Are you an atheist? (13 Viewers)

Are you an atheist?


  • Total voters
    351
I did. :)

After I got over my astonishment this thread/argument is still running...

Hello Kraj,
It's been a long time, you missed 2014 completely, hope that you are well and life is treating you fairly.

Brian
 
why is that do you reckon?
Is this a trick question? *narrow eyes*


Hello Kraj,
It's been a long time, you missed 2014 completely, hope that you are well and life is treating you fairly.

Brian
Thanks, Brian! Very kind of you to say, and nice to see a friendly name from the Long Ago Time ;) Life has been good, no complaints any worse than anyone else's. Major life events include buying a house, a trip to Rome and Paris to celebrate my 10-year anniversary, as well as some smaller but excellent trips to London, Amsterdam, and Beijing. I've managed to successfully avoid stressful arguments on internet forums for quite a while now (though I confess, not long after leaving here I moderated the debate section on another forum. But I left that several years ago as well.)

I've now got a new Access project to dive into at work and I'm quite rusty, so I'll probably be around regularly for at least a while.

What's new with you?
 
Kraj, nice to see you back. It is always nice when an old friend returns to the forum
 
Is this a trick question? *narrow eyes*

Trick question, NO, it was a simple entrance to a conversation since it seemed that you were surprised it (this thread) was still here.?
icon7.gif


Nevertheless, welcome back to the forum!

I will assume you were not talking about my appearance so I guess you are judging me and by the virtue of the forum members who have had high praises for you in the last few post, 'narrow eyes' is understandable and expected.
biggrin.gif


Again, welcome back.
 
Hey all, had a minute thought I would post an address concerning the deaths during WWII. Now before you get all bent out of shape and such, we had been talking about the figures during the war and a lot of the time I was wro........wro......

wro....

wron....

oh, well had a different opinion. I don't know if it is more accurate that the others but it is put together well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/...90.html?cps=gravity_2684_-2651112123946357094

And it is even from a far left Liberal publication? Am I getting better or not??????
lol


Have a nice week

Blade
 
quoteOriginally Posted by Bladerunner As a child you are without sin. Everyone sins when they get to a knowing age.

Where in the Bible does it say that?
Galaxiom, you asked a question which I never replied to. The answer is the following.

Deuteronomy 1:35,39 - 'Surely not one of these men of this evil generation shall see that good land of which I swore to give to your fathers....' 'Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.'

sorry for the delay. was looking it up and simply forgot about it.

Blade
 
Thought I would leave this chart that shows the beginning and the end? We are in the 'Dispensation of Grace.

human_history.gif
 
for you physicist mathematicians atheist out there, I ask you if the following is correct as we know it today?

The Milky Way galaxy we live in roughly contains 100 billion stars. Astronomers have also estimated that the number of galaxies in the observable universe is 200 BILLION! The current diameter of the observable area is about 93 BILLION light years. The width of the ENTIRE universe (the parts we can and cannot see) is bigger still. In comparison, the width of a typical galaxy is only 30,000 light-years.

Thanks

Blade
 
Regarding the numbers of stars, galaxies, etc. Given that they are estimates, for the most part I might agree with some of those numbers. The only statement where I might qualify or question what you said is that we don't know the size of the entire universe and there are many theories about it. Given some of Einstein's theories based on relativity and some of the even more recent theories, some folks say that the size of the universe is EXACTLY AND ALWAYS the size that we can see. I.e. the universe is expanding and is only the size that we can see, no bigger.

That theory works because the part of the galaxy we can see started in this direction before the Earth was formed. It doesn't matter if we weren't there to see the first 10 billion years of galactic development. (The old "tree falling in the forest where nobody could hear it" conundrum.)

If that chart of "Creation Week" is supposed to relate to human history, it is already impossible, since day 6 is when Man was created but if those dividers are to be taken literally, Man (in the form of Adam and the generations leading up to Noah) existed before that time. At least, that is the way it looks. If you wish to present that kind of chart, it might not hurt to cite an origin so we could try to figure it out. The timeline as shown appears self-contradictory since Man appears before Man was created.

I did note that we are in the 1000-year "week" corresponding to a 6000-year-old Earth, but Bishop Ussher's timeline makes no more sense now than it ever did.
 
As a point of clarification:

The current diameter of the observable area is about 93 BILLION light years.

Since the universe is slightly less than 14 bn years old, we could never see a diameter greater than 28 bn light years. In order to measure that the universe is something close to 93 bn l.y. across, we would need for that thing to (a) be 46.5 bn years old or (b) someone would have had to discover some method of observation that works using another information medium traveling faster than conventional light - a factor of slightly over 3 times faster.

I'm not a total purist on this subject. I could accept that light's actual speed varied by a percent or two different than 186,234 mi/sec, but 3 times faster? That is big enough that I think I might have seen that on-line by now. And if you are not using light or any other simple electromagnetic radiation, then what DID you use to come up with that number? That is why I asked about a reference.
 
As a point of clarification:



Since the universe is slightly less than 14 bn years old, we could never see a diameter greater than 28 bn light years. In order to measure that the universe is something close to 93 bn l.y. across, we would need for that thing to (a) be 46.5 bn years old or (b) someone would have had to discover some method of observation that works using another information medium traveling faster than conventional light - a factor of slightly over 3 times faster.

I'm not a total purist on this subject. I could accept that light's actual speed varied by a percent or two different than 186,234 mi/sec, but 3 times faster? That is big enough that I think I might have seen that on-line by now. And if you are not using light or any other simple electromagnetic radiation, then what DID you use to come up with that number? That is why I asked about a reference.

Ugh, tried to PM this but Doc's PMs are turned off.

So, Doc, much as I hate to say it, Blade's mostly right on this one. Most of the current estimates actually put it at 92 billion light years. This would be due to the expansion of the universe; the farthest objects that we can see were much, much closer to us at the time they generated/reflected the light that we are now seeing.

References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe (83b ly)
http://www.space.com/24073-how-big-is-the-universe.html (92b ly)
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/numbers.html (92b ly)
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/03/01/how-big-is-our-observable-universe/ (93b ly)
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...e-in-light-years-greater-than-its-age.506987/ (92b ly)

NASA dodges the question by pointing out you can't actually measure the size of the universe without knowing its shape.
 
That makes me so mad...Had an article to post and it would not let me post it, Took too long to write it and it (the program) did not know who I was, I guess?

.
 
The timeline according to the Bible is pretty correct. Especially if you take into account patterns and the numbers that show repetitiveness

Yes, The end times (tribulations) by this timeline should happen in this century.
 
And with that expansion, they say we will likely never reach another galaxy as it will expand faster than we can increase technology. They even say it'll be tough enough to reach further systems within our own.
 
What did humans living many, many years ago (back in the BC days) believe held up the earth? Only one person got it right! "He stretches out the north over the empty space, and He hung the earth on nothing" (Job 26:7)

Who knew a few thousand years ago that the winds went south, turned north, whirled continually and completed a circle from its beginning? Only one did!
"The wind goes toward the south, and it turns around to the north; it whirls around continually; and the wind returns on its circuits " (Ecclesiastes 1:6)

Did early man think the earth was flat or round like a globe? Flat but the ONE who created it knew the correct answer. "It is He Who sits above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers;" (Isaiah 40:22)

Ur Kaśdim is mentioned four times in the Tanakh, with the distinction "Kaśdim" usually rendered in English as "of the Chaldees." In Genesis, the name is found in 11:28, 11:31 and 15:7. Although not explicitly stated in the Tanakh, it is generally understood to be the birthplace of Abraham. Genesis 11:27–28 names it as the birthplace of Abraham's brother Haran, and the point of departure of Terah's household, including his son Abram. Why is this important?

Skeptics often stated that if Scripture were true then we should be able to find the ancient city of Ur. It was found in 1854!

Have a good weekend
 
What did humans living many, many years ago (back in the BC days) believe held up the earth? Only one person got it right! "He stretches out the north over the empty space, and He hung the earth on nothing" (Job 26:7)

Job was wrong. The Earth isn't "hung on nothing" but gravitationally bound to other objects, mainly the Sun.
 
Job was wrong. The Earth isn't "hung on nothing" but gravitationally bound to other objects, mainly the Sun.

For a book of the Bible it was pretty close, especially since it was written 1400 years BC. If you look to out over the ocean at night, it would seem that the earth was one---flat and hung out there on nothing.

If you are talking to young children, do you start using big words like Gravitational Pull or do you tone it down some to where they can understand it in a few words. Yes, years later they will learn what Gravity actually is but until then? So it is with the Bible.

Hell, you can probably ask some California students, and they will not know what holds up the earth. (i.e. Waters World)
 
If you are talking to young children, do you start using big words like Gravitational Pull or do you tone it down some to where they can understand it in a few words.

TWO sets of implications here worthy of note.

First, for the last 30 years I have said that the Bible is in the same exact category as Aesop's Fables and Grimm's Fairy Tales - stories to amuse, amaze, and (sometimes) admonish little children - because the stories were written before the advent of TV, DVDs, CDs, and even {ghack!!} cassette tapes. So the only way to keep kids quiet at night in the nomadic and small-village settlements was to have the village story-teller entertain the little brats with stories that kept their attention until they were bored to tears and fell asleep in self-defense.

But then, there is an implied arrogance that Job knew enough about gravity to tell someone (other than children) something about it. He couldn't have know doodlum-squat. It wasn't until the Italian Renaissance that gravity began to be taken as a serious thing of a scientific nature. And if instead of Job, you meant that God didn't tell anyone about gravity during the Biblical era, then what else isn't He telling us? And isn't it typical of tyrants to only tell you what they want you know?
 
TWO sets of implications here worthy of note.

First, for the last 30 years I have said that the Bible is in the same exact category as Aesop's Fables and Grimm's Fairy Tales - stories to amuse, amaze, and (sometimes) admonish little children - because the stories were written before the advent of TV, DVDs, CDs, and even {ghack!!} cassette tapes. So the only way to keep kids quiet at night in the nomadic and small-village settlements was to have the village story-teller entertain the little brats with stories that kept their attention until they were bored to tears and fell asleep in self-defense.

But then, there is an implied arrogance that Job knew enough about gravity to tell someone (other than children) something about it. He couldn't have know doodlum-squat. It wasn't until the Italian Renaissance that gravity began to be taken as a serious thing of a scientific nature. And if instead of Job, you meant that God didn't tell anyone about gravity during the Biblical era, then what else isn't He telling us? And isn't it typical of tyrants to only tell you what they want you know?

You right Job did not no nothing but he did write what he saw and heard from God. That verse went ""He stretches out the north over the empty space, and He hung the earth on nothing" (Job 26:7). God told the people this through Job and if you look out of the night (north sky, if you did not know about gravity, it would look as though the earth was hanging in the sky by Nothing.

No, your explaination is that JOB just guessed and got it almost right???????Since there is no God, that is what he had to do. I tell you Doc,,,,,, these authors back then were actually better than the ones we have today.

I do believe I could show you a thousand things in the Bible that should not be there because of the intellect of the authors, but you would still not agree. Little things like Moses not wanting to address the Pharoah because he was not well spoken.
Of course this came out in one book...written in around 45AD and the other book (Exodus) written in 6-7 BC hundreds of miles apart, yet Exodus does not account for why Arin, Moses'e Brother spoke to the Pharoah instead of Moses. Just one of many and I know, I KNOW it was all a hoax.

If you really read the bible and don't listen to these charlatans out there, I believe you would be surprised at its complexity. A complexity that even our authors today could not come close to matching.

Don't let me stop you, I am only a messenger.

p.s. we now have people believing they are different races instead of the race they were born to...Who would have figured it would go this far??????HUmmmmmmm

We now have kids that say they are a different gender so the doctors are giving them hormones to help them through a bad time. KIDs now.... Kids that have no knowledge of Good and Evil.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom