1712 replies to this topic

[Duchykins]

On the creation of the universe out of nothing

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104060





A few things for the atheists to have some laughs:



Gods as topological invariants

http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.6902



God exists with probability 1/(H+1)

http://arvix.org/abs/1206.6752

[BlueCloud]

God knows better than most humans : he/she/it is an atheist himself/herself/itself . Why not copy the best ?  

[shadowhawk]

God knows better than most humans : he/she/it is an atheist himself/herself/itself . Why not copy the best ?  

 

I think you missed the topic.

[BlueCloud]

 

God knows better than most humans : he/she/it is an atheist himself/herself/itself . Why not copy the best ?  

 

I think you missed the topic.

 

 

I think your sarcasm detector is broken 

[shadowhawk]

So, you were being sarcastic, not off topic.  Judging from the contributions to this topic, I should have known, 

[Duchykins]

Why does a god exist? GO GO GO GO

[shadowhawk]

IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM?  Go!

[serp777]

So far the answer seems to be no!!!

 

Is there evidence for a-santaclausism? No. Does that suggest anything at all about whether santa clause actually exists or not? No.

[shadowhawk]

Actually Santa did exist as a real person.

[serp777]

Actually Santa did exist as a real person.

 

Im referring to the santa that flies around on a sleigh with raindeer and gives toys to children on Christmas eve, obviously. Nice deflections though.

Edited by serp777, 24 May 2014 - 04:30 AM.

[shadowhawk]

There is flight, people fly, there are sleighs and raindeer pull them.  there are toys and children and they get toys on Christmas eve.  All real.  There is a Santa.

[addx]

There is a shizotypal narcisoid troll as well

[serp777]

There is a shizotypal narcisoid troll as well

 

Couldn't have said it better myself

[shadowhawk]

You just don't like Santa.  But of course you don't believe in the real Santa and typically all you have is name calling. 

[shadowhawk]

There is a shizotypal narcisoid troll as well

 

No matter how others may agree, don't be so hard on yourself.  Chill. 
 

[addx]

There is a shizotypal narcisoid troll as well

 
No matter how others may agree, don't be so hard on yourself.  Chill.

What is this? An allowed nonsinful comeback from some catechism? Why don't you let it loose for a change...

[shadowhawk]

You are having trouble!  A catechism!  Please, I am nice.  You have always been loose, and its not a change.  You are loose and free!  Have a nice day and chill.

Edited by shadowhawk, 10 July 2014 - 04:05 AM.

[addx]

You are having trouble! You are loose and free!

You are having trouble.

I am loose and free.

[shadowhawk]

You are loose and free. 

[Zaul]

[DukeNukem]

This guy makes numerous mistakes in that video.  For example, nothing ever crosses out of the "light bubble" like a planet, because the bubble is expanding at the speed of light, and nothing can go faster than light in order to exit the bubble.

 

Also, he's trying to invoke the idea that our bubble is special, and that perhaps outside the bubble the laws of nature operates uniquely.  But, nothing indicates that these laws change over time or place.  So, it's very reasonable to assume they do not.  (Just like he said, if you drop a ball a million times and it always behaves the same, we can apply the same logic to the rules of nature throughout the universe.)

 

Sounds like a smart guy, but bless his heart, he gets a few key things wrong that crumble his entire point.

Edited by DukeNukem, 27 July 2014 - 11:57 PM.

[Zaul]

Also, he's trying to invoke the idea that our bubble is special, and that perhaps outside the bubble the laws of nature operates uniquely.  But, nothing indicates that these laws change over time or place.  So, it's very reasonable to assume they do not.

 

Yeah we have nothing to indicate that lol  (and no, it's not dark matter)

 

http://thewatchers.a...-known-physics/

 

"I couldn't believe my eyes," says Esra Bulbul of the Harvard Center for Astrophysics.  "What we found, at first glance, could not be explained by known physics."

[DukeNukem]

>>> Yeah we have nothing to indicate that lol  (and no, it's not dark matter)

Both "dark matter" and "dark energy" are both expected to behave the same regardless of where you are in the universe.  The early inflationary period of our universe practically guarantees that all local laws of nature are universal throughout the universe.

[Duchykins]

I don't see why something that we don't understand by 'known physics' is particularly relevant to theism or atheism. We've known for more than a decade that we new physics, LOL! We learned that the theory of relativity is imperfect with objects extremely tiny and extremely far away - it doesn't always work. Hence all the scrambling to discover a new gravity theory. Relativity needs an upgrade, so to speak.

I do have faith - I have faith that there are natural explanations for natural phenomena we currently don't fully understand. This faith is based on the fact that this is something that happens all the time and has been happening since our hunter-gatherer days. It's reasonable to have faith your car will start tomorrow morning because of all the past mornings it started for you.

Edited by Duchykins, 28 July 2014 - 09:25 PM.

[shadowhawk]

I don't see why something that we don't understand by 'known physics' is particularly relevant to theism or atheism. We've known for more than a decade that we new physics, LOL! We learned that the theory of relativity is imperfect with objects extremely tiny and extremely far away - it doesn't always work. Hence all the scrambling to discover a new gravity theory. Relativity needs an upgrade, so to speak.

I do have faith - I have faith that there are natural explanations for natural phenomena we currently don't fully understand. This faith is based on the fact that this is something that happens all the time and has been happening since our hunter-gatherer days. It's reasonable to have faith your car will start tomorrow morning because of all the past mornings it started for you
 

You do have faith but the topic is Atheism.  Do you have faith in it?

[Duchykins]

Do I have faith that I don't believe you when you preach Christianity at me?

Sure.

What are you doing to do about it? Lie about my position?

[shadowhawk]

Do I have faith that I don't believe you when you preach Christianity at me?

Sure.

What are you doing to do about it? Lie about my position?

 

Believe what you want.  I do not know what your position is but we are in a topic on Atheism which I started.  Care to give some evidence against or for Atheism.
 

[Duchykins]

You are asking for evidence supporting the fact that I don't believe you when you preach Christianity at me?

You're obviously talking about some other kind of atheism. The stereotype, right?

[shadowhawk]

You are asking for evidence supporting the fact that I don't believe you when you preach Christianity at me?

You're obviously talking about some other kind of atheism. The stereotype, right?

I defined Atheism repeatedly.  See the first post. 

 

Whether you believe me or not. is your issue.  I have not preached Christianity to  you nor have I forced you to do anything.  You are free, do as you want.

[Duchykins]

You preached at me many times in your other thread. Most of your pro-Christian arguments are preaching.

I summarily dismiss your definition of atheism. Deal with it. I recall doing this before. You have a history of inventing definitions of various things and names of fallacies. You have a history of lying outright and lying by omission and misrepresenting all views, all beliefs but your own. You may attempt to define a type of atheism when you are an atheist.

You cannot really engage me because you are an ignorant fool and a coward.

Edited by Duchykins, 29 July 2014 - 05:29 AM.