Are you smarter than an atheist? A religious quiz

[howardroark]

I got a 30/32... The only ones I missed were the start of the Jewish Sabbath and who led the so-called "First Great Awakening." I'm also an atheist.  

[Dr.Ill]

With us speaking of Einstein and saying Coach owned himself, well, let us use Einstein's formula to prove there is a God, shall we?  E=MC^2  , this formula was proven with the detonation of the atomic bomb, where my boy Einstein said matter is nothing more than energy bound together by more energy and one can mathematically prove the amount of energy in a given amount of mass.  With that is proven that matter or atoms can be destroyed BUT can NOT be created, hhmmm?  Therefore, Einstein himself has no answer other than a higher power creating matter?

However,  a common man wrote a scripture that may encompass this matter building object?

Heb 11:3 NIV says, “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.”

[Man of Steel]

Someone slow this thread down...the intellects within it are absolutely dizzying.

[avxo]

Refute its content. I would have posted it no matter who it was. How many times have you pm'd me reguarding my faith? You're the typical athiest to the enth degree.

Good grief, not this bullshit again... I've already refuted this in another thread on here - a thread that I am pretty sure you posted in before. Others have thoroughly refuted it as well. Why do you an your ilk insist on reusing the same refuted arguments - if the piece of drivel you posted can even be called an argument.

Not that you care to actually entertain such things, of course. You believe what you believe - blindly and without thinking - and no amount of logic will persuade you.

If you want to become a critical thinker and learn why the "argument" you posted isn't an argument. - and I grant that it's a big if because, as I said above, I don't think you care to learn or understand - then I would suggest thay you: (a) take a course in elementary logic (typically offered by the philosophy department in most Colleges and Universities) to find out about things like logical fallacies and things like logical consistency and (b) pick up the book "Atheism: The Case Againsy God" by George H. Smith.

[NarcissisticDeity]

And no wonder why people think Christians are stupid 

lol Einstein proved God was real for you LMFAO epic backfire there coach

[howardroark]

With us speaking of Einstein and saying Coach owned himself, well, let us use Einstein's formula to prove there is a God, shall we?  E=MC^2  , this formula was proven with the detonation of the atomic bomb, where my boy Einstein said matter is nothing more than energy bound together by more energy and one can mathematically prove the amount of energy in a given amount of mass.  With that is proven that matter or atoms can be destroyed BUT can NOT be created, hhmmm?  Therefore, Einstein himself has no answer other than a higher power creating matter?

However,  a common man wrote a scripture that may encompass this matter building object?

Heb 11:3 NIV says, “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.”

You get an F in Physics. Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

[Dr.Ill]

You get an F in Physics. Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

Holy Shit, next, somone that actually isn't ignorant!  And he claimed to get a 30/32 Bahahahahaha

[avxo]

With that is proven that matter or atoms can be destroyed BUT can NOT be created, hhmmm?

Bullshit... New particles are created all the time in particle accelerators. That is one of things they are designed to do: convert energy into subatomic particles by colliding electrons and positrons at relativistic velocities and converting some of that kinetic energy into new particles.

I'm sick and tired of people with no scientific background and only the most rudimentary understanding of simple physics talking about things like they are world-renowned experts and presenting their half-assed opinions and poor understanding as indisputable scientific facts.

You get an F in Physics. Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

Not true: see above. Matter can be created and it can be destroyed. It's just that when matter is created[/b] a certain, quantifiable amount of energy is actually converted into matter. Similarly, when matter is destroyed, it is actually converted into a certain, quantifiable amount of energy.

[Dr.Ill]

Bullshit... New particles are created all the time in particle accelerators. That is one of things they are designed to do: convert energy into subatomic particles by colliding electrons and positrons at relativistic velocities and converting some of that kinetic energy into new particles.

I'm sick and tired of people with no scientific background and only the most rudimentary understanding of simple physics talking about things like they are world-renowned experts and presenting their half-assed opinions and poor understanding as indisputable scientific facts.

Bullshit....first off, new particles are not being created, they are being discovered!  Secondly, if you want to dribble on like you know something, then spew some facts and refute Einstein's theory brain child!  Never has energy been coverted to matter, never....please indicate in which physics book you found matter being produced from energy?  Not your "theory" books either! 

[avxo]

Bullshit....first off, new particles are not being created, they are being discovered!

For a complete idiot, you actually managed to produce a brilliant statement: it manages to show of your idiocy in a very elegant and compact way. Congratulations.

Secondly, if you want to dribble on like you know something, then spew some facts and refute Einstein's theory brain child!  Never has energy been coverted to matter, never....please indicate in which physics book you found matter being produced from energy?  Not your "theory" books either!

The whole point of Einstein's theory is that matter and energy are interchangeable! Energy being converted into matter isn't against Einstein's theory. If you think it is, feel free to point out exactly where either General or Special Relativity state such a thing.

[Dr.Ill]

For a complete idiot, you actually managed to produce a brilliant statement: it manages to show of your idiocy in a very elegant and compact way. Congratulations.  

The whole point of Einstein's theory is that matter and energy are interchangeable! Energy being converted into matter isn't against Einstein's theory. If you think it is, feel free to point out exactly where either General or Special Relativity state such a thing.

Matter and energy may be interchangeable with effect, however, one can not be substituted by the other.  If an electron hits an electron, then a electron will be ejected from that shell, at that point photon energy is created and next electron falls into place.  Not substituted with energy.  

The new particle that was found today, also refutes the "interchangeable" stance, when opposite particles collide that obliterate themselves.  

Therefore in these two interactions, matter and energy never substitute just cause an effect.  Matter is never formed by energy, just more energy.

[Onetimehard]

Matter and energy may be interchangeable with effect, however, one can not be substituted by the other.  If an electron hits and electron, and electron ejected from shell, then photon energy is created and next electron falls into place.  Not substituted with energy. 

The new particle that was found today, also refutes the "interchangeable" stance, when opposite particles collide that obliterate themselves. 

Correct

[avxo]

Matter and energy may be interchangeable with effect, however, one can not be substituted by the other.  If an electron hits and electron, and electron ejected from shell, then photon energy is created and next electron falls into place.  Not substituted with energy.

Depends what you mean by "substituted." I never said that energy was a substitute for matter or vice versa. But matter can be converted into energy - see nuclear fission, for example, where a large amount of energy is released in the form of gamma rays - and energy can be converted into matter. See, for example http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/e144/nytimes.html.

The new particle that was found today, also refutes the "interchangeable" stance, when opposite particles collide that obliterate themselves.

How does the discovery of any particle refute the interchangeable state? I'll agree that energy and matter aren't interchangeable in the sense that "here's 3.14159 GeV of energy and *tada* suddenly! Behold foofoo particle!"  but matter can be created out of energy. But see here: http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/particle_creation.html

Therefore in these to interactions, matter and energy never substitute just cause an effect.  Matter is never formed by energy, just more energy.

I don't quite follow what you mean by "Matter is never formed by energy, just more energy." unless it's an obtuse reference to threshold energy. But even if that's the case, that doesn't help your point. Indeed, it only strengthens mine, that bosonic particle interactions can give rise to fermionic particles.

[Tre]

30 of 32 and I hate pretty much everyone.

[che]

1  of 32

[Dr.Ill]

Depends what you mean by "substituted." I never said that energy was a substitute for matter or vice versa. But matter can be converted into energy - see nuclear fission, for example, where a large amount of energy is released in the form of gamma rays - and energy can be converted into matter. See, for example http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/e144/nytimes.html.

I will combat this argument with this simple article, are we going to talk subatomic structures or matter?  http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970724a.html


What I meant without copy and pasting someone elses ideas or thoughts, this is just mine entirely, is like in that case where they used accelerators and high laser beams, it took accelerated electrons blasted across a tube and to collide (with probably a tungtsten material) to dispell millions of electrons thus producing a vast amount of photons (energy)...This was my point, it takes so much more energy to even make one subparticle and this is no where near living matter.

I need to be more pointed in my argument, we have not seen any indication that energy can be converted to any "living" matter in which this whole argument started about is a higher power creating "living" matter from energy.

I must admit, for someone I thought rolled around naked with pictures of himself, you have proved that your not just another schmoe.  Hats off sir!

[dantelis]

30 of 32.  Missed the Maimides and First Great Awakening ones.

If you have a half-way decent education and read the news occassionally, you should do pretty well on this quiz.  

For Getbiggers, here is questions 33:  Name the Greek/Roman demi-god who was the strongest of the ancient mythological heros?  Bonus points if you can come up with the Greek spelling of his name.

[NarcissisticDeity]

30 or 32.  Missed the Maimides and First Great Awakening ones.

If you have a half-way decent education and read the news occassionally, you should do pretty well on this quiz.  

For Getbiggers, here is questions 33:  Name the Greek/Roman demi-god who was the strongest of the ancient mythological heros?  Bonus points if you can come up with the Greek spelling of his name.

Heracles

[E-Kul]

Professor : You are a Christian, aren't you, son ?

Student : Yes, sir.

Professor: So, you believe in GOD ?

Student : Absolutely, sir.

Professor : Is GOD good ?

Student : Sure.

Professor: Is GOD all powerful ?

Student : Yes.

Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to GOD to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOD didn't. How is this GOD good then? HM?

(Student was silent.)

Professor: You can't answer, can you ? Let’s start again, young fella. Is GOD good?

Student : Yes.

Professor: Is satan good ?

Student : No.

Professor: Where does satan come from ?

Student : From … GOD …

Professor: That’s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?

Student : Yes.

Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn't it ? And GOD did make everything. Correct?

Student : Yes.

Professor: So who created evil ?

(Student did not answer.)

Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don’t they?

Student : Yes, sir.

Professor: So, who created them ?

(Student had no answer.)

Professor: Science says you have 5 Senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son, have you ever seen GOD?

Student : No, sir.

Professor: Tell us if you have ever heard your GOD?

Student : No , sir.

Professor: Have you ever felt your GOD, tasted your GOD, smelt your GOD? Have you ever had any sensory perception of GOD for that matter?

Student : No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t.

Professor: Yet you still believe in Him?

Student : Yes.

Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?

Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.

Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem Science has.

Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?

Professor: Yes.

Student : And is there such a thing as cold?

Professor: Yes.

Student : No, sir. There isn't.

(The lecture theater became very quiet with this turn of events.)

Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don’t have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.

(There was pin-drop silence in the lecture theater.)

Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?

Professor: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?

Student : You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light. But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it is, well you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?

Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man ?

Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.

Professor: Flawed ? Can you explain how?

Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good GOD and a bad GOD. You are viewing the concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, Science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.

Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

Professor: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.

Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?

(The Professor shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument was going.)

Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an ongoing endeavor. Are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?

(The class was in uproar.)

Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?

(The class broke out into laughter. )

Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?

(The room was silent. The Professor stared at the student, his face unfathomable.)

Professor: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.
Student : That is it sir … Exactly ! The link between man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving.

P.S.

I believe you have enjoyed the conversation. And if so, you'll probably want your friends / colleagues to enjoy the same, won't you?

Forward this to increase their knowledge … or FAITH.

By the way, that student was EINSTEIN.

The God Botherers (Student) whole argument is hinging on the fact that because we cant see the professors brain it doesn't exist and we have to just use faith - what a joke, unlike GOD, we can kill the professor, crack open his cranium and confirm our suspicions, the professor does indeed have a brain.  No Faith Required - Dumb Argument!

[doriancutlerman]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  to assume religious folk are universally stupid, ignorant or whatever else is illogical.  Anyone who's studied the most rudimentary fallacies of relevance would understand that.  It's little different than me saying people who believe in extraterrestrial life are morons, idiots and so on.

Generally speaking, people who think knowledge begins and ends with religion ARE simple fucks.  But there remains a whole rainbow of intellectual grades which embrace/reject religion for reasons no one's mentioned here.  Take my friend Curtis (I will not give you his full name, but intrepid Google-Fu fighters might discover he authored some books for perhaps the most popular franchise in the world).  He is a doctor of astrophysics.  Literally, a fucking *rocket scientist.*  Only the most obstinate, delusional troll here might claim to rival his I.Q.  

While he says his initial leaning is toward "weak agnostic," he chooses to believe in an afterlife to which his consciousness will transcend because that belief serves him.  That is, he is unsettled by the concept of ceasing to exist altogether when he dies; therefore, belief in an afterlife helps keep him going, helps keep him from obsessing over the hereto unrealistic probability of retaining his mind into some computer (which he has certainly considered) or other means.  

Religion is more than believing some tall tale about Moses parting the sea, a burning bush, Noah's Arc, Mohammed having his heart pulled out, "purified" and then put back in his chest, etc.  A lot of it is bullshit, but more often than not, the people who stand by, point, laugh and talk about how the sheep believe in the "invisible man in the sky" seem to conveniently overlook the millions of intelligent people who choose to believe in a higher power, afterlife or whatever for reasons other than simple childhood brainwashing indoctrination.

[E-Kul]

For Getbiggers, here is questions 33:  Name the Greek/Roman demi-god who was the strongest of the ancient mythological heros?  Bonus points if you can come up with the Greek spelling of his name.

Hercules   Heracles, son of Zeus

[shizzo81]

Any pussy pics in this thread?

[E-Kul]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  to assume religious folk are universally stupid, ignorant or whatever else is illogical.  Anyone who's studied the most rudimentary fallacies of relevance would understand that.  It's little different than me saying people who believe in extraterrestrial life are morons, idiots and so on.

Generally speaking, people who think knowledge begins and ends with religion ARE simple fucks.  But there remains a whole rainbow of intellectual grades which embrace/reject religion for reasons no one's mentioned here.  Take my friend Curtis (I will not give you his full name, but intrepid Google-Fu fighters might discover he authored some books for perhaps the most popular franchise in the world).  He is a doctor of astrophysics.  Literally, a fucking *rocket scientist.*  Only the most obstinate, delusional troll here might claim to rival his I.Q.  

While he says his initial leaning is toward "weak agnostic," he chooses to believe in an afterlife to which his consciousness will transcend because that belief serves him.  That is, he is unsettled by the concept of ceasing to exist altogether when he dies; therefore, belief in an afterlife helps keep him going, helps keep him from obsessing over the hereto unrealistic probability of retaining his mind into some computer (which he has certainly considered) or other means.  

Religion is more than believing some tall tale about Moses parting the sea, a burning bush, Noah's Arc, Mohammed having his heart pulled out, "purified" and then put back in his chest, etc.  A lot of it is bullshit, but more often than not, the people who stand by, point, laugh and talk about how the sheep believe in the "invisible man in the sky" seem to conveniently overlook the millions of intelligent people who choose to believe in a higher power, afterlife or whatever for reasons other than simple childhood brainwashing indoctrination.

Define Intelligence, just because someone holds a degree or high status position doesn't make them intelligent, they are just successful repeaters and were able to memorise facts and remember them when tested.  The more you fit well in to society and raise up it's heights, the more I would argue that you have been successfully indoctrinated and have enough brain capacity to read and write and memorise facts, that's about it, most of the professionals I meet are fucking idiots - I am shocked the people society allows to call Professional - the Title Professional should be something that is earned from your peers, not given to you from a school that is praising you for following there set curriculum and successfully memorising it.  To be Intelligent, you need to be able to follow your own line of inquiry to a satisfying conclusion, and most professionals I have met are unable to do this, they just repeat what they have been told like parrots.  The World really needs radicals like Noam Chomsky giving orders, but that will never happen with the Bullies running the schoolyard.

[E-Kul]

Any pussy pics in this thread?

[Onetimehard]

30 or 32.  Missed the Maimides and First Great Awakening ones.

If you have a half-way decent education and read the news occassionally, you should do pretty well on this quiz.  

For Getbiggers, here is questions 33:  Name the Greek/Roman demi-god who was the strongest of the ancient mythological heros?  Bonus points if you can come up with the Greek spelling of his name.

Ha, I love this stuff but C'mon that's an easy one,