Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 256132 comments on the Webbunny tumblelog story from Jul 18, 2009, titled Atheism requires as much faith as religion?. In it, Webbunny tumblelog reports that:

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Webbunny tumblelog.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232579 Jul 14, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL I haven't lost the argument bozo, you just are too clueless to understand.
The distance is only finite within the event horizon, anything beyond it is at infinity.
Yes you will only travel a finite distance, but to get to the target you will have to travel an infinite distance.
If you have to travel an infinite distance to get to it, it is not there.

You can imagine it there.

In physical reality, no physical thing can be an infinite distance from where we stand.

In an infinite physical relationship, any portion of the distance would also be infinite distance.

To take one step in the direction of the "it" you speak of, that step would be an infinite distance, and would take an infinite time to traverse. Therefore, I could not move at all.

Any portion of the distance is not infinite, therefore the total distance is not infinite.

Congratulations. You found another way to lose.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232580 Jul 14, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Hilbert died long before we had the tools to actually measure space and discovered things like black holes actually exist.
He wasn't talking about tools. Tools are irrelevant.

He was talking about logic as it relates to math and physical reality.

He is still correct - infinity is only an abstract idea. No physical infinity is possible.

You are referring to mathematical theorizing and confusing it with physical reality.

Same as imaginary points in space. They do not exist.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232581 Jul 14, 2014
Godspeakinginmydreamslol wrote:
<quoted text>
If something is forever expanding in a rate faster than you can follow = infinite. Watch some Documentaries about the Universe, I promise it will expand your horizons.
Also peoples stupidity is infinite, Einstein was right in both cases!
Wrong.

If something is expanding, it cannot be infinite.

No sequence of addition can be infinite.

What is the expansion immediately preceding its becoming infinite?

Add 1. The result is the next finite value, not infinite.

Take that value. Add 1. The result is the next finite value, not infinite.

Repeat this process forever. When will it become infinite? Answer? Never

When you have repeated this sequence for the age of the universe, the resulting distance of expansion is,...

Finite.

Repeat the sequence a billion times longer than the age of the universe, and the resulting distance is,...

Finite.

Speed it up. The result is,...

Finite.

After doing this, how much nearer to an infinite expansion are you?

Answer:

No nearer.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232582 Jul 14, 2014
Godspeakinginmydreamslol wrote:
<quoted text>
I can imagine that the devil is speaking to me in my hand and kill you. Is that prove that the devil is real or what? If people choose to follow their imagination stuff happens.
If the devil tells you that, you best ignore him, or you would be coughing up your bloody teeth in about 5 seconds.
Godspeakinginmyd reamslol

Pleinfeld, Germany

#232583 Jul 14, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
If something is expanding, it cannot be infinite.
No sequence of addition can be infinite.
What is the expansion immediately preceding its becoming infinite?
Add 1. The result is the next finite value, not infinite.
Take that value. Add 1. The result is the next finite value, not infinite.
Repeat this process forever. When will it become infinite? Answer? Never
When you have repeated this sequence for the age of the universe, the resulting distance of expansion is,...
Finite.
Repeat the sequence a billion times longer than the age of the universe, and the resulting distance is,...
Finite.
Speed it up. The result is,...
Finite.
After doing this, how much nearer to an infinite expansion are you?
Answer:
No nearer.
Why can´t infinity expand? What do you know of physics? Do you understand quantum mechanics? When you know so much, you should post it to some university and tell them they are wrong.

Your reasoning fails in the observed reality of scientific inquiry.
Godspeakinginmyd reamslol

Pleinfeld, Germany

#232584 Jul 14, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
If the devil tells you that, you best ignore him, or you would be coughing up your bloody teeth in about 5 seconds.
you fail to understand logic. Why didn´t you bloody the polices teeth before they put you in jail?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232585 Jul 14, 2014
Godspeakinginmydreamslol wrote:
<quoted text>
you fail to understand logic. Why didn´t you bloody the polices teeth before they put you in jail?
I did. They sent more.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#232586 Jul 14, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I did. They sent more.
You are so tough!! It just gives me goose bumps reading about your exploits and bravery! LOL!

You are a 90lbs. weakling who could not fight your way out of a wet paper bag.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#232587 Jul 14, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
If you have to travel an infinite distance to get to it, it is not there.
You can imagine it there.
In physical reality, no physical thing can be an infinite distance from where we stand.
In an infinite physical relationship, any portion of the distance would also be infinite distance.
To take one step in the direction of the "it" you speak of, that step would be an infinite distance, and would take an infinite time to traverse. Therefore, I could not move at all.
Any portion of the distance is not infinite, therefore the total distance is not infinite.
Congratulations. You found another way to lose.
Your big goofy head just can't puzzle out that the distance IS finite between the two points.
The problem is that the distance is co moving so that to travel that distance between is impossible . Because the distance will take infinite travel time to traverse.
No matter how far you go toward the horizon it still retreating away faster than you can go.
Therefore even after traveling an infinite amount of time and distance it's still on the horizon.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#232588 Jul 14, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
He wasn't talking about tools. Tools are irrelevant.
He was talking about logic as it relates to math and physical reality.
He is still correct - infinity is only an abstract idea. No physical infinity is possible.
You are referring to mathematical theorizing and confusing it with physical reality.
Same as imaginary points in space. They do not exist.
You can't fix your kind of stupid. It is a physical reality.
You need the tools to measure with, so they are totally relevant.
Hilbert didn't know jack squat about event horizons, and like Einstein could not except that human logic and reality cannot be reconciled. Einstein didn't like the fact the universe was expanding and could not accept that things like black holes exist, despite the fact his theory predicts them. He could never puzzle out that the forces that govern the universe are probabilistic rather than deterministic either. Hilbert was wrong, Einstein was wrong and you are wrong.
Godspeakinginmyd reamslol

Pleinfeld, Germany

#232589 Jul 14, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I did. They sent more.
:D At least you are funny. But tell me simply who defines words. Why did we invent the word infinity and when we know what we know, how can you think the universe is not infinite for humans?
Lab28

Anaheim, CA

#232590 Jul 14, 2014
TheBlackSheep wrote:
Out of all that, these two points were the only ones worth any comment at all.
<quoted text>
Forcing people to say they believe a certain way worked well for christianity. During the inquisitions, who would you have sided with? How about the crusades? How many times has some form of your god be forced on people? Is force OK when it is your god?
Keeping government out of all private matters seems to be the best answer.
I agree.
TheBlackSheep wrote:
So, did you change the mind of god or was he going to do it anyway.
If I knew the mind of God, I wouldn't have to have faith, would I? But in terms of that wouldn't it make sense to say that since the goal in Christianity is a relationship with God that the evidence for Him occurs in the hearts of those who have sought Him. We know there isn't a tooth fairy, or an easter bunny, or santa claus. Why, because we sought them as children and found out there was nothing down that road.
But God's a little different than those childhood fantasies isn't He? Does thirst prove the existence of water? That is to say, if you were just thrown into existence and realized you were thirsty without knowing what water is, you would know you were missing something right? That you had a need that if left unsatisfied could result in something bad. If you didn't find water you would eventually die.
How come every culture has had the need to assemble looking at an empty space saying "thank you, and this is what else I need." It doesn't satisfy any survival instincts. Yet it seems to be a need that must be filled... Of course that isn't proof, but it might be evidence. Faith for the skeptic generally occurs through the preponderance of evidence. Like Thomas, it wasn't good enough that Jesus, who had just been crucified was standing before him. He needed to see the wounds in His hands and side. But Jesus didn't say "take it on faith", He said "look".
If you're looking for a smoking gun you're not going to find it. But there is evidence. I don't think it's my job to bring that evidence to you. It's a matter of "seek and you shall find".

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#232591 Jul 14, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
The story of Noah's ark was made by an individual.
Fixed that for you.
of course it was, dumb dumb!

who but noah could document the story as well as noah?! sheesh......

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#232592 Jul 14, 2014
Blacksheep wrote:
<quoted text>Forcing people to say they believe a certain way worked well for christianity. During the inquisitions, who would you have sided with? How about the crusades? How many times has some form of your god be forced on people? Is force OK when it is your god?
Keeping government out of all private matters seems to be the best answer.
Lab28 wrote:
<quoted text>I agree.
That's great! Now if we could convince those other believers out there to keep their religious beliefs out of government, we would being doing great!
Lab28 wrote:
<quoted text>If I knew the mind of God, I wouldn't have to have faith, would I? But in terms of that wouldn't it make sense to say that since the goal in Christianity is a relationship with God
Where in the bible did god say he wanted a relationship with us?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232593 Jul 14, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Your big goofy head just can't puzzle out that the distance IS finite between the two points.
The problem is that the distance is co moving so that to travel that distance between is impossible . Because the distance will take infinite travel time to traverse.
No matter how far you go toward the horizon it still retreating away faster than you can go.
Therefore even after traveling an infinite amount of time and distance it's still on the horizon.
Wrong and stupid.

"co-moving" doesn't change a thing about the problem.

The horizon can be moving faster than you can go, but both are still moving a finite distance and neither can be moving an infinite distance. If the object is moving a billion times faster than the slower, it's distance covered is the distance covered by the slower object X 1 billion - which is finite and always will be.

The fact that one object cannot catch up to the faster object does not mean the distance traveled by the faster object is infinite. The distance is finite, whether you ever catch up or not.

Congratulations. You found another way to lose.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232594 Jul 14, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't fix your kind of stupid. It is a physical reality.
You need the tools to measure with, so they are totally relevant.
Hilbert didn't know jack squat about event horizons, and like Einstein could not except that human logic and reality cannot be reconciled. Einstein didn't like the fact the universe was expanding and could not accept that things like black holes exist, despite the fact his theory predicts them. He could never puzzle out that the forces that govern the universe are probabilistic rather than deterministic either. Hilbert was wrong, Einstein was wrong and you are wrong.
The event horizon has not been measured. Your result is not the result of measuring tools.

It is the result of theoretical mathematical operations.

You can have all the infinites you want in theoretical mathematics.

In physical reality - none. Zero.

Two co-movnig entities can move through all time, one receding faster than the other, and the distance traveled by both will be FINITE.

The co-moving factor DOES NOT REMOVE THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF REACHING INFINITY BY ADDITION.

You are too dumb to see that the slower never catching the faster does not result in an infinite physical distance being traveled by either.

Plus you don't even have the concept right.

No physical infinite quantity can exist.

"physical quantity" and "infinite' are contradictory.

Do you know any married bachelors?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232595 Jul 14, 2014
Godspeakinginmydreamslol wrote:
<quoted text>
:D At least you are funny. But tell me simply who defines words. Why did we invent the word infinity and when we know what we know, how can you think the universe is not infinite for humans?
Infinity is an idea that symbolizes an unreachable extent or magnitude. It has no finite quality.

It is useful in transfinite math theory. In order to operate with it in mathematics, certain rules have to be changed for transfinite math so as to avoid the absurdities that result from its use, as in infinity being larger than a portion of infinity, but also the same.

It is an abstract idea, having no application to physical reality, and no quantity in physical reality can be infinite.

It is not a quantity. It is a lack of quantifiable-ness.

"Physical quantity" and "infinite" are contradictory.

To say a physical phenomenon - like the universe - is infinite is an absurdity and self-contradictory.

No physical phenomenon can be infinite.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232596 Jul 14, 2014
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
That's great! Now if we could convince those other believers out there to keep their religious beliefs out of government, we would being doing great!
Our government was conceived on the basis of a religious belief.

Namely, the belief that our equality and rights were endowed via our creation by God, and people were bound together as a government of themselves for protection of such rights.

To accept your idea of keeping religious beliefs out of government would mean destroying our government in the United States.

If you want to destroy our government, I think you will meet resistance.



“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#232597 Jul 14, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Our government was conceived on the basis of a religious belief.
Namely, the belief that our equality and rights were endowed via our creation by God, and people were bound together as a government of themselves for protection of such rights.
To accept your idea of keeping religious beliefs out of government would mean destroying our government in the United States.
If you want to destroy our government, I think you will meet resistance.
There ya go again! Adding words that are not there.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#232598 Jul 14, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong and stupid.
"co-moving" doesn't change a thing about the problem.
The horizon can be moving faster than you can go, but both are still moving a finite distance and neither can be moving an infinite distance. If the object is moving a billion times faster than the slower, it's distance covered is the distance covered by the slower object X 1 billion - which is finite and always will be.
The fact that one object cannot catch up to the faster object does not mean the distance traveled by the faster object is infinite. The distance is finite, whether you ever catch up or not.
Congratulations. You found another way to lose.

Are you this as stupid as the dog who chases tires?
Yes it means to catch up the distance is infinite , because limp brains and second string Alabama rejects can't puzzle out infinity is not a abstract concept , but a reality of time coordinates.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Notliz 1,406,467
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Wed Trojan 32,308
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) Wed ThomasA 311,496
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Jul 27 IB DaMann 9,991
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Jul 25 NotInPotatoQuality 201,878
legitimate loan lender (Oct '13) Jul 21 Ceren 7
What Ever Happen To Niagara Basketball (May '15) Jul 17 Disappointed PE 3
More from around the web