How much did the invention of nuclear bombs contribute to the fall of belief in God in the West?

[Hermit]

You no know no such thing, obviously, because it isn't true.

Okay then, go to the flat earth thread and provide the evidence for (1) that the surface of water is not level and (2) earth curvature.

Earth maintains an atmosphere because of gravity (same reason it has the shape that it does)

Gas pressure contained by gravity has never been demonstrated. Gas pressure, by definition, requires a container.

there is no hoover in the sky sucking it up or a wind blowing it away as it (the Earth) hurtles through space.

Hoover in the sky as earth moves through space is what globetards like you believe.

Speaking of pseudoscience, I recall you posted a flat-earth video that took a 20 second soundbite (from an original 3 hour video) by a theoretical physicist, who you named as such, and fitted it (what he does as a scientist) into a definition of 'pseudoscience'.

Here's the quote from Theoretical physicist Michio Kaku openly stating his field does not use the scientific method, which is a necessary requirement for science:

You're not going to believe this. In science we always say that you make observations, you have a theory, you go make more observations and it's a very, very tedious process. Wrong! Nobody that I know of in my field uses the so-called scientific method. In our field it's by the seat of your pants, leaps of logic, it's guesswork.

And here's the definition of pseudoscience:

Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.[Note 1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; absence of systematic practices when developing hypotheses; and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited.[4]

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Miss what are Jesus' teachings on extraterrestrial life?

He never said one word about it, or about the Earths geography, He said nothing to be later prover right or wrong.

So why do ostensibly intelligent people believe the shyte they're told about this guy?

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

It must be said that man still knows very little about nature including what is below our feet, what is out in space and what is within the atom. In fact sub atomic nature tends to support the idea of a super God. No one of this site is intelligent enough to understand sub antimonic nature except me. Moreover no one here can ever achieve it because you need to start off with land and cows.

You're out of order there pal. Whatever else you think about Miss Catherine she sure as hell ain't no Geezer.

I await your correction on this matter.

 

[Zipporah's Flint]

What's that? Top as in he's well known in the eh, flat-earth community, he's written a lot about it? He certainly isn't top as in he's produced a shred of credible evidence (contrary to our scientific understanding) for the Earth being flat.. because there isn't any, duh.


I spend about as much time thinking that the Earth is flat as I do Santa's real. But it did occur to me recently the religious (and anti-atheism) nature of it, certainly that's the case with our two here, I think it's fair to say.

Well he kind of was the one who got the contemporary flat earth movement off the ground.

Before it came along I knew that the leader of the Boers in the second Anglo-Boer war who was both some character and also had a lot of character was a believer that the earth was flat and I also came across Muslims who claimed on the basis of the Koran a flat earth and were sneered at over this by other Muslims even though the Koran does indeed teach a flat earth and that gets in the way of the claims of the "Koran's scientific knowledge" (which was claimed by the sneerers).

I find the contemporary flat earth movement interesting as a cultural phenomena.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

I wiped the floor with you in the flat earth thread.

Why do people believe in that shit Sir?

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

Why do people believe in that shit Sir?

Because our senses tell us we are on a flat plane ( mountains aside) and also not moving at 66000 miles per hour/second, or whatever the fantastical number is

 

[Zipporah's Flint]

Why do people believe in that shit Sir?

By that shit do you mean the concept that the earth is a globe?

 

[SeekTheFairLand]

Lightening in Oxford.. does this? God showing that he can put on a show as good as any cruise missile in Ukraine.


View: https://t.me/TommyRobinsonNews/51807

 

[Hermit]

The Earth is round, what more evidence do you need?

LOL.

So you think that the Earth is in a giant container?

Weasel tactic there, you completely misrepresented what I said which was "Gas pressure, by definition, requires a container." I didn't say earth is a giant container. Here's the definition of gas pressure from Florida State University - do you notice the word CONTAINER?

I'm sorry, what?

I was referring to your belief that the great hoover in the sky should suck the atmosphere and your fellow flat-earther has stated that a wind should blow it away as Earth "hurtles through space", giving the analogy of covering a tennis ball in foam and holding it out of a window of a moving car for a few minutes and then seeing how much foam is left on the ball. That's almost cute - it's so childlike and really, the only people who should be flat-earthers are children, small ones.

I never mentioned anything about great hoovers in the sky. So you're misrepresenting me again, i.e. you're lying. Here is a demonstration of what happens when gas is next to a vacuum without a physical barrier between the two:

So what, literally so what?

LOL, you brought it up and now you're saying 'so what' after I refuted your point. Michio Kaku literally says that people in his field DO NOT USE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Therefore his field is NOT SCIENCE, it is PSEUDOSCIENCE.

Theoretical physics - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

..is "pseudoscience", what's your point?

Theoretical physics is not science. Any theoretical physics that presents itself as science is pseudoscience. Here's the definition of theoretical physics from your Wiki link, do you see the word 'science' in it?

Theoretical physics is a branch of physics that employs mathematical models and abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomena. This is in contrast to experimental physics, which uses experimental tools to probe these phenomena.

 

[Zipporah's Flint]

Why?

Because chanegs in how humans envisage the cosmos around them usually reflect wider changes in how their consciousness relates to things. There is a very interesting quote by Spengler on this that I am trying to find. I cannot help thinking that a return to thinking of the earth as at least sort of flat on the part of large amounts of people is a sign of other deeper changes.

 

[Hermit]

Huh? What was weasel about it?

It was weasel because I said one thing and you extrapolated that into something ridiculous that didn't follow from what I said.

You said that "gas pressure requires a container" and I took that to mean that there wouldn't be an atmosphere unless it was in a container. Is that not what you meant? What did you mean, is the atmosphere fake?

We have air, a gas pressure system, an atmosphere as you call it. Gas pressure requires a container, a physical barrier, for the gas to press against. No container, nothing to press against and nothing to prevent the flow of gas in all directions. So, since we live in a gas pressure system, it logically follows that there must be containment of that gas. Similarly I know you have a mother and father, despite me not knowing them or you, because if you are a living human being then a mother and father are antecedent to your existence.

Okay, so, you believe that there is sufficient overlap in the definitions of pseudoscience and theoretical physics to say that theoretical physics is pseudoscience (chortle), and? Does it have anything to do with your flat-earth creationism?

Theoretical physics = mathematical models
Science = using the scientific method to prove cause and effect relationships in naturally observed phenomena

They are not the same thing. Theoretical physics is not science. Theoretical physics that claims to be science is pseudoscience. Science requires hypothesis and experimentation, there is none of that in theoretical physics as explained by Michio Kaku. As he said "it's leaps of logic, it's guesswork."

 

[Hermit]

Why didn't it?

No, it did not.

lol.. What is the containment?

"Air pressure", in the context of what we're talking about, is due to weight, and what is weight, without gravity?

Air is a gas.
Air pressure = gas pressure
Gas pressure requires a container - I have provided citations for that in my previous post (one from NASA), it's not something I made up. Pressure is due to the gas pressing against the walls of a physical container. No pressing against a container = no pressure.

And as has been pointed out to you over and over again, the great hoover in the sky (space) does not exert a force (on the atmosphere)

And as I have already pointed out to you, I never said that. The gif in my previous post shows what happens to gas next to a vacuum when the barrier is removed - the gas moves in all directions into the vaccum to fill that space until equilibrium is reached. So the gas on earth should behave no differently if there was a vacuum next to earth without a physical barrier. If you have a demonstration of gas next to a vacuum without a barrier then post it.

I'll ask you for the last time, your (laughable) belief that because definitions of pseudoscience and theoretical physics have a sufficient overlap to satisfy you (and the flat-earther creationist idiot who made the video) that they're the same thing.. what is your implication of that??

This isn't about overlap of definitions. Theoretical physics is not science, end of story. If it is ever claimed to be science then that would be considered pseudoscience. If you disagree then provide a citation that says theoretical physics is science. None of the following citations for theoretical physics include the word 'science'.

From TCD:

Theoretical Physics explores the natural world at its most fundamental level, using mathematical theories guided by experimental investigation.

Nature.com:

Theoretical physics is the development of mathematical formalisms and computational protocols for describing all aspects of objects found in the world around us and their interaction. This can involve both providing models for understanding empirical results or constructing self-logical theories for explain phenomena beyond current experiments.

 

[SeekTheFairLand]

News Letter​

·

The first person in Northern Ireland to be arrested in relation to new abortion clinic buffer zones appears to be a devout Catholic woman who was on her knees praying when approached by police.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

The first person in Northern Ireland to be arrested in relation to new abortion clinic buffer zones appears to be a devout Catholic woman who was on her knees praying when approached by police.

Sounds like she should be in the Nut house