Why the religion of Atheizum?

916 posts / 0 new
Last post
Chuck Rogers's picture
Outside of a real picture it

Outside of a real picture it's just speculation.

CyberLN's picture
What do you mean by 'real

What do you mean by 'real picture'?

Chuck Rogers's picture
Anytime I see a picture of a

Anytime I see a picture of a star close up its always an artist's rendition. A real picture would be one from an actual telescope without any modifications from man.

CyberLN's picture
Nyarlathotep's picture
Chuck Rogers's picture
We have had this conversation

We have had this conversation before. The point is evolutionists claim all these things about stars but the best picture you can come up with is spots of light. No definition of what they look like up close, as when they take pictures of the Sun.
What if they are nothing more than light that God put into space? You may say that ignorant, but unless you can get a picture that actually shows details, you don't know what they are actually like. Which means if they are not like the sun, your entire philosophy is completely blown away.

You know I have never said that they are not like the sun. I'm simply saying that nobody knows because there has not been solid evidence outside of man's imagination. It's kinda strange don't you think that our space probes can't send signals to us past Pluto, as Lmale has pointed out? And though astronomers keep making stronger telescopes we still can't see the details of what is considered to be the closest star to us. But yet they show what they call nebulas with great detail that is supposed to be much farther away. Isn't that strange?

CyberLN's picture
Chucky, we can indeed see

Chucky, we can indeed see details. You just don't want to accept those details when they are provided using any spectrum other than the ones your eyes use. And, btw, your eyes use a pretty limited amount of the available spectrum.

Chuck Rogers's picture
They don't use anything extra

They don't use anything extra to view the sun, except maybe a lens that blocks some of the light in order to see more details. Yet looking at a star with those same lenses, they still don't get detailslike they do the sun. Why is that, if as I already stated, they can see other things that are supposed to be farther away?

CyberLN's picture

If you are standing underneath a tree, you can see leaves. Correct? If you look at a tree one mile away, you cannot.
It sounds like you predicate your opinion of what something is based on your proximity to it.
Additionally, we know what the composition of the sun and other stars is. So if a distant star has the same composition as the star that is our sun, do you posit that one is a star and the other is not?
If that's the case, chuckster, then any sort of reasonable discussion with you is an exercise in futility.

Lmale's picture
Hea trolling cant you see

Hea trolling cant you see that.
Hes just cherry picked something i said using it to mean nothing past pluto exists.
The reason we cant maintain raidio contact with the probes is simply they dont have the equipmemt to reach us. Probes = small there limited to what they can carry distance to pluto = staggering. Its like attempting to use a walkie talkie to talk to someone on the other side of the planet.

Lmale's picture
Edit if i recall correctly

Edit if i recall correctly (50/50 with me lol) the lag time in radio communication with the probe before we shut it down was 8 hrs. Radio signals travel fast damn fast so think about that.

Chuck Rogers's picture
So why don't they send a

So why don't they send a probe with the means to communicate much farther. After all the only probe I'm aware of going that far was sent several years ago. Surly the technology is better today.

I'm not saying that the stars are not like the sun, but I'm not saying it is either. I haven't seen anything that absolutely concerned it is or isn't like the sun. What I am saying is that there is no absolute confirmation that it is, just because of the color of light coming from a star. If they are like you claim as the sun so be it. That still doesn't discredit God. But if they are not the same and are a whole other monster so to say, then you have big problems with you world view.

By the way Lmale, nice to hear from you again buddy.

Chuck Rogers's picture
That was supposed to be

That was supposed to be confirmes it.

Zaphod's picture
There are plenty of images of

There are plenty of images of a star taken from a telescope without modifications from man:


and before you get your yourself all flustered here more images un-doctored of a star taken from space:


wait there's more:



the furthest one yet taken of that star:

and as per request some other stars at the closest we gotten of them I know of yet at the time I am writing this:


Chuck Rogers's picture

Apparently you didn't read the previous posts.
I said outside of our solar system.

Zaphod's picture
You apparently did not read

You apparently did not read my entire post. Look at all the links. Take your time, you may notice a couple things.

Chuck Rogers's picture
Iv seen some of the pictures

Iv seen some of the pictures NASA has but for some reason the last two links are only showing the title of the sites, not the pics.
I'll have to try again later.

Zaphod's picture
I checked them they seem to

I checked them they seem to be working now.

In the second to the last link the sun located in the center of the quarter pizza formation is star-ting to look more like the stars you are more accustomed to seeing in pictures taken from outside Pluto's orbit. I linked to pictures of the Sun from these further and further locations to demonstrate how our suns would look as we moved further and further away from it keep in mind we are so far away so far away from other stars that cant even see their halo as it simply would not be visible from such distance.

In the last link, taken by the same space probe, you can see what two other stars neighboring to our sun are beginning to look like when an image is taken from near the edge of our solar system.

Domingo De Santa Clara's picture
Hi all,just joined and

Hi all,just joined and thought i'd add my tuppence to this thread.
I have always considered myself an atheist from as early as 10 or 11 years of age when i was removed from the weekly religious study session at my primary school.I asked too many awkward questions and probably disrupted the brainwashing of my fellow classmates.
However,this all changed recently when i heard someone describe themselves as an Atheist/Christian,this made me sit up and take notice because i'd never been quite comfortable being simply tagged an Atheist,for reasons i can't quite fathom,having that tag seems to have connotations of evil or immorality.
Apparently an Atheist/Christian is one who doesn't believe in a higher being,but believes in Christian values derived from the bible and The Ten Commandments,that is me in a nutshell.
As for why i don't believe in a god,i look to history,so many gods and religions have come before the current crop and yet have fallen by the wayside,if their gods didn't exist surely the current in vogue gods are only another temporary aberration? or were millions of believers just wrong? and still are.
Science has dispelled so many religious beliefs over the last hundreds of years that religion has to constantly adapt itself to the new truth,for me there can only be i belief,that is no belief.

CyberLN's picture
Hi Domingo, welcome. Perhaps

Hi Domingo, welcome. Perhaps instead of an atheist/xtian, you might consider referring to yourself as a humanist. After all, those '10 commandments' have a few that would require a belief in gawd. So far as the 'values derived from the bible,'...which ones? There are many in that book that are heinous.

Chuck Rogers's picture

You tree example doesn't work when you have something that can see the tree clearly that is 5 miles past the one that is only 1 mile away.

I thought I made that clear when I was talking about the nebula.

Domingo De Santa Clara's picture
What you say is very true,i

What you say is very true,i guess i meant the general spirit of the commandments rather than strict observation of each one.In all honesty i'm not sure i even need a label,i like to think i'm just another ordinary Joe Schmo getting on in life,and hopefully succeeding in my own small way.

CyberLN's picture
And no doubt you will succeed

And no doubt you will succeed, :-)

Chuck Rogers's picture
Hello I'm back.

Hello I'm back.
Hey Zaphod,
I checked out the sites you put in your post, from the probe showing the sun from close to the edge of our solar system. You do realize that the camera on that probe isn't no were close to what they could put out there today right?
If they were to put the Hubble telescope out there it could get I believe a very good zoomed in close up picture of the sun. To the degree we could see details of more than just light.

Look at this NASA site of pictures from the Hubble telescope. Make sure you read the info under the pictures. At least one says 90 million light years away. Others say they are of other galaxies, with some great detail of clouds and nebulas. How can the telescope show that great of detail billions of light years away, but not be able to zoom in on a star that is considered to be only 40,000 light years away (think that was the number someone used in an earlier post)?
Here is the site.


Chuck Rogers's picture
Oh yeah Zaphod look at

Oh yeah Zaphod look at picture #43. I was impressed by how big it shows the stars, but yet just light!

Lmale's picture
If you knew anything about

If you knew anything about astronomy or the hubble telescope you would know its designed for long long long range. If it was aimed at our sun it would burn out the optics.

CyberLN's picture
Oh chucky, every time you

Oh chucky, every time you post, I go back to 1964 and hear Shirley Ellis singing in my head. I know it's completely juvenile but I just can't help it.

Nyarlathotep's picture
First off Chuck, your idea

First off Chuck, your idea that you are going to see something other than light, when looking at any object (even your hand), is seriously misguided. Also that first picture you linked, that is a picture of an object about 28 million times bigger than a star (and no, I really mean 28 million times, I didn't just make that up). So now when we examine your question. Why can we see an object better that is farther away? Cuz its 28 million times bigger, duh!

Chuck Rogers's picture
Duh, do you see the detail of

Duh, do you see the detail of what they call the sombrero galaxy and some of the other galaxies. Many many times farther than the closest star outside of our solar system, and yet nothing but light. No detail like I can see on my hands, or of what they claim is a galaxy far far away.

So again I say until you get a detailed photo of a star it is nothing more than speculation that they are like the sun. Duh!!!

Nyarlathotep's picture
We gave you several detailed

We gave you several detailed pictures, some with even sun spots on other stars, but of course you want even more detail. What do you want a selfie? Oh and now you are comparing stars to galaxies? A standard galaxy is about 1,200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times bigger than a star. Also the "details" you are seeing on a galaxy are hundreds of light years across...


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.