About Mike

Hello, I am an atheist because of reason and personal experience. I am a father of THREE lovely living kids and two dead embryos, married to a lovely Christian Catholic devoted woman. Yes, black and white can coexist as long as there is respect and love, which is something abstracted from any belief or religion. I do not claim absolute truth and not 100% sure that a God does not exist somewhere out there. The scientific method is what I use to connect to reality. If there is something I don't understand, then it is because i don't understand, not because god exists. In case you haven't noticed, I am a native Arab, and English is my third language (yes there is second language). I like reading the Bible and the Quran and the critics of both of them. I also love watching documentaries especially astronomy, cosmology, Quantum Physics, and new discoveries in science in general, and Physics in particular.
Image | This entry was posted in Allah, Atheism, Belief, Bible, Christianity, Evolution, God, Gospel, Hadith, Islam, Judaism, Quran, Reasoning, Religion, Science and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

125 Responses to Frozen!

    • Ah, a comment that does wonders for showing how creationists haven’t a scrap of evidence for their nonsense. So, CCT, where *is* that evidence that creationism is true and that we have a 6000 year old earth?

      • Not a staunch young earther. A day to God is no different than a billion years, and a billion years to God is no different than a day. God doesn’t have or need time. The young earth thing is moot.

      • “not a staunch young earther”? Ah, that appears to mean that you just make up nonsense as is convenient. That’s pretty much what most Christians do, change your nonsense according to what science says, so you don’t look too ridiculous. And, CCT, it appears that you are trying to claim that “the young earth thing” is “deprived of practical significance” aka “moot”. Nope, not at all, though I am sure you wish it were. It certainly has practical significance since it shows how your religion is false, and no difference than the baseless claims of any other religion’s stories.

        It’s hilarious when Christians try to claim their god doesn’t have or need time. This does make its reactions to humans rather impossible, and cause and effect meaningless. Now, if you aren’t just making meaningless claims, surely you can explain how this timeless god works.

        So, if a day to god is no different than a “billion years” and a billion years is a day, how does it know when to do anything? And when Jesus said he’d be back within a generation, what does that mean? A generation is often considered anywhere between 20 to 40 years. If JC won’t be back until 7,300,000,000,000 years (7 Trillion, 300 billion) at best, it will be a bit later than Christians promise the “end times” to be a-comin’.

      • I somehow doubt you are telling the truth.

      • You convinced me that atheists really do believe in God and that is why they are so stark raving angry. Anger is the behavior of the irrational when faced with the truth they don’t want to be true.

      • No, I haven’t convinced you of that at all, CCT. That is a desperate belief of your own concoction, trying to convince yourself that everyone agrees with you. I have no belief in your god, and for you to claim I have, at odds to all evidence, is hilarious as usual. I always enjoy when a Christian goes out of their way to make false claims about me. What is your evidence that I am “angry”? Please do also show how I am “irrational”. That I really do want to see. Where am I wrong, CCT? You have shown that you wish to ignore the silly bits of your religion but you still expect others to believe in the just as silly bits as a man who is resurrected from being tortured to death. You want us to ignore that there is no more evidence for this than there is for a seven day creation. You want to claim that your version of Christianity is the only right one, and you have no more evidence than a young earth creationist that their myths are true.

        I do have to wonder what you think the word “like” means, when you have indicated you like my posts “to feel attraction toward or take pleasure in : enjoy ” Now, I’m guessing you are trying to be sarcastic, but that doesn’t come across well on the internet. All people see is that a Christian approves of my posts and apparently thinks I am correct.

      • Interesting timing. They discovered an object in the distance of the universe that is so nig that it defys all current theories of the age of the universe.

      • Mike says:

        Who said that science doesn’t make mistakes? It is from mistakes that we learn! This means, that if this was really true, then we will change our views based on EVIDENCE! Your views never change, no matter what the evidence is!

        Besides, care to give us a link to this interesting discovery?

      • Looks like its a couple yesrs old but still being brought up.

      • A link to this information please? And what does “in the distance of the universe that is so nig” mean?

        I’m waiting for you to show me what Einstein has to do with your claims.

      • So big. Sorry. I meant so big. You figured out the Einstein. The point is

      • The point is that time is relative to God. In the beginning of the Bible we read that God created time. In the end of the Bible we read that time may end as eternity begins. I find the correlation with Einstein’s theory is intriguing. The young earth theory is moot. Irrelevant.

      • Mike says:

        If the book of Harry Potter contained something that is or might be scientifically correct, that doesn’t mean the book is infallible and correct. The Bible scientifically fails just at the first page in Genesis, go figure the rest

      • The fine tuning of the Big Bang does in fact coincide with an Intelligent Creator.

      • Mike says:

        Fine what? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. It is anything but tuned!

      • Hawking acknowledged it Mike. And so does everyone else who studies the microwaves left over from the Big Bang. The first three seconds in particular. Ha ha that.

      • Mike says:

        Hawking what? Ha ha ha ha ha ha

      • Ah, I get to keep my 4 million quatloos. And, as I expected, you have no idea what Einstein said or what the theories of special relativity or general relativity actually say. You latched on to scientific terms in order to try to give your nonsense validity and hope for the ignorance of the audience so they believe you. You lied in order to try to make an argument from authority and your authority doesn’t say anything like you would try to claim. There is no correlation between your baseless claims that your god randomly experiences time and Einstein’s theories and one can see that just by looking at the theories, something that you did not do:

        Now, I’m quite happy to give you the opportunity to show us this correlation. You have the tools now, so I’m waiting.

        The point is that you have made up your god and give it contradictory attributes. You want to claim that your god is “timeless”. And you now want to claim that it does experience time, in a manner you cannot demonstrate. You can’t even demonstrate this god merely exists, much less that this god randomly experiences time as a day which somehow equals a billion years, or a day or whatever else you invent to excuse your god. What happens if this god feeling like experiencing a day like a billion years? It rather sucks if one is praying to it for a miracle and has the poor luck that it isn’t able to react.

        Your god created nothing. You cannot demonstrate this at all and all of your following claims depend on a baseless fantasy. At the end of the bible, we may read that time might end, but then how do people do anything at all, CCT? TrueChristians(tm) whine about cause and effect, usually in order to claim their god is the “first cause” but you want to have a universe that does not have that at all. You just wave your hands and make up new definitions for “eternity”. If time would end, how would people walk those tacky gold and gem streets in the city of heaven on earth?

        Of course, in the end of the Bible, we also read about such things like your god working hand in hand with its archenemy Satan, among other sillier things like 144,000 virgin Jews, 200 million calvary, etc.

        Again, the young earth theory is not moot at all and it is very relevant to Christian religion and Christian claims. It’s what your bible claims and what many Christians claim is true. That baseless creation claim is no more believable than its claims that there was a magic flood, a god being afraid of a building being built tall enough to reach it, a fabulous temple or palace, and a man/god that was tortured to death and rose at some point, then doing more miracles to the point that they could never all be written down. Not to mention all of the prophecies that Christians keep claiming are fulfilled and a generation later, coming up with one more “interpretation” to excuse why their religion has failed.

        The idea of converting the Genesis story into billions of years, to accept evolution, etc, is just a new “interpretation” by Christians to excuse the ignorance and nonsense in their bible. It is no more than an attempt like yours to ride the coattails of scientific investigation and discovery and make up that your religion somehow knew this all along. These attempts show how your religion is nothing more than the work of man.

      • Truly, reason is lost in the multitude of words.

      • Again, CCT, show how Einstein supports you. You claimed this was true. Were you lying?

        It appears that you cannot support your claims and that is not surprising at all. Just like every other TrueChristian(tm) who tries to claim something about Einstein and who gets caught in a lie.

      • Mike says:

        That is because you can’t argue with Club! She debunked every single claim of yours!

      • More info on this object:

        claimed to exist 2 years ago. So much for “interesting timing”. Discussion on if the “wall” exists or not.

        So, we found something (maybe) that might not, or might agree with known theories. Let me guess, you think that this means your god exists, a lovely god of the gaps argument. “But but we don’t know everything so God must exist” :)

      • Ya. Well it keeps getting press like two days ago, because it poses questions that upend the answers we thought we already figured out. The age of the universe, the laws of nature, these send astronomy and cosmology experts back to the drawing board. The young earth theory is moot.

      • Ah, so you can’t show where you got your information. That’s rather telling.

        The Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall has been known for more than the last few days. It possibly poses some questions that may or may not contradict the theories we have about the universe. As usual, you try to claim that theories are “answers” which no scientist would claims. You need to create a strawman to attack, to pretend that your god could exist. A theory is the best description we have of the universe and why things happen. If something comes along to change it or to entirely disprove it, then the theory will be chucked or altered.

        Now, compare this with your religion. Christians make claims of absolute “truth” and ignore any evidence to the contrary. What you do is try to retcon your myths, saying that they “always” meant the new “interpretation”, when that is a documentable lie.

        Again there is nothing that has yet sent any scientist to the drawing board. If it does, then changes will be made. Astronomers and cosmologists don’t cling to disprove nonsense. That is the realm of theism.

        And again, the young earth claims of the bible and Christians aren’t moot or irrelevant at all. They show that Christians don’t agree on what their bible says, or what their god said and meant. There is no more reason to believe your version than the next. It shows that you pick and choose your bible, insisting that some parts are true and some are not, that some are metaphor and some are not. No evidence for a 6000 year old earth, no evidence for a messiah who died and resurrected with lots of supposed big, literally world-shaking events.

        No wonder you want to claim that the young earth creationists are wrong. They are just as desperate to show you are wrong too. Who shall we believe since none of you have any evidence?

      • CCT, that is amazing. Rather than actually supporting your claims and rebutting mine, you’ve done us the favor of reducing your argument and your religion to its essence. :)

      • Who has the time to read your long, drawn out, eloquent diatribes? Try being a little bit more condensed please. Time is absolute to me. I need all the time I can get.

      • Eloquent? Shucks, CCT, you flatter me. You also show that you are quite a liar when you claim you just don’t have time to read my posts, if you know enough to call them “eloquent”. I do wonder if you known what eloquent means: marked by forceful and fluent(capable of using a language easily and accurately) expression; having or showing the ability to use language clearly and effectively –

        It’s quite an excuse since you seem to think that my posts are good just as they are. And if I were any more “condensed”, what excuse would you use then, CCT? You’ll always have an excuse to remain willfully ignorant.


      • Substance gets diluted easily. Plus, I hate to break it to you, but you appear to be padding.

      • Ah, more baseless claims. Evidence for these, CCT? I’m going to guess not since you haven’t provided any evidence for other claims you have made. But, if you do have some, please present it.

        And again, if I am eloquent per your own words, and as defined by the dictionary, this would mean you didn’t think I am “padding” and now have invented that as an attack.

      • From University of Pittsburgh – Einstein for Everyone
        “In another sense, it is anything but conservative. The theory is quite different from any theory before or after. It treats a force by means of geometry and eventually leads to startling notions: black holes, other universes and the bridges to them and even the possibility of time travel.”
        Time is effected by natural forces, gavity, and acceleration at and above the speed of light.
        What if God did everything faster than the speed of light?

      • “What if God did everything faster than the speed of light? ”

        Since, per the theory, nothing can go faster than light, your god is just as imaginary as ever.

        Again, how does this agree with your claim that a day equals a billion years and a billion years a day for your god or that your god is “timeless”? You made this claim. I am still waiting for you to support it. As it stands, it appears you are just posting random quotes about the theories of relativity, hoping that something you say will support your nonsense. That is a very cool website, though. it makes some things clearer to me.

        And of course you have no evidence for your claims about me or my posts being “padded”.

      • God created the laws of the universe but is not subject to the laws of nature.

      • Again, evidence that your god exists and that this god created “the laws of the universe”.

        If one is to believe your bible, this god is subject to the laws of the universe. It is dependent on cause and effect. Can you explain this, CCT?

      • Please do show how a theory being tossed or altered supports the existence of the Christian god. As it stands, it appears all you have is on more god of the gaps argument.

      • More details on how this discovery may or may not be what is claimed:

        Rather early for creationists like yourself to be claiming “Science is wrong, God exists.” :)

      • Maybe yes, maybe no.
        We’ll see.

      • “We’ll see.”? Ah, yes, the promise of a TrueChristian(tm) that their claims will somehow magically come true if they wait long enough. Again, CCT, all you have offered are false claims about Einstein, Christian interpretations that not even all Christians agree with, and claims that scientific discoveries have supported your nonsense which they have not done at all. You rely on a god of the gaps claim, that since a theory may be wrong, then your god simply must exist.

        Now, when the GRB “wall” is explained, you’ll just run to the next science discovery you don’t understand and try to claim that one is the “evidence” that your god exists, and so on and so on. You’ll try to forget the failures of every other claim that you’ve made, sure that the next one will work out. You have been an excellent demonstration of how religion, and Christianity in particular, so often depends on lies and ignorance.

      • Einstein’s belief in an undivided solid reality was clear to him, so much so that he completely rejected the separation we experience as the moment of now. He believed there is no true division between past and future, there is rather a single existence. His most descriptive testimony to this faith came when his lifelong friend Besso died. Einstein wrote a letter to Besso’s family, saying that although Besso had preceded him in death it was of no consequence, “…for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one.”

        Most everyone knows that Einstein proved that time is relative, not absolute as Newton claimed. With the proper technology, such as a very fast spaceship, one person is able to experience several days while another person simultaneously experiences only a few hours or minutes. The same two people can meet up again, one having experienced days or even years while the other has only experienced minutes. The person in the spaceship only needs to travel near to the speed of light. The faster they travel, the slower their time will pass relative to someone planted firmly on the Earth. If they were able to travel at the speed of light, their time would cease completely and they would only exist trapped in timelessness. Einstein could hardly believe there were physicists who didn’t believe in timelessness, 

      • I am glad you saw fit not to try to steal other people’s words and present them as your own. That source is quite the mangling of physics for lots of woo.

        This is great evidence that you have no idea what Einstein actually is saying. You again grab onto words that you think support you in your ignorance, desperate to support your claims that your god is somehow “timeless” and that a billion years equal a day or whatever you invent. Indeed, a quote from the website you cite: “”The universe would be completely self contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.” – Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time. Makes your claims of a timeless creator god nonsense. That’s the problem with cherry picking science, if you don’t known the competing hypotheses out there and you don’t read, you show that your claims are rather silly.

        Einstein’s theories say that time is relative to the observer, it does not say that there is no time nor that everything happens at the same time. It depends on approaching lightspeed. Just how fast does your god go, CCT? There is a very good website on Einstein done by physicists at the Max Planck Institute that can clear up things for you and show you that you probably should go to a physics site when having questions about physics:

      • That was a cut and paste, and internationally so because it quotes Einstein himself saying he will see his friend who passed away. This was Einstein writing late in life that he believes that he will see his friend

      • “Internationally so”? Oh my. Yep, it sure was a cut and paste in an attempt to make Einstein reflect your claims. As usual, a TrueChristian’s attempt at false claims fails.

        Again, Einstein wasn’t saying that he would see his friend again. He said “”Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”

        If time is an illusion, then Einstein is saying that he is seeing, will see, and has seen his friend. Always nice to see attempts at making Einstein a believer in an afterlife when that is a lie per everything he ever said about religion.

      • Sorry Club. Meant “intentionally “

      • Clib.If you know that then you know Einstein flip flopped on the issue throughout his life. The quote I gave you was late in his life. Anyhow…

      • No, Einstein did not “flip-flop” on the issue about heaven, religion or about time (you can see this by the links below). nice of you to try to claim I should “know” something that has no evidence.

        However, you are more than welcome to support your claims. I’ll even help with quote sources from Einstein:

        I’m waiting.

      • Thanks for all the links. I’m in the middle of a research paper. Waiting to board my plane. Responding to two other atheists. I may get to it. Thanks. You obviously did a lot of work. But I already know your sources have to be one sided.

      • Ah, more and more excuses. How unsurprising. How do you know my sources have to be one sided when you haven’t even looked at them, CCT? It appears you are building quite a house of cards, basing your excuses on the false claim that I am biased Still waiting for the evidence of this. Still waiting for you to show that Einstein agrees with you and supports your conflicting claims that your god is “timeless” and that your god experiences time “relatively”.

        It’s so cute to note that you asked if I was a scientist and tried to claim that no one can question a scientist. When I indicated I was indeed a scientist and pointed out that you believed other non-scientists when they questioned scientists, you have done your best to bury your failed claims.

      • Explain “God doesn’t play dice” in simple terms

      • This is great. For I can see the attempt at a trap here, and I can also see that you want answers to your questions but you can’t give answers to mine. Please do show me how Einstein agrees with you about how your god (not his by any means) is timeless and also experiences time relatively. It’s great that you have plenty of time to try to move the goalposts and demand answers to your questions, but poor ol’ CCT doesn’t have time to actually support his own claims.

        It’s great fun to see you try to give yourself an escape door I will make an educated guess that you will consider anything I say not “simple” in order to reject anything that would show your nonsense to be false.

        I’ll of course give it a whirl. If you know the history of physics, the idea of quantum physics and mechanics were coming into being in the first half of the 20th century. Einstein did not like the idea of the randomness that quantum physics. He preferred to believe that there were laws governing everything. This is why he said “”I, at any rate, am convinced that He [God] does not throw dice.” -Ltr to Max Born, 1926

        Einstein’s god is not the personal god of TrueChristians, as he repeated stated.

        As it stands, Einstein was wrong in his resistance to quantum physics. You can read more about this here:

        Now, CCT, how does this show that Einstein “flip-flopped’ in his view of time, religion or an afterlife as you have tried to claim?

      • I’m welcome to my opinion based on the debate on Einstein that continues still today.

      • So, CCT, if the GRB wall is shown to be fitting with current theory, what will you do?

      • We shall see Club. We shall see.

      • Yep, that we will. And of course you won’t say what you would do, if you were shown wrong in your claims. It seems that rather than following the evidence where it leads, you would do anything to preserve your claims in the face of any evidence.

      • I have complete confidence that confirmed science will always confirm God as creator, and show unconfirmed theory to the contrary as false 100% of the time.
        Much of our debates involve theory vs confirmed fact, theory vs theory, and evidence for or against the most plausible answer.

      • Your confidence is worthless, CCT. Plenty of theists of all stripes have confidence that their claims will be shown true. And how many centuries has it been that there has been nothing to show your claims true, CCT? No miracles shown to be real for any god, no scientific discoveries that any gods exists.

        Again, still waiting for you to show how Einstein agrees with you. Waiting for evidence that any of the nonsense in the bible actually happened.

      • I don’t know Club. The evidence of DNA is the bedt evidence of an Intelligent Creator we have so far, and I already gave you Collins. You dismiss all contrary evidence out of hand like its nothing. I’m beginning to think you want to see it any other way. I don’t think you are a scientist, are you? Are you qualified to discount the claims of scientists?

      • Ah, I see that you still have no idea what Flew actually wrote. He recanted the claim that he can’t understand how DNA and therefore God. It’s great fun showing how TrueChristians(tm) rely on false claims and outdated information to spread their nonsense.

        There is no contrary evidence, so there is no need to dismiss it “out of hand”. I’m still waiting for your evidence, CCT. I’m still waiting for you to show how Einstein’s theories support your handwaving about time being “relative” to your god. I am indeed a scientist, though I don’t work at it currently. I’m a geologist.

        However, there is no reason someone who isn’t a scientist can’t show that a scientist is wrong. They just have to have the evidence because reality always wins, or as Neil DeGrasse Tyson says: “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether you believe it or not.” Please do show me the scientific evidence that supports your claims of creationism. Please do show what says DNA has to be divinely created. As for Dr. Francis Collins, so what? He hasn’t any evidence for his claims either. He also doesn’t agree with you and finds the claims of intelligent design ludicrous . Do you accept evolutionary theory, CCT? Alas neither you or Dr. Collins can explain why an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient god would make something as error-prone as DNA. Why would a god make something that causes humans to die, to suffer from horrible diseases? If your god created this stuff, your god is an idiot, or, as “The Owner of Infernal Names” book says, is a vicious, malevolent being that feeds on pain.

        Guess what, CCT, Flew wasn’t a scientist either. So, why are you holding up his opinions so highly, someone who didn’t know much about biology, chemistry, physics, etc? :)

        Keep digging, CCT. This is one of the more fun discussions I’ve had in a while.

      • You know its impossible to respond to your flury of questions. Do you have a dau job?

      • Nice excuse. I certainly do have a day job. I often post when I am enjoying my coffee before I go to work. Or I post when I’m chatting with my husband in the evening.

        It’s hilarious to watch you whine about a “flury of questions” when I see, hmmm, nine posts from you. :)

      • You can be nice BTW. That might help raise the bar a little.

      • Follow atheisms former Champion, Anthony. For fifty years he was the Christopher Hitchens of his era.
        “I now believe there is a God…I now think it [the evidence] does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.”
        ~Antony Flew~

      • Mike says:

        Who cares what people think? Do you have some scientific facts? If yes, show us, it no, your opinion or any opinion don’t matter

      • I’m pretty sure that Einstein quote was factual enough. You guys don’t want fact. I’m not sure what it is you want. I’m still working on figuring that out. This whole discussion has been better than most though. Hats off to you both, and to our host.

      • Mike says:

        Dude, what facts did you bring? Einstein’s own beliefs or Hawking’s or anyone’s belief is NOT a proof, they are BELIEFS. We seek facts, an experiment, something you and me and any other can perform to come up with the same result.

        Can you put god under this experiment, or a chain of experiments? No? Then he is just a hypothesis!

      • Is that what you think?

      • Why follow a man who has no more evidence of his claims than you, CCT? And no, Anthony Flew was not the Hitch of his era. He also was a Deist, not a TrueChristian(tm) as you would try to imply. He is no more agreeing with you than I am agreeing with you. No salvation, no jesus, no original sin, no bible stories.

        You really should do some research rather than ignorantly cutting and pasting what you want to pretend agrees with you.

        Another quote from Flew: “”I’m thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins”.”

        Flew became a Deist late in life. He was for intelligent design, but had no evidence for it but a god of the gaps argument e.g. “we can’t figure it out, therefore Deity”. He by his own admission had ceased to follow current scientific discoveries which disagreed with his “dna? must be Deity” conclusion.

        You seem to think I should follow people or that I do follow people blindly without considering their claims. That’s very silly.

      • And you are padding. You dismiss my evidence with out regard to scientific credence or regard. I’m not at all convinced you have regard for sciences at all. You have however proven beyond doubt that you will cling to your hope that you will never have face your Creator or consider who and what He really is. You lie to yourself and to everyone else in hopes that even you may erase the nagging doubts you have that are always there and no amount of rage and conjured moral outrage can silence those voices that are deep down in you.

      • Evidence for this “padding”, CCT. Insisting on it makes it no more true or supported. Am I “eloquent”, as you claimed, or am I “padding”? They are antonyms of each other; you are contradicting yourself.

        You have presented no evidence that has supported your claims, for example that my posts are “padded”. You have presented some claims but again, they are baseless. Still waiting for how the theories of relativity support your claims about your god’s qualities.

        I have pointed out the science that shows your claims to be false. I have read your claims so I have indeed regarded them, but again, there is no evidence to support them and therefore no reason to accept them.

        It being that no one has ever had to face this “creator” and that no one has ever been able to show that this creator exists, I have every reason to doubt your fantasies of punishment of everyone who disagrees with you. I have reason to doubt every theist’s claims, and you also doubt those claims.

        I believe I have asked you this already, but if not, I’ll ask now: Why do you discount the claims of other theists, including the claims of other Christians who disagree with you?

        It’s great to see you again trying to make believe I have any “nagging doubts”. Sorry, CCT, but I don’t have nagging doubts about the fact that your god is imaginary, that all gods are imaginary. That is a fantasy ginned up by you because you have to believe that everyone agrees with you no matter what; you need to invent external validation that is not there to support your faith. I’m not afraid of you or your imaginary best friend or the idea of “hell”, something again that Christians can’t agree on at all.

        I do ask you to show where I have lied. If you can’t, well, that’s quite a act, intentionally bearing false witness against me.

        Also, where is this “rage”, you accuse me of? It’s hilarious for you to make up magical voices in me. Alas, CCT, your fantasies are just that. I will say that moral outrage may be accurate, but it manifests as being bemused at watching your actions and the strengthening of my intent to always speak out when I see someone spreading nonsense. To paraphrase Jon Stewart, if I smell something, I’ll say something.

      • Aaaaa. How bout your comments arr longer

      • You comments are longer than most blog post!

      • So this is how you seek to control. Dialogue must remain balanced to be productive.

      • That’s because I answer questions, CCT, and I do my research. Nice seeing that you are reduced to whining about the length of my posts.

      • Am I whining Club? Or am I calling you out into the open?

      • Whining. Still waiting for the evidence that supports your claims.

      •  A day to God is no different than a billion years, and a billion years to God is no different than a day. God doesn’t have or need time. The young earth thing is moot. You will have your evidence, and you will be convinced. But you must wait. It will come.

      • Evidence please. Evidence that your god merely exists and evidence that this has anything to do with the theories of relativity as you have tried to claim.

        The young earth thing is not “moot” just because you say so, CCT. Again, you wish to claim that the creation myth isn’t literally true, contradicting your fellow Christians, but you wish to claim that other nonsense in your bible is true. No evidence for a week long creation, no evidence for a magical flood, no evidence for an “exodus”, and no evidence for a man/god doing miracles, existing at all or rising from the dead to absolve you of your “sins”, or to return at some point to enact your revenge fantasies.

        Yep, lots of TrueChristians(tm) make the promise that I’ll eventually have evidence. You’ve been promising this for how many thousand years now, CCT? Still no evidence for the essential events in the bible, still TrueChristians not agreeing on what their god “really” meant, and still your god is a no-show.

        I don’t have to wait at all. That’s just one more excuse from a man who has nothing to support his claims. You are just one more charlatan, promising results if everyone waits long enough.

        Considering that you have intentionally made false claims repeatedly, there is little reason to think that this claim is true.

      • Give it up Club. I’m not knocking myself out so you can just accuse, deny, and smear. Your tactics don’t merit the efforts. Besides, I’m not a cat person. Cats fit your personality well. Dogs don’t play games. I like dogs myself.

      • Again I see you trying to convince me to stop showing your claims to be wrong. That is not going to happen and I will not give up now or ever. You make more false claims about me, CCT, for no more reason than you have nothing else and cannot support the claims you have made so far. I am not playing a game. I am showing that your claims about your god and your religion aren’t true. Exactly what your pet preference has to do with anything is a mystery.

        My request for evidence for your claims isn’t unreasonable, but I certainly can understand why you now backpedal on your claims about your god since you cannot provide any evidence it exists or provide any evidence that your claims about how Einstein’s theories of relativity support your claims about your god or that any of your other claims are true.

        You and your religion have made repeated claims that this god interacts with this reality. Defining it as “supernatural” doesn’t preclude it leaving evidence for its supposed actions. If there was a magical creation like your bible claims, there should be evidence for this, where modern animals, including humans, should simply appear as they are now, rather than what the fossil record ably demonstrates. If we are to believe your bible, the moon should be making light, rather than just reflecting it, which is rather silly. Your creation story fails, and with it claims of “original sin”, which makes the rest of the story no more believable. It fails like a house of cards. No original sin, no flood, no tower of Babel, no “exodus”, no battles of hundreds of thousands, no god approving of rape and genocide, no magically burning altars, no fabulous palaces and temples, no wise king, no virgin birth, no Jesus chatting up the devil, no miracles, no torturing to death, no earthquake/darkened sun/many of the dead “saints” rising and walking around interacting with many people happening on the same day, no risen dead man who somehow is the answer for the original sin that never happened. Since none of this can be shown to have happened, there is no more reason to believe the revenge fantasies of some Christians like you who want to claim that their god will return “real soon”.

        You wish to claim that faith is essential for your relationship with your god. Your bible disagrees, if we are to believe it, and says that asking for evidence is fine. The character Jesus Christ says that it is fine to ask for evidence and gives it, only saying that having faith is better, but asking for evidence won’t keep one, and Thomas, from being accepted by him. There is no “empirical evidence” to support your claims, CCT. The bible also disagrees with you in saying that believing in your god isn’t a choice at all. Of course, Christians don’t agree on what their bible says, so the fact that you have come up with one version and other Christians have opposite claims isn’t surprising at all.

        Your last sentences are the usual baseless claims that all theists use, sure that it is only their god that is the creator and being entirely unable to show this to be the truth. You make the same claims as a Muslim, Hindu, Wicca, Shintoist, etc. You don’t believe those other theists are right for the same reason I don’t believe you are. There is nothing to show your version of your god is “love” or that it exists at all. Indeed, in the bible, your god’s actions are anything but love. Your god fails at the definition of love given in the bible, which is a pretty good one. “4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.” How many ways can we show how your god fails this? How about starting with “does not keep a record of wrongs”? If one is to believe the fantasy of Revelation, that’s quite incorrect.

        I do wonder how guinea worms, bot fly larva in the eye, etc. show “love”. I wonder how, if we can believe your bible, killing a man’s son for the man’s actions is “love”. I wonder how, after murdering all humans that disagree with it, this god allows its “son” to rule over all believing humans for an “aeon”, and then intentionally allows its arch-enemy out of its prison to corrupt more humans just for one more battle is “love”.

      • Interesting club. Where do you get your sense of morals from? You seem to be positi a moral law and that it is something we all should adhere to. Can you tell me where does that come from? Does it come from time chance?

      • Mike says:

        Haven’t you ever heard of education and cumulative experience?

      • Ah, so rather than actually support your claims made so far, you try to ignore this and demand answers to your questions. Funny how you avoid answering mine. I’m still waiting for evidence for your claims. If you wish to claim you have morals from your god, you first need to show that your god exists. In any case, intentionally telling other false information is still a lie, and is rarely acceptable to try to convince a fact isn’t a fact. The only good reason I can think of is telling the Nazis that Anne Frank isn’t in the attic.

        My morals come from good ol’ humans. Humans have empathy and compassion, and that can be explained by how such things are advantageous to the species and allow us to succeed in adapting to our environments. There is no evidence that we need magic to have these. We can know this also from the actions of theists, who of course can’t agree on what morals their gods supposedly teach. People can be humane with or without religion. They also can be quite inhumane with or without religion. And, as always, to claim that morals come from some magical being, you first need to show that magical being exists.

        I am quite sure that any idea of morals doesn’t come from whatever “time chance” might be. I’m guessing you might have meant, “time by chance?” but that still doesn’t make much sense.

      • Time plus matter plus chance = your moral lectures. Doesn’t add up

      • Again, evidence for “time plus matter plus chance” equaling my moral lectures? If not, then your ignorant baseless claims are worthless.

        It seems that now you are running to the “tornado in a junkyard” nonsense.

        Amazing how you manage to have time to make more and more false claims but claimed you had no time to actually give evidence. Which claim should I believe, CCT, and which is a lie?

      • Please do tell how how it “adds up” that your god gives moral absolutes, and how Christians don’t agree on what those are.

      • Still waiting to hear how you can show your god is the base of your morals and how that works with TrueChristians(tm) all claiming such a thing and not agreeing on what’s moral.

      • God is supernatural. Your request is unreasonable. You want me to use natural means to prove supernatural existence. The just shall live by faith. Faith is essential for relationship with God. The heart must br engaged. I believe choice must be free from empirical evidence. But to those who see wonder in small things, creation communicates God through wonder. He put the element of wonder in us and creation and it resonates a transcendent message. God is love

      • Do you want to know truth or simply prove you can win debates? Winning a debate may have nothing to do with what is true. One can simply overwhelm the opposite side and win a debate. None of us is any better off in the end.

      • I do like knowing the truth. So, when will you give evidence to support your claims?

        Winning a debate is easy. Just have the evidence on your side. One does not win a debate by just making false claims and not being able to support them. I do love how you are yet making more false claims about me. Please do keep on digging, CCT.

        I do love how you are so desperate to convince me to stop showing how wrong your claims are. I am quite a bit better off in showing your claims to be false. So is everyone else. The only one who suffers is he who has nothing to support his claims and who really wants people to believe him and his version of Christianity and reality.

      • God is supernatural. Your request is unreasonable. You want me to use natural means to prove supernatural existence. The just shall live by faith. Faith is essential for relationship with God. The heart must br engaged. I believe choice must be free from empirical evidence. But to those who see wonder in small things, creation communicates God through wonder. He put the element of wonder in us and creation and it resonates a transcendent message. God is love

      • Mike says:

        Ha ha ha…
        Supernatural? You mean mythical!

        If god creates the universe, then a creator has to interact with its creation to be able to create. If this thing interacts with its creation then it MUST be detected directly or indirectly. So far, no instrument made by science ever revealed a shadow of a god. Your god is just a hypothesis

      • Then ltes quote Einstein. “If you can’t state it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”

      • Nice aphorism. Alas, it’s as fraught with failure as Occam’s Razor. Great to see you still appealing to authority, as if Einstein was perfect. He wasn’t and his claim is simply wrong.

        You of course have yet to respond to my simple explanation. Why is that, CCT? Isn’t it “simple” enough for you? Or are you busy moving goalposts by trying to claim that it isn’t “simple” enough? Now, if a neurologist can’t explain a certain brain surgery to you “simply” enough, does this mean she doesn’t understand it well enough? How about a diesel mechanic? A coder from Microsoft or Apple?

      • Great article. Again, how does it apply to your claims? YOu can keep posting information about Einstein’s theories of relativity, but until you can show how it supports your claims, all we have are articles about the theories of relativity. Please do show how these articles support your contradictory claims that your god is “timeless” and that it experiences a day as a billion years and a billion years as a day. Please also explain on how this works with your god evidently dependent on cause and effect.

        If your god is not subject to the laws of nature, why are you invoking the laws of nature to explain this god? Which is it, not subject to them or subject to them?

      • It coheres with what the Bible posited long before the concept. Now this is where you take my short and to the point response and answer with several paragraphs, add topics

      • That’s great, CCT. Now please do show where the Bible said anything about the theory of relativity. It certainly does say a day is like a thousand years to your god. It says nothing about going light speed to achieve this. Again, you try to make your bible say things it doesn’t. 2 Peter 3 also makes claims about the magic flood. Unsurprisingly, there is no evidence for this nonsense either nor for your god at all, and plenty of evidence that nothing of the kind existed or happened. You sure love to invoke science but when science says your bible is full of false claims, then you try to ignore science. How wonderfully hypocritical of you.

        All I’ll do with your post is show that your claims fail and that you have no evidence for your claims. (nice continuation of the whining, btw)

        The bible said nothing about special or general relativity. You’d think your magical omnipotent, omnipotent god would have mentioned the details if it were true. This god is really incompetent, not being able to tell people about germ theory, anesthesia, etc, but you want to pretend your god is talking about Einstein’s relativity in vague claims. Quite a god you have there, CCT. It’s just as fun to watch as TrueChristians making up what their god “really” meant about prophecies when their claims of a certain time and place fail again and again and again.

        It does take some work to show all of your false claims.

      • Secular lab. Yes, I’m sure they wouldn’t be biased at all.

      • “Secular lab”? What are you talking about? Where is there any reference to a lab or a laboratory?

        And if you do wish to claim bias, please support your claims.

      • Oh boy. Fat fingers. Sorry again

      • “Secular Web” is what it should have been.

      • still waiting for you to support your claims.

        Indeed waiting for a lot of things. meet me at camera three.

      • (Please refer to my initial comment). You do understand Einstein?

      • Oh this should be fun. What about Einstein are you asking about? To ask “you do understand Einstein?” is meaning. Do you mean his theories in physics? His views on religion? His choice of cigars? His political views? I’m quite familiar with a couple of these. In that I am, I suspect what you are going to try to do and am waiting with bated breath to watch the train wreck commence.

        Your initial comment is the usual pathetic baseless accusations that anyone but you is “adolescent”, and the usual dearth of being able to show any evidence to the contrary of the poster put up by Mike. And this has to do with Einstein how, CCT? Show us that you understand Einstein. And please do be aware that most atheists do know how badly Christians lie about Einstein. Happily, it’s easy to show that thanks to the internet’s resources.

      • as a correction

        “To ask “you do understand Einstein?” is meaningless” .

  1. I’m taking bets on what CCT will do with Einstein. 4 million quatloos that he tries to invoke something about the time paradox.

    • Man! You do know!
      Then I bet you know what I meant by that too.
      You don’t have to take the long way around it.

      • I know that you have no idea what Einstein said about time being relative and how that works. Thanks for showing how one more Christian tries to claim Einstein supports his nonsense and massively fails. I’ve given you the link to the actual theories. Now please do show us how your claims work with them.

  2. Then he must not have known either since I quoted his own words.

  3. Hey Mike,
    I just did a post to CCT that had a bunch of links in it. It may be stuck in your spam or trash.

  4. I’m going to try to reconsolidate the posts. Just because a post is short doesn’t make it valid. You can complain all you like about how long this post is. No one cares. Mike might be amused, but he’s the only audience.

    Now you are trying to claim that I am not “nice”. Again, evidence of this and tell me what you would consider “nice”. All it seems you are demanding is that I agree with you and not question what you claim. This is more evidence that you are indeed whining. It was hilarious to see you whine about a “flury of posts” and then watch you do exactly that.

    You have gone from making claims and trying to support them to doing little more than making personal attacks, complaining about the length of posts, etc. So, yes, I do think that you are whining since you have discovered that your claims about science, Einstein, Flew, etc are not accepted by me and are demonstrated wrong by me. We started with you making a baseless claim about Mike in an attempt to attack the poster that shows how ridiculous creationists are. I asked you to support creationism, if the poster was so wrong.

    You proceeded to claim that you weren’t a “staunch young earther”, but then tried to claim that somehow your god doesn’t have or need time *and* that this god does experience time but in some magical manner that lets a day and a billion years exchange places. I asked how that worked and you tried an appeal to authority by invoking Einstein, a common attempt by a theist and a guaranteed train wreck because you demonstrated you know nothing about Einstein’s theories of relativity. You also tried to claim that the young earth nonsense from the bible is “moot”. This seemed to be for no more reason than the bible claims are unsupportable, just like your claims. You want to ignore this part of the bible, but accept just as silly bits like a magical man/god that supposedly resurrected with lots of fanfare that has no evidence for it at all, just like the creation story.

    You were asked to explain this and of course didn’t. You then proceeded to make more baseless claims, one of the best being that atheists really do believe in your god. You made more baseless claims about me and when I ask for evidence of these claims, you cannot produce it. You just run to the next lie. You also make it seem that you are more than a little unbalanced since you continue to like e.g. “to feel attraction toward or take pleasure in : enjoy ”( my posts.

    You try to imply that a scientific discovery, that of the GRB wall, somehow is evidence for your god. As usual, it turns out that all you were trying is a typical “god of the gaps” argument e.g. if a theory may be wrong, then your version of your god exists. As the research now stands, we don’t know what the GRB wall is exactly or if it at all would contest existing theories. You of course still are unable to show how Einstein’s theories support your claims about your god despite my asking. You seem to think that by saying “relativity” this magically makes your baseless claims equivalent to theories that have defined parameters on how they works and evidence that they work. I didn’t see where you invoked “fine tuning” but again you have nothing that supports that old nonsense. You are that puddle that is amazed on how well the hole fits you, when the truth is that you fit the hole.

    You are also a liar when you try to claim that Stephen Hawking agrees with the theist claim that the universe is “fine-tuned”. Let’s see what Dr. Hawking has actually said: ““Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist,” – The Grand Design.
    ““It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going,” – The Grand Design
    The quote that most creationists run to is the quote from A Brief History of Time, “If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, they universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size” –pg 126 (in most editions) and they do their best to present it out of context because in context, Dr. Hawking doesn’t support them at all. A few pages later, around 133, Dr. Hawking says that the theories of physicists take care of this with no problems, and a magic god is not needed at all. You do really need to actually read the words of the people you invoke rather than depending on your fellow Christians and repeating their lies.

    In a similar vein, you then tried to run to one more argument from authority, this time invoking Anthony Flew. This was wonderful since you shows your ignorance of Flew’s actual words. I also got to see this gem: “I’m beginning to think you want to see it any other way. I don’t think you are a scientist, are you? Are you qualified to discount the claims of scientists?” Funny how per your terms, I am indeed qualified since I am a scientist (you of course now appear to be trying to pretend you didn’t say this). This is just precious when *you* presume to think you are qualified to discount the claims of scientists and you repeatedly invoke the words of other people who aren’t scientists who also presume to discount the claim of scientists. Flew was a philosopher who took it upon himself to question science and who admitted that he did not keep up with what scientists have discovered. In any case, as long as there is evidence, anyone can show anyone else wrong.
    Then you tried to return to Einstein, by quoting his words about time in his letter of condolence to the wife of his friend, Bessos from a quite strange website that is little more than creative woo (but it does quote quite a few things that also show that your religion with its creator god is nonsense). As usual, you tried to take his words out of context. You tried your best to make it seem that Einstein believes in an afterlife, which is not supported by anything he wrote, and you again tried to make believe that as long as you say relative that means that Einstein’s theories are applicable to your god but you of course can’t actually show that. You also try to claim that Einstein “flip-flopped” on the issues of heaven, religion and time, and I asked for evidence of this, even offering you plenty of resources for your research. No surprise that you haven’t donen this either. No, you just do your best to support your claim, claiming that “I’m welcome to my opinion based on the debate on Einstein that continues still today.” Alas, there is no facts that support your false claims at all. You’ve done a great job of showing how you rely again on willful ignorance to keep your religion.

    After this, you try to imply that I have nothing better to do than counter you. As always, once countered about that, you run away from your attempt. You complain about the length of my posts. You try the good ol’ claim that you just don’t have any time to actually support your words, but then of course proceed to make more false claims in that time you claim you don’t have. You do seem to be admitting that you can’t actually support your claims when you say “what do you think?” when asked to do so. You try to make up rules on how people should conduct themselves when showing you wrong so you might eke out some advantage. It’s just a version of “teach the controversy” when you try to claim that dialogue must be “balanced to be productive”. Nope, it doesn’t, especially when one side has nothing to support its false claims.

    You still run back to your attempts at arguments from authority. Alas, Einstein, though very intelligent, still wasn’t always right. You keep whining and you have yet to show any evidence for your personal attacks on me or your claims about how the bible somehow references Einstein’s relativity. Again, your claims of interpretation are just nonsense, not agreed with by other Christians and not supported by evidence. Just the sad attempt of a man who has nothing better than one compilation of stories from xenophobic agrarians from several millennia ago, who fantasized about being big and powerful, and left behind myths and no evidence.

    Call me out if you want. That requires evidence of your claims. Still haven’t seen that yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s