Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 49. (Read 901370 times)

No it doesn't at all. https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69081.0

Anyone who actually understands buoyancy in the most basic sense of the word, knows that you can't have buoyancy without gravity, because there was never a force to exert the pressure in the first place

^^^ Density & buoyancy models it quite nicely.

There is no scientific model for any of the bullshit you just wrote, I can't even begin to imagine how fucked up your brain is to even come up with this bullshit in the first place

   I'm not sure if dishonest argument tactics or you can just scroll up a bit; I've highlighted the relevant section. The atmosphere is being displaced and it reacts by pushing back (a helium balloon rises for the same reason), the reactive force vector follows the electric field lines to the ground in the case of a falling object. The electric field polarizes the atmosphere when it acts on it and without this polarization the pressure from the atmosphere (aether in the case of an evacuated chamber) would be evenly distributed across the entire surface and the object would not experience any linear acceleration.

You did, tho, you used entropy many times to say evolution is impossible and I proved you wrong everytime. Don't lie now.

   There's an electric field between the dome and the ground that acts on the atmosphere, this field also defines up and down.

   An object (i.e. a person) that's more dense than the medium (the atmosphere) it's displacing gets pushed down, alternatively an object that's less dense (a helium balloon for e.g.) will get pushed up.

You'll need to phrase it in a way he understands.

I suggest you ask him how dense he is. 

Less than your mother.

^^^ You're so full of crap, you make assumptions like heliocentrism, pretend evolution is a fact and make ludicrous claims about the age of the earth. Your god gravity has to be taken on faith as its unproven, without it geology and thus evolution is just not possible.

Dr. Kevorkian can help you with that sick feeling you've got.

Stop pretending you know anything about science. God is responsible for emergence, not the Sun.

You haven't noticed yet? Although some Catholics are Christians, Catholicism isn't Christianity.

You already showed how little you understand by thinking that I am trying to debunk evolution with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Very funny from you when Hitler was educated as a catholic by his mother and Stalin was sent in an orthodox seminary

You already showed how little you understand by trying to debunk evolution with the 2nd law of thermodynamics and failed miserably, so stop.

Except for one major detail. I wrote the things in my links. I could simply repeat the writing, but anyone can go to the links. You, on the other hand, copied and pasted what you wrote, not really understanding much of any of it. When are you going to make a point, in your own words, that is actual science that talks about my science? I mean, you might be going to school and learning all about this stuff, so that you can actually say something worthwhile in your own words.

Saying that only proves my point, you can't refute anything because you don't have arguments and you copy paste the same thing over and over again.

Your proof debunks itself since you can't say it in simple language.

As has been noted several times, since you don't understand any supposed debunking you did, and since you can't say it in simple language, your debunking only debunks itself.

''and has evidence for it'' Not really, though. You also claim to have evidence for god's existence and I debunked that several times, you were unable to even respond.

The problem with your idea and your Wiki link is, nobody knows if it is your belief, or if you are only trying to get people to THINK that it is your belief.

What I mean is, when someone presents an idea that he believes in (Coincube), and someone else opposes that idea with a different belief (you), who knows if it is really a belief (that you have), or if it is simply an appearance of a belief, being used (by you) to discredit a person (Coincube) in a subtle, ad hominem way?

Coincube believes something, and has evidence for it. You claim to have an apposing belief, but you barely ever have evidence for it that can stand up even a little to Coincube's evidence.

So, the question is, do you really believe what you say, or are you using it to direct the minds of readers certain in directions, for political purposes, rather than to clarify ideas specifically presented? In other words, your Wiki article that you linked doesn't apply, because you are not being critical of Coincube's ideas and evidence. Rather, you are being critical of Coincube to make him look bad so that people will not think his ideas are any good.

What you are doing is standard political science. You don't "fight" Coincube on the points he makes. Rather you fight him by directing people towards the idea that he is a depraved or pitiful person, not worthy of the consideration of anyone.

And, that is the only way you fight. You have nothing of real value other than political science - lies and deception. And you are getting really good at it.