Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

Don5163 wrote:

<quoted text>"God" is defined by many different religions in their own ways. All have the same common belief; that there is a Supreme Being.

So no particular reason to believe in an Abrahamic god then? Much less the version of one particular sect. Might as well believe in Zeus or Thor.

EdSed wrote:

<quoted text>So no particular reason to believe in an Abrahamic god then? Much less the version of one particular sect. Might as well believe in Zeus or Thor.

Well, all I can suggest is if you very limited cognitive ability takes you there, not suggesting it, but go there.

Don5163 wrote:

<quoted text>Simply put and correcting your statement, satanists worship the devil and the devil is a diety. It's simple as that.

Wow, EW. When the fundies AND the atheists both agree that you are just twisting words out of their normal meanings and misrepresenting things, I'd say you have quite the credibility problem.

Don5163 wrote:

<quoted text>And just how do you prove something that the world's most intellectual scientist can't prove? You're very funny.

I am sorry, but all of you just are a funny clown not more.

Don5163 wrote:

<quoted text>Being a satanist does not negate the existence of God, it simply attempts to defy God deliberately.

Of course a satanist is just an ignorant like all believers in any religions.

MUQ wrote:

Is believe in Creator against Science, Reason and logic or Vice Versa? Part-4

THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE

In 1929, in the California Mount Wilson observatory, an American astronomer by the name of Edwin Hubble made one of the greatest discoveries in the history of astronomy. While he observed the stars with a giant telescope, he found out that the light from them was shifted to the red end of the spectrum and that this shift was more pronounced the further a star was from the earth.

This discovery had an electrifying effect in the world of science, because according to the recognised rules of physics, the spectra of light beams travelling towards the point of observation tend towards violet while the spectra of the light beams moving away from the point of observation tend towards red. During HubbleÂ’s observations, the light from stars was discovered to tend towards red. This meant that they were constantly moving away from us.

Before long, Hubble made another very important discovery: Stars and galaxies moved away not only from us, but also from one another. The only conclusion that could be derived from a universe where everything moves away from everything else is that the universe constantly ‘expands’.

To better understand, the universe can be thought of as the surface of a balloon being blown up. Just as the points on the surface of a balloon move apart from each other as the balloon is inflated, so do the objects in space move apart from each other as the universe keeps expanding.

In fact, this had been theoretically discovered even earlier. Albert Einstein, who is considered the greatest scientist of the century, had concluded after the calculations he made in theoretical physics that the universe could not be static. However, he had laid his discovery to rest simply not to conflict with the widely recognised static universe model of his time. Later on, Einstein was to identify his act as ‘the greatest mistake of his career’. Subsequently, it became definite by Hubble’s observations that the universe expands.

What importance, then, did the fact that the universe expands have on the existence of the universe?

The expansion of the universe implied that if it could travel backwards in time, the universe would prove to have originated from a single point. The calculations showed that this ‘single point’ that harboured all the matter of the universe should have ‘zero volume’ and ‘infinite density’.

The universe had come about by the explosion of this single point with zero volume. This great explosion that marked the beginning of the universe was named the ‘Big Bang’ and the theory started to be so called. It has to be stated that ‘zero volume’ is a theoretical expression used for descriptive purposes. Science can define the concept of ‘nothingness’, which is beyond the limits of human comprehension, only by expressing it as ‘a point with zero volume’. In truth,‘a point with no volume’ means ‘nothingness’. The universe has come into being from nothingness. In other words, it was created.

Nice !

The BIG BANG when nothing exploded!

The serpent was right wrote:

<quoted text>Nope.

The serpent paid a high price

14 So the Lord God said to the serpent,“Because you have done this,

“Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.�

Don5163 wrote:

Simply put and correcting your statement, satanists worship the devil and the devil is a diety. It's simple as that.

You're not a monotheist. You're a type of polytheist called a henotheist.

Don5163 wrote:

People should stop trying to re-define original meanings

No they shouldn't.

Don5163 wrote:

Satanism is a belief or social phenomenon that features the veneration or admiration of Satan or similar figure.

You should stop plagiarizing.

Don5163 wrote:

All of the religions you mention here is believing in a Supreme Being which still equates to believing in God by whatever name is familiar to that society or culture.

Good to know. Then I call it Satan.

Don5163 wrote:

It it not necessairly the Western religion and belief in God we speak about when we say "God."

Yes it is.

"People need to stop trying to add words and change meanings in order to fit it into their tiny, tiny, tiny worlds."

Henry wrote:

<quoted text>Why the serpent in this case has been missused by a bad human being. Thats all. The purpose holied it.

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:20-25

14 So the Lord God said to the serpent,“Because you have done this,
“Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.�

Don5163 wrote:

"God" is defined by many different religions in their own ways.

"People need to stop trying to add words and change meanings in order to fit it into their tiny, tiny, tiny worlds."

Don5163 wrote:

All [religions] have the same common belief; that there is a Supreme Being.

No they don't. Your religion has a trinity and a devil. Is that four gods or one? The Muslims have Allah. Is he the same as Jesus and the ghost? Is he Jupiter?

Don5163 wrote:

Well, all I can suggest is if you very limited cognitive ability takes you there, not suggesting it, but go there.

That's horrible advice. Look where yours took you. Those with very limited cognitive ability should listen more and preach less.

Is believe in Creator against Science, Reason and logic or Vice Versa? Part-5

THE SEARCH FOR ALTERNATIVES TO THE BIG BANG THEORY

As clearly seen, the Big Bang theory proved that the universe was ‘created from nothing’, in other words, that it was created by Allah. For this reason, astronomers committed to the materialist philosophy continued to resist the Big Bang and uphold the steady-state theory. The reason for this effort was revealed in the following words of A. S. Eddington, one of the foremost materialist physicists:‘Philosophically, the notion of an abrupt beginning to the present order of Nature is repugnant to me.’2

Sir Fred Hoyle was one of those who were disturbed by the Big Bang theory. In the middle of the century, Hoyle championed a theory called the steady-state which was similar to the ‘constant universe’ approach of the 19th century. The steady-state theory argued that the universe was both infinite in size and eternal in duration. With the sole visible aim of supporting the materialist philosophy, this theory was totally at variance with the ‘Big Bang’ theory, which held that the universe had a beginning.

Those who defended the steady-state theory opposed the Big Bang for a long time. Science, however, was working against them. Some scientists, on the other hand, looked for ways to develop alternatives.

In 1948, George Gamov came up with another idea concerning the Big Bang. He stated that after the formation of the universe by a big explosion, a radiation surplus should have existed in the universe left over from this explosion. Moreover, this radiation ought to be uniformly diffused across the universe. This evidence which ‘ought to have existed’ was soon to be found.


In 1965, two researchers by the name of Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered these waves by chance. This radiation, called the ‘cosmic background radiation’, did not seem to radiate from a particular source but rather pervaded the whole of space. Thus, it was understood that the heat waves that were radiated uniformly from all around space were left over from the initial stages of the Big Bang. Penzias and Wilson were awarded a Nobel Prize for their discovery.

In 1989, NASA sent the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite into space to do research on cosmic background radiation. It took only eight minutes for the sensitive scanners on this satellite to confirm the measurements of Penzias and Wilson. The COBE had found the remains of the big explosion that had taken place at the outset of the universe. Defined as the greatest astronomic discovery of all times, this finding explicitly proved the Big Bang theory. The findings of the COBE 2 satellite which was sent into space after the COBE satellite also confirmed the calculations based on the Big Bang.

Another important piece of evidence for the Big Bang was the amount of hydrogen and helium in space. In the latest calculations, it was understood that the hydrogen-helium concentration in the universe complied with the theoretical calculations of the hydrogen-helium concentration remaining from the Big Bang. If the universe had no beginning and if it had existed since eternity, its hydrogen constituent should have been completely consumed and converted to helium.

All of this compelling evidence caused the Big Bang theory to be embraced by the scientific community. The Big Bang model was the latest point reached by science concerning the formation and beginning of the universe.

Defending the steady-state theory alongside Fred Hoyle for years, Dennis Sciama described the final position they had reached after all the evidence for the Big Bang theory was revealed. Sciama stated that he had taken part in the heated debate between the defenders of the steady-state theory and those who tested that theory with the hope of refuting it.

Henry wrote:

<quoted text>
What a fancy MUQ is in your brain! Perhaps you live of fairytales in your country. Come to reasons!In the public you may not be able to tell the truth. What a satanic land!

I am a native of India, be careful what you are calling a satanic land!!

And when you do not have any arguments, it is best to start the cursing and abusing game!!

This is a sure sign that you have no logical points left to carry on the discussion!!

Thanks for thrwoing your cards on table!!

Amused wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, EW. When the fundies AND the atheists both agree that you are just twisting words out of their normal meanings and misrepresenting things, I'd say you have quite the credibility problem.

How about this for a twist? I believe in God. Do you?

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
You're not a monotheist. You're a type of polytheist called a henotheist.

Whatever you say I am, I believe in God. Do you?

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
No they shouldn't.
<quoted text>
You should stop plagiarizing.

No one is plagiarizing. Show me this quote someplace else. At least you may be able to prove that allegation.

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
Good to know. Then I call it Satan.

And you should stop playing with words you do not understand - evidently.