An atheist is walking through the countryside when he is ambushed by a huge grizzly bear.

"Oh God!" he screams "Help me!"

The bear stops in its tracks and a voice from the heavens rings out "All your life you've said you don't believe in me, slandered my name and now you want my help?"

"I realise that my request is rather bold," replies the atheist "but would it be possible for you to turn this very wild bear, into a Christian bear?"

"Of course i can!" replies God.

The bear closes its eyes and clasps its paws in prayer and says, "Dear Father, for what we are about to receive, we thank you."

all of the above

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 29^th, 2018 at 10:59am:


That's no joke Barny! That's the truth.

Jasin wrote on Mar 29^th, 2018 at 11:19pm:


More trolling? OK, Here's a nibble to keep you sitting on the shore with your hook in the water.

I can only speak for me but I'd say it's pretty universal. That pic posted above is true. We know this life is the only one we have and hold it dear. We don't seek anything else beyond what we have here, no god to "save" us or give us rewards. We don't believe there is a heaven or hell and the best we can do is try to make heaven here on Earth whist the religious folk try and turn it into hell. We only have one shot at this.

You have Religion - that matters.
You have Athiesm - that Anti-matters.

Jasin wrote on Mar 29^th, 2018 at 11:19pm:


How do you know this?

The_Barnacle wrote on May 5^th, 2018 at 12:59pm:

Just posted that in a chatroom mainly visited by septics.

Did Dubyne help you with your email problem, Booby?

As to Psalms, blech.

YOU are the heretic and blasphemer who made fun of the Bible. You will burn in hell forever and ever, Booby. Bet you can smell the brimstone burning already!

Can you smell the brimstone, Booby?

Aussie wrote on May 19^th, 2018 at 4:58pm:



No Aussie,
there is one faith and all else is sin:



Some souls have turned so far from God
that pain is the only way to call them back.

Aussie wrote on May 19^th, 2018 at 5:14pm:



Me - but it's not a sin - read your own link.


forgiven

namaste

You are stuffed Bobby.  Repent!

Quote:


(From some link I found.)

On your knees Bobby, and beg!

Are there some jokes about Atheism?

Q: How many atheists does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: It's an irrelevant question, because they'll never see the light.

AHAHAHAHAHAH!

Abam
@AdamBroud

Q: Why can't atheists solve exponential equations?


A: Because they don't believe in higher powers.

What did they atheist say when they died and met God?

"God you know you do not exist?"

"Neither do you anymore."

What did the atheist say to Jesus on the cross?

"Can I have your sandals?

I mean, you are not using them."

Jasin wrote on Sep 1^st, 2022 at 9:41pm:


Joking aside, an infinite universe has no centre.

Jasin wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2022 at 12:24pm:


That's a special case. The centre of the observable universe is always  the observer, whether he's on Earth, on the moon or some distant planet. However the universe is expanding at the same rate in all directions, so there is no centre of expansion.

Well for the record recently.
NASA is in a bit of a confused state.
Many are now saying that the Big Bang theory just doesn't click with what they are discovering of late.
Like how the universe is expanding in some places, but contracting in others.
Of how there are now objects discovered that are far older than the 'formula' that worked out the age of the Big Bang.

Also, its getting to the point that we are now seeing Religion's influence on even Scientists as they grapple to understand the universe and are somewhat depicting a heaven/hell duality and other religious facets towards understanding.
It's that or the Christians are infiltrating Science to 'bend' things their way?

John_Taverner wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2022 at 10:12pm:

Jasin wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2022 at 7:17am:


There are a lot of articles in the popular press that claim otherwise, but the Big Bang Theory remains the most likely. It's not influenced by religion in any way. It's solely a result of observations.

https://www.newswise.com/factcheck/images-from-the-james-webb-telescope-do-not-d...

As I said before, the cosmic background radiation is the main evidence of the singularity and the fact that conditions were ... well lumpy afterwards, which gave rise to the galaxies we see today.

We also have a singularity at the centre of our galaxy. It's called Sagittarius A.

Quote:
(Carl Sagan)

Do we have all the answers? No.  Unlike what was written in a book by monks with bad teeth and BO centuries ago, there is no claim of absolute truth.

Isn't Kant's Critique of Pure Reason also part of the cognitive architecture of the mind?

Trivial poking stick:
Quote:

John_Taverner wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2022 at 4:30pm:



It was great. The lesson/sermon was on space, would you believe. Went something like this:

Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.



Food for thought, that (Not Catholic, as you can see.)

Black Holes should be called Dark Stars, because they are not 'holes' in any sense (or gateways to parrallel universes ).
The original word used centuries ago was indeed 'Dark Star', but one Scientist stole the word 'Black Hole' from the infamous 'Black Hole of Calcutta' (a prison cell) and a few other Scientists (even Einstein) used it for its 'Media savvy catch'.
Totally inaccurate and irresponsible of those Scientists to use such two words, especially considering where it originated from.
But this is a good example of how 'frail' the human mind and perception is and why so many 'mistakes' have been made in understanding the Universe.

There is no 'center' of the Universe, from which a Big Bang occurred. Maybe there is in the minds of military/politically minded people because they like things that go 'bang' - it makes more sense to them.
The Cosmic Radiation Background, isn't a background in the sense that it might be the first 'barrier' of the expansion of the Universe. It's just the furthest point our 'abilities' via technology, have been able to perceive and remember - a lot has gone through many changes in over 13 Billion years - if going by the CRB. But because there are much 'older' things being discovered within that periphereal boundary, its obvious that there could not be a Big Bang from a finite point.

The Big Bang is redundant as Dark Stars being Black Holes.

Also this: Dark Star v Black Hole
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bugbh3jybvc

Jasin wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2022 at 7:55pm:


It's the commonly accepted term in astrophysics despite its shonky etymology. Black holes only possess mass, electric charge, and angular momentum. All other information is stored at the event horizon. Time no longer exists in a black hole.

Sagittarius A* contains about 4 million solar masses.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2022-05-12/black-hole-sagittariusa-milky-way...

The singularity at the center of a black hole is  a place where matter is compressed down to an infinitely tiny point, and all conceptions of time and space completely break down.

John_Taverner wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2022 at 9:30pm:

Dont follow.

Lisa Jones wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2022 at 10:19pm:

We got all that.  The contentions from me are:

1. Kant's apriori architecture obviously contained God. - don't  see the 'obviously'

2.   So Buddhist  philosophy is a different (?) a-priori arcitecture? Don't know what is meant by 'so' or what comes after it.

3.   It doesn't sound very robust.  Don't know what this is gesticulating to.

Lisa Jones wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2022 at 11:03pm:

That's about the numeneus in Kant.  Related, because  of metaphysics,  but quite distinct from the critique (ie the extent and limits ) of pure reason, morality and aesthetics, his three critical works on the mind.

issuevoter wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2022 at 11:33pm:


Actually I should have said that a Black Hole does not possess spacial dimensions, which includes time.

Grammar becomes problematic because there is no “in”.

It all stems from General Relativity - gravitational time dilation. If you have a GPS, it has to take this effect into account.

Here’s a link:

https://profoundphysics.com/why-time-slows-down-near-a-black-hole/

Time and space dimensions are infinitely compressed "in" a black hole. That’s the nearest I can get without delving into the maths.

The density of all black holes is infinite. That’s because a finite mass is compressed to a single point. ( a singularity). It’s difficult to speak of a singularity using normal grammar rules. The only properties of a black hole are its mass, charge and angular momentum. All dimensions, including time are compressed to a zero volume.

This has absolutely nothing to do with atheism.

issuevoter wrote on Sep 4^th, 2022 at 8:40am:


Unlike "faith in God", it has been subjected to many challenges and on the whole, most of its predictions have been demonstrated to be valid.

Any new theory (and General Relativity is not new) is beaten to within an inch of its life by scientific challenges, and if it survives that, it's survives as a useful "lie". It works until we can come up with something better. That "something better" may be the unified field theory, because  General Relativity breaks down at the subatomic level.

String theory for example, proposes six or seven dimensions of hyperspace in addition to the four common dimensions for a ten- or eleven-dimensional spacetime.

Gravity is a property of mass. It distorts spacetime, which is the reason the Earth orbits the Sun.

For Frank:

Quote:
Albert Einstein

What I was inferring before is that the choice of elements to be designated as a priori is arbitrary and "Kant-centric". A Buddhist for example may choose a different choice of a priori elements which is still consistent with the observed physical system.

I modified my post while you were posting. (a bad habit of mine). I do other things apart from posting here. I was walking the dog while the post was in limbo. You might like to read it again.

John_Taverner wrote on Sep 4^th, 2022 at 9:48am:

That certain Chinese encyclopedia is even more pertinent to your modified post.
Intuition, what?

I'll start another thread on mathematics. It might as well be on this forum unless somebody wants to move it.

John_Taverner wrote on Sep 4^th, 2022 at 10:24am:


Albert knew his Immanuel:
First of all, we must observe that all proper mathematical judgments are a priori, and not empirical, because they carry with them necessity, which cannot be obtained from experience. But if this be not conceded to me, very good; I shall confine my assertion to pure Mathematics, the very notion of which implies that it contains pure a priori and not empirical cognitions.
...
But it happens fortunately, that though we cannot assume metaphysics to be an actual science, we can say with confidence that certain pure a priori synthetical cognitions, pure Mathematics and pure Physics are actual and given; for both contain propositions, which are thoroughly recognised as apodeictically certain, partly by mere reason, partly by general consent arising from experience, and yet as independent of experience. We have therefore some at least uncontested synthetical knowledge a priori, and need not ask whether it be possible, for it is actual, but how it is possible, in order that we may deduce from the principle which makes the given cognitions possible the possibility of all the rest.


He goes on. I think you would enjoy reading it.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/52821/52821-h/52821-h.htm#__RefHeading___Toc3103
KANT'S Prolegomena, although a small book, is indubitably the most important of his writings. It furnishes us with a key to his main work, The Critique of Pure Reason; in fact, it is an extract containing all the salient ideas of Kant's system.

Jasin wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2022 at 7:26pm:


I just found this video:



Neil deGrasse Tyson explains it much better than I can. It is worth watching.

Here's a good clip about the Big Bang misconception going around.
The difference is sublime, Black Holes are not Black or Holes. More like solid Dark Stars.

So too is the findings about the Big Bang Theory.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=james+webb+space+telescope&&view=detail&mid...

OK, back to jokes.

A couple engaged to be married are involved in a fatal car crash and they end up at the Pearly Gates.

The woman asks St Peter - Can we get married in heaven?
St Peter rolls his eyes and scoffs. - I'll be back soon, he says.

Six months later, St Peter returns, apparently exhausted, and says slowly and deliberately - Yes. It seems that   you   can    get    married   in   heaven.

-Oh good says the fiancée, but what if we find that we're not suited to each other. Can we get a divorce?

St Peter turns red - What?!  It has taken me a good six months to find a priest up here, and now you want me to find a lawyer!?

Jasin wrote on Sep 14^th, 2022 at 5:18pm:


Professor Brian Cox. Yes, he'll always be a performer.  He handles science communication with ease. I wish I could emulate that skill.

Frank wrote on Sep 15^th, 2022 at 9:12am:

Because it has mass and angular momentum. Although the Event Horizon radius is enormous, the black hole itself is a singularity. It's a b*** heavy object. Sagittarius A* swallows whole solar systems for breakfast. It can be accurately called a Black Hole because it's an infinitesimally small "hole" in the fabric of spacetime.

"And therefore as a stranger give it welcome. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."


https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/305/3/654/983338[/

To be or not to be? That is the question.

Frank wrote on Sep 15^th, 2022 at 10:23am:


Because of the measurable effect it has on other objects. Every time it swallows something, it gives off x-rays.

https://www.sci.news/astronomy/flaring-sagittarius-a-10458.html

It's in our neighborhood. It's a "mere" 26,000 Light Years away right in the centre of our galaxy. We can observe radio waves, gamma rays and x-rays coming from it.

We have observatories that monitor it, such as the  Compton Gamma Ray Observatory and the "Swift" X-Ray telescope


Would you regard a vacuum as nothing?

Frank wrote on Sep 15^th, 2022 at 12:36pm:


I was answering the first part, and it is a mind-twister.  The cause is material. You do realise that a mini (very low mass) black hole has already been made in a lab using several thousand Rubidium atoms.

Low mass black holes evaporate almost instantly.  Black holes of the size of 4 million suns evaporate more slowly.

My question about a vacuum was pertinent to that point. Do you believe that a vacuum can be nothing?

Before you get all metaphysical about it, the physical vacuum is all there is, but it's just not a simple object. It does have rather complicated properties.

How would you define a vacuum in an Aristotelian sense? I'm interested in what you have to say.

A person without dimensions? I think not. I'm actively trying to reduce my dimensions, but there are limits.

Frank wrote on Sep 15^th, 2022 at 5:40pm:


To understand the concept of evaporation of a Black Hole, we must first understand the concept of a vacuum.  You understand that you can convert matter to energy, right? E=MC². In the same way, you can make matter out of Energy, but you need enough energy to do it.

A vacuum can be thought of as containing matter and antimatter in  equal amounts, neutrinos, energetic particles and energy.

If you had  a large glass cylinder containing a vacuum, with a ball at the top, and the cylinder is in a gravitation field, then if you cause the ball to drop (think magnet on the outside, energy will be dissipated. In the same way, the near perfect vacuum between the Earth and the Sun is full of energy.  It is possible to create matter from nothing. We're talking about subatomic particles with mass and dimensions here. To do this, you need a powerful laser and a particle accelerator (or a Black Hole - got one handy? ).

Now while matter and antimatter exist in a vacuum, their properties cancel each other out almost immediately. However, in the presence of
a very strong magnetic field, the created particles and antiparticles can diverge.

At the event horizon of a Black Hole, (and also close to neutron stars) it is possible for the created antimatter to fall into the black hole, but not the matter particle. This gradually reduces the mass of the Black Hole. The strong magnetic field has the effect of separating the particles.

It's actually much more complex than that, but you get the gist.

Hawking proposed in 1974 that subatomic particle pairs (photons, neutrinos, fermions and some massive particles) arising naturally near the event horizon may result in one particle's escaping the vicinity of the black hole while the other particle, of negative energy, disappears into it, because the antimatter is more attracted to matter than the other particle.  (Evaporation !!!   This is a modified quote. I made it less technical)

A photon is light in the form of a particle. Quantum particles can behave as waves or particles. (courtesy of Heisenberg)

I think Brian Cox could have explained this better than me.



Above: A visualization of a quantum field theory calculation showing virtual particles in the quantum vacuum.