Why is it not this simple??
Donating = Loving
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.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Faulty theist logic as usual. They start with the answer they want then twist things to get it. And anyone who isnt biased can see its twisted i bet a non religious 12yr old could see the flaws easily.
You have to start with a question not an answer.
I object to leading questions especially the false irrational assumption the gawd gott god sound is a proper noun. And our Atheism is falsely defined in a non sequitur. All Atheism is the absence of theism. The prefix A negates that which follows the A. Freedom FROM theocracy is our goal. It takes illegal government action to force beliefs regarding alleged deities miracles or post mortem states of being. I walk in through doors while NEVER believing in doors as doors exist rationally to.be.opened or closed. The gawd sound is more than delusion it is the word of the criminal theocrat killing polluting raping and stealing government money or undeserved privilege 843_926_1750 @AtheistVet my twitter Larry
I hear several of you Atheists claiming you don't believe. That is one of the most ignorant things I have heard from any of you. It is absurd to claim you don't believe in doors. If you didn't believe in doors, as you say you don't believe in God, you wouldn't reach for the handle to open it. You would simply get a bloody nose each time you tried to go through one, because your disbelief would claim it's not there. What the truth is about going through a door is that you don't have to tell your arm "ok arm now you have to raise your hand so you can open this door so I can go through this door way. If you didn't believe in doors and there is no law that you have to, you would find out that your unbelief will not make the door disappeared. Truth is truth wether you believe it or not. I hope you can understand that, because no matter how many times you CLAIM you don't believe, you do.
It's all just semantics, chuckster. I don't use the word 'believe' when it comes to things for which there is substantive observational / scientific proof.
When I hear the word 'believe', I hear 'without evidence' or 'via faith' as a concatenation to it. I'd suspect that many atheist folks in the forum think similarly about that word.
Sorry to inform you but so called evidence you support, is not concrete. Sorry Charlie it can be disputed, you just simply don't want to look at it from every angle.
That just goes the same way for you. If there is no god, there is no god whether you believe in one or not. And no matter how many times you claim you believe in God, deep down you really know it isn't true.
Chuck has a good point. Doors and gods have a lot in common. Humans made both to serve their purposes.
Sorry Clockwork you got it wrong also God made us we didn't make Him.
Demonstrate god exist. I read more redherrings from theist before 3am than you can type in 8hrs, so skip going to a text that claims god wrote it until you demonstrate first that god exist. Skip your personal experiences that you have decided to attribute to god. Simply demonstrate that god exist.
I have told you over and over that God decided how He would prove Himself and He will not change it just because you don't want to do it His way. He will show you Himself, (which then you will not deny it) if you are willing to seek Him like He said to. Are you afraid it's going to hurt. I promise you it won't and you will be glad you did. I nor anyone I know that has been saved for much longer than myself, have heard anyone that has a spiritual life that shows fruits, has ever said they wish they hadn't been saved. No one! And those that don't produced fruit in their lives, they for the most part simply go back to what they were or worse. Just like a dog will return to his vomit, and a pig that has been washed will return to the mire.
Because it's their nature. A dog is not a dog because it barks, it barks because it's a dog. That's it's nature. Until you are born again and your spirit quickened, you will remain the same.
So only god can demonstrate its existence, not you.
All I can do is tell you what He has done for me, and how He changed my life.
But it takes God to reveal Himself. He will not force Himself on you. So He puts the choice in your hands.
You are telling me about something you cannot demonstrate exists. Let god speak for itself, meanwhile I have nothing to consider until it does.
Therein lies your failure in finding truth. Unfortunately many people worry more about what others might think about themselves rather than being concerned about were they are going to spend eternity. Are you one of those? If not what is holding you back from doing something that hurts no one, and considering that if God is real and His word is true, it clearly say if you seek Him you will find Him, it's either true or not. And no one has to know that you are doing it until you find out if it is true.
You can't even demonstrate that your god exist. I need not alter one iota of my life until your god is demonstrated.
Look up for
Psalm 19:1 KJV
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Like I said in another post there is order in the universe because God made it. If there was a so called big bang, it is the only natural explosion that created things instead of destroying things. Though evolutionists claim this to be the case, why does everything tend to disorder.
Oh yeah I remember, because of our sins
Ellis can't you see the design of it all?
Only when intelligence uses an explosion, such as bonding two different types of minerals together, do explosions create. That's design with purpose.
You are attacking a cartoon version of the big bang. So yeah, of course it looks ridiculous to you. Try addressing the actual theory. Of course that requires hard work...
The actual theory as opposed to that other theory.
What is the actual theory?
Did you know a theory is a theory. That's all it is, no matter what someone claims in the end, it is still a theory, not proof. Anyone can have a theory, it doesn't make it truth.
Truth is discovered, and you can only discover something in the manner in which it takes to reveal it.
I'll give you a simple example.
If your going to prove there is gold in a mountain you are going to have to dig for it to find and prove it.
You can't just stand on the top and proclaim it.
By the way before the gold is found both ways are theories. You don't even have to see the mountain to claim the theory.
But God says to seek Him and you will find Him. There have been many that have found Hi m and the evidence is in their lives.
Many also have had a theory of the so called big bang with yet no true evidence but the thought in their head.
With God His truth changes you.
With the theory of the big bang nothing changes.
FFS, mr 'ex athiest' does not even know what theory means!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A child knows what it means go ask a 12 yr old.
Ok Lmale and any others,
Let's get into the depths of theory:
First were the word came from:
From Yahoo Answers:
Where did the word 'theory' come from?
What archaic word(s) did it originate from?
Greek - theoria: "contemplation, speculation, a looking at, things looked at"
Greek - theorein: "to consider, speculate, look at"
Greek - theoros: "spectator"
Above is the original and true meaning of the word theory in 1590s. Then someone had to change it in 1630 to accommodate the unprovable so called science beliefs to try and take God out of the equation. The Bible even tells us to beware of false science.
1 Timothy 6:20 KJV
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
You see God believes in real science, and put it in His word. Another word for science falsely so called is - evolution.
Below is today's version of the word theory from Wikipedia:
You will notice in the second section, it says "confirmed through observation and experimentation".
I have yet to see an experiment that proves " something from nothing" nor of a big bang, nor of life from non life.
By the way none of those have been observed either.
In the third section, "As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings"
In other words if someone finds a hole in the evolutionists theory they can just think up something new and put that forth as a so called evidence, which is not really evidence, it's just a thought with nothing to observe nor experiment with.
Making it for you faith!!!!!!!!!
I rest my case, unless you need me to go on.
Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force.
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings- in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g. Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light).
Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g. electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).
you said "I have yet to see an experiment that proves " something from nothing" nor of a big bang, nor of life from non life.
By the way none of those have been observed either."
As you have demonstrated in another thread, the reason you haven't seen any evidence is you are making a decision not to look at it.
No I didn't say I have decided not to look at it. There is nothing to look at, you haven't seen it either. It is impossible. If it were possible it would be available to see, so show me were I can actually see it if it's there. But don't tell me were I can see someone's work of art that they drew from a picture in their head that doesn't exist except for in the heads of their followers.
Yup none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Well you could start with:
I went to the sight you posted.
under the pictures you can read they admit they are drawn from an artist. That means they are not real. It's what they imagined.
Also did you read what they said about the red shift. The red shift only occurs if a light source is going away from you, not because it is going in the same direction at a slower speed.
So even if the light sources that would be between the earth and were the supposed center of this so called big bang occurred, were traveling slower, there still would be no red shift.
It would only be seen from the light sources that are farther away from this so called big bang center than the earth is.
So the true evidence doesn't back up what some evolutionist scribbled down in some math problem. If they can prove the big bang by a math problem they should know were to look to show areal picture that gives real proof.
But the red shift gives more credence to the Bible
Isaiah 42:5 KJV
Thus saith God the Lord , he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
And this verse is truth.
Psalm 19:1 KJV
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
That's in response to Nyarlathotep
Yes the article has an artists picture, but that is not the evidence in question, and you should know that.
you said "The red shift only occurs if a light source is going away from you, not because it is going in the same direction at a slower speed."
This is wrong. Very wrong. If object A and object B are traveling in the same direction, having left the same point, but at different velocieites there will ALWAYS be redshifting in any photons exchanged between them. For example: consider the situation that object A is moving at 20 m/s to the right, and particle b is moving at 60 m/s to the right. The distance between them is growing at 40 m/s (approximately). If you live on object B, then you would describe the situation as: I am not moving, but particle A is moving away from me at 40 m/s, therefore there will be redshift. If you live in particle A you will say: I am not moving, but particle B is moving away from me at 40 m/s, therefore there will be redshift.
This is extremely basic high school physics. There is no preferred reference frame, so we can choose any reference frame we want to examine the situation, Furthermore all references frames must give the same laws, and they do (they all show redshifting). Any frame you choose says there will be redshift. And don't bother claiming they are wrong when they say they are at rest, any country bumpkin knows that any inertial frame of reference is as good as any other.
Ya know I was going to dig into your explanation about the red shift, but then my LORD showed me something. So I will accept your explanation. You see it would have been a lot better for your theory if the red shift was only on the stars that are so called out in front of the earth from the big bang lol.
But if you go back through several of my posts I have stated that you have nothing that proves evolution that disproves the Bible.
You see if that red shift wasn't on every side then you could say God's word was wrong when His word said He stretched forth the Heavens.
So again if your correct about the way the red shift works then it still supports both views.
But there is still another problem you have. And that is when something explodes in a vacuum shouldn't everything be traveling at the same speed?
There is a simple experiment that can be executed right here on earth.
If you take one of those vacuum sealers that can also create a vacuum in the tall food containers that can hold spaghetti noodles. Preferably something taller than that even. Then take a rock or something equivalent like a marble and a feather, and put them inside. Now with the cover on turn the container upside down really fast and you will see the heavier object will hit the bottom first. Then use the vacuum to take the air out of the container. Now when you turn it over quickly they will both hit the bottom at the same time. Why did that not happen with the big bang in a vacuum like space?
Another problem is, as I have seen in many science books that claim the big bang theory could have been as small as a period, and spinning really fast.
Now did you know that if you were to put a bomb on a mary-go-round and put let's say some different sizes or even all the same size ball bearings on it, then spun the Mary-go-round really fast, and then detonated the bomb, that all the ball bearings would spin in the same direction.
Yet there are planets in our solar system that spin the opposite direction as the earth does. And even one that rolls end over end, so to say.
So are you going to give a reason for these questions? And do you have any evidence that CAN NOT be looked at from another direction that supports God?
If not then you believe what you do by faith, making Atheism a religion.
Q: "And that is when something explodes in a vacuum shouldn't everything be traveling at the same speed?...Now when you turn it over quickly they will both hit the bottom at the same time. Why did that not happen with the big bang in a vacuum like space?"
A: First off explosions do not scatter material at the same velocity. Second, the expansion of the early universe was not an explosion, it was isotropic expansion. Hubble discovered in 1929 that the relative difference in velocities between galaxies is a linear function of there distance from the Earth. In short, it means that if you calculate the distance between galaxies in the future they will be further and further apart, and in the past they will be closer and closer together until they eventually converge into a very small volume. This discovery was the first observation that supported the big bang theory.
Q: "Another problem is, as I have seen in many science books that claim the big bang theory could have been as small as a period, and spinning really fast...Yet there are planets in our solar system that spin the opposite direction as the earth does. And even one that rolls end over end, so to say."
A: I really don't think you read that in a physics book, it sounds like something Kent Hovind would say. Additionally: our current universe has no net angular momentum, and angular momentum is conserved. So if you could show the universe at any point in its evolution had any net angular momentum that would be bad for the big bang theory as it would demonstrate some outside force had introduced angular momentum to the universe (a great place to insert a deity). Crudely speaking; for every object rotating one direction, there is another object rotating the opposite direction, leading to a 0 net angular momentum universe.
Q: "And do you have any evidence that CAN NOT be looked at from another direction that supports God?"
A: Of course not. You can always wedge god into the gaps, because "god did it" isn't a theory, and makes no testable predictions so it can NEVER be falsified. Even if it was true, that god created the universe, and this knowledge was magically put into everyone's head overnight: the next day we would go out and continue to investigate the big bang without missing a beat. Why? Because the next question would be "how did god create the universe" and we would be right back to investigating the big bang.
Q: "If not then you believe what you do by faith, making Atheism a religion."
A: I don't believe the big bang, I tentatively accept it so long as it continues to make predictions which match observation. In the future when it fails to do this (and it almost certainly will) it will be altered or scrapped. In fact this has already happened several times. This is the difference between religion and science, we fully expect to have to make corrections tomorrow in science because we didn't get something right today. Tell me: Are you expecting to have to make corrections to your religious beliefs tomorrow?
Sorry but you can't take pictures with a telescope in 1992 and say that because the galaxies are moving apart means there was a big bang in the first place. That just simply means they are moving apart. Which again can support either view.
Why can't they see the outer ring of this so called explosion? Now that would be something to see, for there would be absolutely nothing beyond it. But if you then turned the telescope the other way you should also see were the explosion occurred.
But that's right there is not even one telescope that can see the flames of what is considered the closest star outside of our solar system.
Yes it is true, big bang theorists have to change what they claim every time a flaw is shown in their theory.
But true Christianity has never had to be corrected. The only so called change to God's true word for the English speaking people, the KJB of 1611 was simply to standardize the alphabet. Which wasn't just for the Bible, it was for all English text. You see before they standardize text, certain letters could be used in place of others and it was not considered to be spelt wrong. But the meaning of the words stayed the same. I have already made comments about the other perversions, like the NIV, NKJV, NSV, HSB, and there are many more. But they are not God's word. They have many flaws, but no one can show a flaw in the KJB.
So if God had to change His word, then that would prove it to be all wrong.
The devil is always trying to make God's word into a lie, but even after about 6000 years he still has not been able to destroy God's true word. It will last for ever.