Atheism
"Stones cannot fall from the sky because there are no stones in the sky!" -- Antoine L. Lavoisier, chemist, 1790
"Gentlemen, I would rather believe that two Yankee professors would lie than believe that stones fall from heaven." -- Thomas Jefferson, revolutionary, 1807
Theism
"...the Lord cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died..." -- Joshua 10:11
"...and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit. And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit." -- Revelation 9:1-2
Conclusion
Messrs. Lavoisier and Jefferson should have read the Bible. The history of science demonstrates that whenever it contradicts the Bible it is wrong.
The history of Messrs. Lavoisier and Jefferson demonstrate that whenever they contradict Science they were wrong.
ReplyDeleteFixed it for you.
You're welcome.
People in the past weren't stupid. They were ignorant. Learn to tell the difference.
Lavoisier was the Father of Chemistry. He represents science. And science was wrong. Because it contradicted the Bible.
ReplyDeleteThere you go. You've brought the entire edifice of Freethought to its godless knees in 4 sentences.
ReplyDeleteHow will the Forces of Reason ever recover? Will Dawkins become a Mormon? Will Meyers pack up his squid and go home? Will Dennett and Keown and the other Titans of Atheism, Agnosticism, Skepticism and Doubt quake forever before your cyclopean summarizations and broad-strokes of brilliant prose, ever fearful of your magnificence?
Nope.
Lavoisier was a pious Catholic (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Antoine-Laurent_Lavoisier).
ReplyDeleteAlthough usually thought of as a deist, Jefferson repeatedly expressed his belief in God and his admiration for Jesus as a moral teacher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson#Religion).
What have either of these got to do with atheism?
SinSeeker,
ReplyDeleteWelcome.
Catholics who contradict the Bible are called heretics. Lavoisier was a heretic.
Okay, so he was a heretic (by your definition). This doesn't make him a representative of atheism, which seemed to be the point of your post.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the Earth is billions of years old contradicts the Bible too and I don't see how that is wrong.
ReplyDeleteIs this a sly way of saying that Pi=3?
ReplyDeleteIt's a troll post. See, in the past, Oils has rejected the Big Bang on the grounds that it is a creationist theory. A priest thought it up, therefore it can't be right. Newton's gravity invoked the Lord, so it can't be right either.
ReplyDeleteNow he posts this. Either he's converted to some brand of Christianity or he's trolling us.
He does not know how to separate ideas from people. Newton can be right about gravity, and wrong about why it's there. He can't see that. This is why this is a troll post. I can't think of any other sound reason for it.
On a related, but kinda not tangent, what the hell is this "[Lavoisier] represents science" bullshit? No one person represents science, here or anywhere else. His paranoia, or really odd sense of humor, does him no good at all.
QF,
ReplyDelete"The fact that the Earth is billions of years old contradicts the Bible too and I don't see how that is wrong."
For someone who hates the Bible and Christianity so much, you don't seem to know much about them.
Here is what Catholics actually believe.
"The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.
Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universe’s age by examining biblical and scientific evidence."
Jeffery,
ReplyDelete"what the hell is this '[Lavoisier] represents science' bullshit?"
FYI Lavoisier is known as the "Father of Chemistry." I think it's pretty safe to say that he represents science in the same way that Newton does, namely horribly.
Fortunately for Science, Oils, what you think does not matter. The universe gets described in pretty accurate terms without your input.
ReplyDeleteStrangely, what you don't think is a better guide to good science.
Interesting.
A bit of light reading shows that if Lavoisier was wrong, then the role we ascribe to oxygen is wrong.
ReplyDeleteHow wrong do you think he was, really?
Jeffery,
ReplyDeleteYou don't believe in meteorites now because the Bible says they exist?
A. You didn't answer my question, you insufferable troll.
ReplyDeleteB. Some of the Bible is true, some of it is false, some of it is questionable. Nothing is as binary as you pretend.
It is our everyday experience that stones do not fall from the sky, like raindrops just about everyday in tropics, seasonally otherwise, and more or less weekly in the East Coast of the US.
ReplyDeleteIt is a fair observation on the part of Lavoisier, and fair for Jefferson to believe in the dedicated experimentalists’ observations.
It is likely that an event of stones (meteors) falling was recorded by the writer of Joshua and Revelation either through first hand experience or by the reliable observers. Both writers/compilers lacked explanation, so they invoke it as an act of lord, a vengeful lord (how else would you think of a guy throwing hot rocks without any care who got hit?). Somehow, both writers/compilers failed to look up to the lord and ask: why are you doing this, you stupid ass?
OIM argument is based on the idiotic logic that if you are wrong in one thing, you are wrong in everything, and this premise does not apply to him, like many conservative talk show guys and all the born again gay priests.
KV,
ReplyDelete"It is our everyday experience that stones do not fall from the sky..."
It's our everyday experience that stones don't fall from the sky? Wouldn't that contradict Newtonian gravitation? Have you ever been to the mountains? Because everyday experience there is that shooting stars happen on a nightly basis.
"It is a fair observation on the part of Lavoisier, and fair for Jefferson to believe in the dedicated experimentalists’ observations."
What experiment did Lavoisier and Jefferson perform that proves stones can't fall from the sky?
OIM,
ReplyDeleteI was out yesterday, even in the mountains, and I did not see a single stone fall from the sky! I bet, most of the readers had the same experience, except may be you and Anaconda.
Lavoisier looked up in the sky everyday since his early childhood and never saw a stone fall from the sky. As you quoted, Jefferson listened to reliable sources and made up his mind, even though he had read Bible many times, probably as good fiction to pass the time by as he traveled in his horse carriage to Monticello from Charlottesville.
KV,
ReplyDeleteShooting stars have been observed for millions of years. The only reason why atheist fundamentalists deny them is because they are antisemites quite frankly.
OIM,
ReplyDeleteShooting stars are observed, but it is not our everyday experience, unless one stays up all night trying to find one.
Also, they look way more different than stones falling from the sky.
The closest I have come to experience the stone-like stuff falling from the sky was when I drove through a hailstorm.
KV,
ReplyDelete"...the stars...fell from heaven at the time of Phaethon's downfall." -- Aristotle, philosopher, Meteorology, 350 B.C.
"Silenus, in the first book of his Histories, says, that in the archonship of Lysanias a large stone fell from heaven; and that in reference to this event Anaxagoras said, that the whole heaven was composed of stones, and that by its rapid revolutions they were all held together; and when those revolutions get slower, they fall down." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, Lives of Preeminent Philosophers, 2nd century
"The year 687 B.C., in the summer, in the fourth moon, in the day of sin mao (23rd of March) during the night, the fixed stars did not appear, though the night was clear [cloudless]. In the middle of the night stars fell like rain." -- Édouard Biot, astronomer, 1846
Apparently Jews aren't the only people that atheists hate.
OIM,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: Apparently Jews aren't the only people that atheists hate.
There was no reference about Jews in my comment, but you have to go there to rile up your readership! There are many Jews who are atheists and you are unfair to lump them together. Secondly, There are believers who love to hate, and you are unfair to them as well.
Finally, there are a few historical records that purportly document that Jews came from ancient India and they worshiped many deities besides the hot rock throwing unseen lord who somehow got into Bible, a book of many stories, and many of them are good readings.
You are nothing but a troll Brian.
ReplyDeleteTS,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the compliment. Whenever I hear the word troll used as an ad hominem fallacy, I know it's because the person has no logical or scientific counterargument.
Yet, logical and scientific counter-arguments (If anything could counter the seemingly random conclusions you arrive at arguments) have no effect on you.
ReplyDeleteTake this most recent stream of mental effluvia you call logic: "Atheism Vs Scientific Reality"
Repeatedly, I've shown you to be wrong about mixing a researcher's religion and his work. Sinseeker showed clearly that neither of your choices were atheists. You can't relent. You stay the course, unswayed by clear examples that you are wrong, going so far as suggesting that Atheists hate Jews... I'm not even sure how you got there.
If you aren't a troll, you are in the same semi-humanoid genus. Another example:
You don't believe in meteorites now because the Bible says they exist?
Very definate trolling.
There's the evidence. The conclusion is that some of your posts are trolls, others not so much.
KV,
ReplyDelete"who the heck are atheist fundamentalists?"
Richard Dawkins comes to mind. He also denies the existence of meteorites and catastrophic impact events.
"Catastrophism was an eighteenth -- and nineteenth -- century attempt to reconcile some form of creationism with the uncomfortable facts of the fossil record." -- Richard Dawkins, biologist, 1986
QF,
ReplyDelete=)
Oils said:
ReplyDelete"Shooting stars have been observed for millions of years. The only reason why atheist fundamentalists deny them is because they are antisemites quite frankly."
If your argument had merit, then you wouldn't have to resort to lying. No, not merely having a difference of opinion or being deluded but outright lying. All I need to know to tell that you're lying is the fact that you are apparently at least intelligent enough to operate a computer and type in complete sentences. Therefore you know perfectly well that atheists don't deny meteorites, nor are they anti-Semitic.
My only hope for you is that you actually gain a conscience and regret all this lying you've been doing. And if you act all indignant and pretend you are offended at my accurate portrayal of your lying, then all you're doing is proving your willingness to lie about the fact that you lied, which doesn't help your position at all.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteWhat did I lie about?
Atheists do deny meteorites.
In fact, they were the inspiration for this post so you can thank my atheist friend Matthew who denies the fact that stars fall from the sky.
OIM, you wrote about atheist fundamentalists:
ReplyDeleteRichard Dawkins comes to mind. He also denies the existence of meteorites and catastrophic impact events.
1. So there is no organized group except whatever exists in your mind...
2. Dawkins would be very happy to deny your existence before he would deny meteorites.
Would you please re-read Dawkins quote you cited, especially the phrase: ...with the uncomfortable facts of the fossil record. in its appropriate context - that creationists resorted to "catstrophies for creation"? You see it is that old lord throwing hot rocks on folks down below who were trying to have sex as they like it!
OIM,
ReplyDeleteWhy is it the old lord resorts to throwing stones and hot rocks more often than any esoteric weapons like choking people from distance or divine (nanotube based?) tasers?
You forfeited the use of ad hominem with posts like this one, you are a religious nut.
ReplyDeleteAnyone reading this post and your arguments for your conclusions will realise that your "science" holds no water what so ever. So why should we take any of your ridiculous views on reality seriously?
I'm an atheist and I love black pudding, therefore all other atheists must like black pudding too, right?
One thing I don't get about Jews, however, is why they are so superstitious in their theistic beliefs. They think God is going to be angered if they flip a lightswitch on Saturday, well, orthodox Jews that is.
ReplyDeleteAlways nice to see some fine swivel-eyed loony at work. Have you tried bottling that crazy? It seems you have struck upon a particularly fine seam. I rate you as about a tenth of a time-cube. So, you are doing well, but there is always some way to go.
ReplyDeleteKV,
ReplyDelete"Why is it the old lord resorts to throwing stones and hot rocks more often than any esoteric weapons like choking people from distance or divine (nanotube based?) tasers?"
It's possible the extraterrestrial angels destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with nuclear weapons.
Because people thought those extraterrestrials were hot and sexy, lol, sounds like those extraterrestrials can't take a compliment.
ReplyDeleteYou really are naughty to play with them so nastily! They get upset and will learn something eventually, but to those not involved in the process, you may not seem intellectually appealling.
ReplyDeleteHistory, as recorded in our oldest books, called book, always will triumph over vapid speculation and herd mentality.
Keep it up, I always tune in and strangely to most of your posters, perhaps, you have yet to offend me!
I must be very strange.....
OIM,
ReplyDeleteWhat pissed of the old lord was that earth started expanding and his creation, his playground - S & G were engulfed from oozing lava, so the stupid ass started throwing stones at the earth. How is that for interpreting the old book?
KV,
ReplyDeleteMy dog has better reading comprehension than that.
OIM,
ReplyDeleteMay be you should have your dog write your blog!
KV,
ReplyDeleteThe goal of this blog is to seek the truth, not to write things in a language you understand.
OIM,
ReplyDeleteI am happy that your dog understands your writing, oops, mostly distortion of the articles and unreferenced quotes of dead people and stone throwers.
Oil Is Mastery has reason!
ReplyDelete