did we come from?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#171661 Jul 10, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
You're still stuck in 7th grade.
Wikipedia:
If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.
A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science.
From Nova:
"For decades, every attempt to describe the force of gravity in the same language as the other forces—the language of quantum mechanics—has met with disaster
S. JAMES GATES, JR.: You try to put those two pieces of mathematics together, they do not coexist peacefully.
The laws of nature are supposed to apply everywhere. So if Einstein's laws are supposed to apply everywhere, and the laws of quantum mechanics are supposed to apply everywhere, well you can't have two separate everywheres.
BRIAN GREENE: In the years since, physics split into two separate camps: one that uses general relativity to study big and heavy objects, things like stars, galaxies and the universe as a whole...
...and another that uses quantum mechanics to study the tiniest of objects, like atoms and particles. This has been kind of like having two families that just cannot get along and never talk to each other...
There just seemed to be no way to combine quantum mechanics...
and general relativity in a single theory that could describe the universe on all scales.
So here's the question: if you're trying to figure out what happens in the depths of a black hole, where an entire star is crushed to a tiny speck, do you use general relativity because the star is incredibly heavy or quantum mechanics because it's incredibly tiny?
Well, that's the problem. Since the center of a black hole is both tiny and heavy, you can't avoid using both theories at the same time. And when we try to put the two theories together in the realm of black holes, they conflict. It breaks down. They give nonsensical predictions. And the universe is not nonsensical; it's got to make sense.
BRIAN GREENE: It's a little known secret but for more than half a century a dark cloud has been looming over modern science. Here's the problem: our understanding of the universe is based on two separate theories. One is Einstein's general theory of relativity—that's a way of understanding the biggest things in the universe, things like stars and galaxies. But the littlest things in the universe, atoms and subatomic particles, play by an entirely different set of rules called, "quantum Mechanics"
These two sets of rules are each incredibly accurate in their own domain but whenever we try to combine them, to solve some of the deepest mysteries in the universe, disaster strikes.
Take the beginning of the universe, the "big bang." At that instant a tiny nugget erupted violently. Over the next 14 billion years the universe expanded and cooled into the stars, galaxies and planets we see today. But if we run the cosmic film in reverse, everything that's now rushing apart comes back together, so the universe gets smaller, hotter and denser as we head back to the beginning of time.
As we reach the big bang, when the universe was both enormously heavy and incredibly tiny, our projector jams. Our two laws of physics, when combined, break down.
First you need to prove the god you're lying about. then we can get into your stupid back story.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#171662 Jul 10, 2013
atheism is evil wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a very accurate description of I See You.
Not really...if you weren't so mean, you might actually find that I'm a very nice person. Just not religious, which is what you require to be able to have a descent conversation.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#171663 Jul 10, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"You mean the time we record didn't exist"
Nope.
"It is possible Time exists , beyond the constraints of "our time"."
If that's the case then the universe always existed and science is wrong with its date of 13.7 billion year.
All these words used and time wasted when you could have used it to try to to prove your god, realise that you can't and then start the real and genuine process of inquiry into your own ego's honesty about your hallucination you call a belief system...

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#171664 Jul 10, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Buddha? Thousands easily. Mithras certainly had some as well.
Jewish people certainly would have killed Zeus worshipers.
Socrates is a philosopher not a god, glad to educate you again.
Many so called Christian martyrs were put to death for crimes like anyone else in those days, they just wailed it was because they were Christian. Persecution complex. Zealots will be zealots Dave and zealots were the foundation of the Christian faith. In those days zealots weren't afforded the same patience we give them today.
We see zealots in most religions willing to die for their faith. In South America we see people willing die for their fish god. Does that mean there really was a walking, talking flying fishman in South America?
Again your argument only shows there were Christians in a barbaric time. No proof for Jesus.
<quoted text>
You do blather on. With limited knowledge and understanding powering it.

Just reciting what you heard, because you know nothing. You can't even read and comprehend.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#171665 Jul 10, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
Oh listen to the children scream when you tell them Santa Socrates didn't exist.
See how their intellectual integrity degenerates into emotional outbursts when their mythical creatures are challenged.
Wah!!! He has to be real!! Look at the presents he left us!
Wah!!!!
What is funny is Butch not seeing a similarity between Socrates and Jesus after so much ranting about Jesus being an amalgamation of mythical stories. Perhaps "his" emotional balance got disturbed when his idol got challenged.
Scholars that will say that Socrates never existed are very rare. Although there are people who argue whether or not it was Plato's teaching instead of Socrates. Who knows for sure...but there are many more writings in history about him then there were about Jesus.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 2 min Catcher1 104,947
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min Ex Lesbian River 673,537
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 26 min bad bob 184,635
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr DrScience 981,421
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr onemale 286,297
Poll Bible - Written by Man - Edited by Man (Apr '09) 3 hr Jedi Master of All 1,933
Gay/bi Skype Sex ? (Mar '14) 4 hr Dom daddy for sub 21
More from around the web