I would like 1 decent chat with an atheist without being kicked out

160 posts / 0 new
Last post
CyberLN's picture
Mohamed, you wrote, “This is

Mohamed, you wrote, “This is the best I can do for you situation and frankly it is GOOD ENOUGH.”

Yes, I agree, I think it is indeed the best you can do. Where I disagree completely is that it is certainly not good enough.

Also, why did you refer to me as ‘man’ and why do you assume I’m not an Arab?

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
I protect it dearly with

I protect it dearly with accurate scientific facts

the sun
1- loses it's light
2- becomes erased
3- falls down

Well, That is not even wrong.

David Killens's picture


"the sun

1- loses it's light
2- becomes erased
3- falls down"

Please be specific and clarify that statement, because I can rip it to shreds in a New York minute.

So far in your statements related to scientific endeavors, you are using very vague statements and words that can be interpreted in any way. That is not how science works, and that is definitely not how a healthy and honest debate works.

Sky Pilot's picture


"there hasn't been any updates to the translation of the Quran for more than 1000 years"

Who was the guy who revised the Koran into numbered chapters and verses and when did he do it?

A.prophet's picture
What doe that have to do with

What doe that have to do with anything?

arakish's picture
Everything. It means the Qu

Everything. It means the Qu'ran was also edited when they copied the Jews in dividing it up into books, chapters, verses.

Did you know the Qu'ran is nothing more than a collection of plagiarized myths and legends, many thousands of years older than the Qu'ran? Since it is plagiarized, that means everything within its covers is LIES. Not one damn word of truth whatsoever.


Sheldon's picture
This doesn't evidence

This doesn't evidence anything, at best it's an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Who knows who claimed that or why, it might have been a guess or whim, the point is that not knowing how someone claimed to know something tells us nothing. Even if you could prove unequivocally that they made the claim and we had no idea how they came by the idea the sun isn't perfectly spherical, this still doesn't remotely offer objective evidence they came by this knowledge from a supernatural deity.

These kind of appeal to ignorance fallacies are in every thread here, theists make these fallacious claims all the time, and when challenge often show they don't know what common logical fallacies are or what they mean for the argument based on them.

I find your religion every bit as much a vapid superstition as all the others, and there is absolutely no scientific evidence for any deity, that is axiomatic.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Mohamed - Now paste this NASA

Mohamed - Now paste this NASA link:

It explains that the sun indeed isn't spherical

Nowhere in that article does it say the sun isn't spherical. In fact, as far as I can tell, the word "spherical" doesn't appear in the article!

It says the sun isn't a perfect sphere; we've known that for a long, long, time.

A.prophet's picture
Are you serious?

Are you serious?

What is the difference between not spherical and not a perfect sphere?

I wan't saying it was cubed!

where are your sources?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Spherical means vaguely

Spherical means vaguely sphere shaped. A perfect sphere means exactly a sphere. No macroscopic object is a perfect sphere; lots of macroscopic objects are spherical, including the sun.

/e or to phrase it another way, a spherical object is similar enough to a perfect sphere that using the mathematics of a perfect sphere to describe it, will produce errors below an acceptable size.

A.prophet's picture
You seriously lost me man!

You seriously lost me man!

The Quran is claiming exactly what the NASA article is talking about... what are we arguing about here?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Mohamed - You seriously lost

Mohamed - You seriously lost me man!

Well at least you admit it, that already makes you much more honest than most theists who come here. Bravo.

You have mis-characterized the article from NASA. It does not say what you claimed it said. I understand how you could have gotten confused and made that mistake, it is a subtle point, but it is a mistake.

A.prophet's picture
Not at all

Not at all

This conversation was supposed to lead to a different place, but we got stuck at whether the sun is a sphere or not.

Instead of referring you to a conversation I'm having with another person, I'll have to explain more to you.

The Sun was never a complete sphere, and the NASA article was just the proof of that. All I cared about was the part about the sun missing 0.001 of its roundness.

Now in a continuing chapter Ch. 86:3
Allah says " A perforating star "

Scientists explained that planets are made of space dust, but that isn't true from the Carina nebula image I attached. (only image on the WWW)

The sun lost its roundness in the perforation process and is regaining it, hence " When the sun becomes spherical "


Attach Image/Video?: 

Nyarlathotep's picture
Mohamed - This conversation

Mohamed - This conversation was supposed to lead to a different place,

Oh I have no doubt of that; but I've played this game before. I won't go any further until you retract your false statement:

Mohamed - [the NASA link] explains that the sun indeed isn't spherical

A.prophet's picture
“The sun is the biggest and

“The sun is the biggest and therefore smoothest object in the solar system, perfect at the 0.001% level because of its extremely strong gravity,” says study co-author Hugh Hudson of UC Berkeley. “Measuring its exact shape is no easy task.”

does that say that the sun is spherical?

the continuation explains that the sun's spherical form was lesser... with proof!

Nyarlathotep's picture
Mohamed - does that say that

Mohamed - does that say that the sun is spherical?

Your claim was that the article said the sun is not spherical. The article does not say that; what you told us is false. I understand how you made that mistake, it is an easy mistake to make, and I doubt anyone here thinks any less of your for making it. But I guarantee, your continued failure to retract your obviously false statement will diminish your chance of having a decent chat.

A.prophet's picture


So you're asking me to find you a sentence in the article that clearly says that the sun isn't spherical?

When the article says that the sun is perfect at 0.001%... can't a DEDUCTION be made?

come on man... you ain't chatting with a child!

This topic is still a warm up and there are many other people who would have a decent chat. I really don't know what you will gain from my retraction of words... BUT I MADE NO MISTAKE buddy.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Mohamed - I would like 1

Mohamed - I would like 1 decent chat...

Mohamed - BUT I MADE NO MISTAKE buddy.

Looks like that ship is starting to sail.

A.prophet's picture
Listen man

Listen man

For 1 sec. just put this weird issue aside and continue with the continuation...

It says that the sun is perfect at 0.001%... I have proof why from a verse in the Quran and a picture from NASA

I just proved that EVEN NASA doesn't know much about our universe using the Quran and a picture... and you are stuck at a DEDUCTION!

sail away buddy... sail away

Nyarlathotep's picture
Mohamed - It says that the

Mohamed - It says that the sun is perfect at 0.001%

Right, it is almost a perfect sphere. We have a description for objects like that: spherical.

The problem is you told us it wasn't spherical, which contradicts what you just quoted from the article.

A.prophet's picture
Aaahhhhhhh I see what you

Aaahhhhhhh I see what you mean now.

Fine... it is a lesser sphere!

arakish's picture
Well, you are another one

Well, you are another one where saying you are mentally retarded is not an ad hominem.

You have provided absolutely no proof whatsoever so far. That arabic word offered translates as "conglomerate."



  • anything composed of heterogeneous materials or elements.
  • a corporation consisting of a number of subsidiary companies or divisions in a variety of unrelated industries, usually as a result of merger or acquisition.
  • Geology a rock consisting of pebbles or the like embedded in a finer cementing material; consolidated gravel.


  • gathered into a rounded mass; consisting of parts so gathered; clustered.
  • consisting of heterogeneous parts or elements.
  • of or relating to a corporate conglomerate.
  • Geology of the nature of a conglomerate.

verb (used with object)

  • to bring together into a cohering mass.
  • to gather into a ball or rounded mass.

verb (used without object)

  • to collect or cluster together.
  • (of a company) to become part of or merge with a conglomerate.

What the fuck does any of the above have to with the sun?


CyberLN's picture
Indeed, Nyar. Those tricky

Indeed, Nyar. Those tricky suffixes will getcha every time. :)

algebe's picture
@Mohamed Quran ch. 81:1 the

@Mohamed Quran ch. 81:1 the verse states "If the sun becomes spherical"

I don't understand what you're claiming here. Is the Quran predicting that the shape of the sun might change from something else (e.g., a disk) into a sphere?

A.prophet's picture
a slightly less spherical

a slightly less spherical object is an oval one!

Nyarlathotep's picture
Mohamed - a slightly less

Mohamed - a slightly less spherical object is an oval one!

Spherical objects are 3 dimensional objects, ovals are 2 dimensional objects. Also no macroscopic object is an oval.

Tin-Man's picture
Having followed the thread to

Having followed the thread to this point, it is starting to sound like somebody skipped basic geometry class. Not gonna say who, though... *discretely motioning toward Mohamed*....

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
Oh dear.

Oh dear.

It's scary that it has to be made clear.

Cognostic's picture
Sounds like somebody didn't

Sounds like somebody didn't quite make is to 6th grade.

A.prophet's picture
Ok man, so you are being

Ok man, so you are being accurate with words!

oblate spheroid, or oblate ellipsoid


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.