Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258482 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.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233393 Jul 24, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Time is only a part of the equation Buck, one that can be manipulated, bent twisted and stopped entirely. You will never achieve the level .
You forgot to tell us what "A" is.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#233395 Jul 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You forgot to tell us what "A" is.
Infinitesimal, unmeasurably or infinitely small.

Since: Sep 08

United States

#233396 Jul 24, 2014
CunningLinguist wrote:
<quoted text>
No I don't care about one single poster on this public thread. And in particular useless people like yourself.
It's always indicative of how smart person is by the language that they use .
Childish insults seem to be about all you have - yawns
Your life has been a failure by your own admissions and continues to decline.
Have you considered surrendering your body for medical experiments ? I believe that's the only thing it is good for.
The truth may set you free but first it'll really piss you off.
I believe it's time for you to return to your useless posting, get typing everyone looks forward to seeing another 8000 entries from you.
Feed that massive ego - create your own thread. Call it 'bad shit crazy.'
Your fan club will respond to you!
Conversely Your Absence from this thread will be greatly appreciated.
I have a question for you.

Take two prople that survived to old age. One followed the expectations established for him by the current society, the Well Respected Man of that old song. The other bruised and battered and very experienced in the emotions of life. The uppers and the downers of it. Let's say they tasted a lot of it flavors.

Then they both die.

Which was the failure?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233397 Jul 24, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Infinitesimal, unmeasurably or infinitely small.
I see.

That makes the equation "infintesimally small" x 13.8 billion = Infinity

No, that makes no sense.

Try again.

"A" x 13.8 billion = Infinity; where "A" is average rate of expansion, 13.8 billion years is the elapsed time.

I have given you plenty of time to work on this.

Is there a problem?

Since: Sep 08

United States

#233398 Jul 24, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Infinitesimal, unmeasurably or infinitely small.
Your rock solid confidence in vaporous concepts is a true inspiration. How can anyone doubt your wisdom and understanding when it comes to reality?
Patrick

United States

#233399 Jul 24, 2014
The Republican budget makes very clear choices: special-interest tax breaks at the expense of middle-class families and those working hard to climb out of poverty and into the middle class.

Republicans voted for a one-third cut in tax rates for millionaires while targeting about two thirds of their budget cuts to initiatives that help middle- and lower-income individuals.

Once fully phased in, the GOP budget would reduce SNAP benefits by more than one quarter, potentially hurting millions of vulnerable Americans, almost half of whom are kids.

And while Republicans are quick to insist that federal assistance recipients must work, they ignore the fact that 80 percent of SNAP beneficiaries are children, the disabled, and the elderly, who are not expected to work, or individuals who do work.

Morality of the war on the poor by the GOP

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233400 Jul 24, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Infinitesimal, unmeasurably or infinitely small.
Since you are a simpleton, I'll make it simpler for you.

What average speed does X have to travel to traverse an infinite distance in 13.8 billion years?

This is a very simple problem.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#233401 Jul 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I see.
That makes the equation "infintesimally small" x 13.8 billion = Infinity
No, that makes no sense.
Try again.
"A" x 13.8 billion = Infinity; where "A" is average rate of expansion, 13.8 billion years is the elapsed time.
I have given you plenty of time to work on this.
Is there a problem?
You are asking me to measure the immeasurable to justify your belief it can be. The initial expansion from an infinitesimal is theoretical and not actually measurable, since it expanded from every point in space and every point appears to be the initial expansion point. At 10-^37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused *cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially.

See Space expands
This is just like an inside-out black hole metric—it has a zero in the dt component on a fixed radius sphere called the cosmological horizon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_%28cos...

So you see you still have to deal with a cosmological horizon, where beyond this point it's infinite, and we can only measure the observable horizon.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#233402 Jul 24, 2014
An immeasurably small thing became an immeasurably large thing.
How hard is it to grasp the reality of it?
We can only measure the universe since light became possible after the Inflationary epoch, and after this the redshift indicates faster than light expansion for 13.7 billion years.
It is possible space was spatially infinite after the Inflationary epoch, we simply have no way to measure it.
See..

http://www.spacetimesociety.org/Monton2.html

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233403 Jul 24, 2014
Patrick wrote:
The Republican budget makes very clear choices: special-interest tax breaks at the expense of middle-class families and those working hard to climb out of poverty and into the middle class.
Republicans voted for a one-third cut in tax rates for millionaires while targeting about two thirds of their budget cuts to initiatives that help middle- and lower-income individuals.
Once fully phased in, the GOP budget would reduce SNAP benefits by more than one quarter, potentially hurting millions of vulnerable Americans, almost half of whom are kids.
And while Republicans are quick to insist that federal assistance recipients must work, they ignore the fact that 80 percent of SNAP beneficiaries are children, the disabled, and the elderly, who are not expected to work, or individuals who do work.
Morality of the war on the poor by the GOP
The SNAP program is a disaster. In 2000, only 17.3 million people were on food stamps. That number has ballooned to 46.6 million. It has grown faster than other subsidy programs for the poor, and grown while unemployment is falling.

You are lying about the work requirements. The requirements incentivized work in a very moderate way by stating that able-bodied recipients without dependents would receive benefits only three out of every 36 months unless they worked at least part time.

So no, it does not force children and the disabled to work.

Your entire case is built on lies.

Since: Sep 08

United States

#233404 Jul 24, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> You are asking me to measure the immeasurable to justify your belief it can be. The initial expansion from an infinitesimal is theoretical and not actually measurable, since it expanded from every point in space and every point appears to be the initial expansion point. At 10-^37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused *cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially.
See Space expands
This is just like an inside-out black hole metric—it has a zero in the dt component on a fixed radius sphere called the cosmological horizon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_%28cos...
So you see you still have to deal with a cosmological horizon, where beyond this point it's infinite, and we can only measure the observable horizon.
Kewl, Mr. Einstein^4, you set up a bank shot to put you in the side pocket.

Every point in space? From a singularity?

Let's get real infinitestimal, mathematical, and conceptual.

Remember my hex plotting of points in a plane or volume?

Let's get to the ultimate infinitestimally smallest point. Your starting point for expansion. You can't expand unless you have someplace to start, in the real world, anyhow. We will start on a plane.

Draw a point, Sparky. How many directions can you then proceed in? Well, lets draw the same size points around it. You will get 6. Now you can take a step. Now draw points around that step you took. How many directions can you go now without turning around? Work your way out. Keep in mind that first step started motion. Also keep in mind you can't turn around on a single point. Something about radius and pi. What is pi times an infinitestimally small point and the path width you will have to follow from it?

Now proceed and create your universe by going 3D. Don't forget the 7/8th base of height between the centers of your theoretical smallest points, and thus incremental distance. Plays hell with a continuum. All it takes is paper and pencil and an understanding.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233405 Jul 24, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> You are asking me to measure the immeasurable to justify your belief it can be. The initial expansion from an infinitesimal is theoretical and not actually measurable, since it expanded from every point in space and every point appears to be the initial expansion point. At 10-^37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused *cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially.
See Space expands
This is just like an inside-out black hole metric—it has a zero in the dt component on a fixed radius sphere called the cosmological horizon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_%28cos...
So you see you still have to deal with a cosmological horizon, where beyond this point it's infinite, and we can only measure the observable horizon.
Wow. That must have looked really impressive to you when you copied it.

Trouble is, it has nothing to do with my question.

I didn't ask you to measure anything.

You claim the universe has expanded from a small finite extension to an infinite distance.

And Big Bang theory says that expansion has been occuring roughly 13.8 billion years.

Without measuring anything, you should be able to tell me what average rate of expansion is required to expand an infinite distance in 13.8 billion years.

Or,

"A" x 13.8 billion = Infinity

What is "A"?

Do you not understand speed x time = distance?

Why will you not tell us "A"?

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#233406 Jul 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. That must have looked really impressive to you when you copied it.
Trouble is, it has nothing to do with my question.
I didn't ask you to measure anything.
You claim the universe has expanded from a small finite extension to an infinite distance.
And Big Bang theory says that expansion has been occuring roughly 13.8 billion years.
Without measuring anything, you should be able to tell me what average rate of expansion is required to expand an infinite distance in 13.8 billion years.
Or,
"A" x 13.8 billion = Infinity
What is "A"?
Do you not understand speed x time = distance?
Why will you not tell us "A"?
You're too daft to see I answered that question.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233407 Jul 24, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
An immeasurably small thing became an immeasurably large thing.
How hard is it to grasp the reality of it?
We can only measure the universe since light became possible after the Inflationary epoch, and after this the redshift indicates faster than light expansion for 13.7 billion years.
It is possible space was spatially infinite after the Inflationary epoch, we simply have no way to measure it.
See..
http://www.spacetimesociety.org/Monton2.html
I get it. You are saying a very small thing became extended to an infinite distance

But, as everyone but you knows, achieving an infinite by a sequence of finite addition is impossible.

That's the only kink in your theory - it's impossible.

Hope you can work around it.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#233408 Jul 24, 2014
CunningLinguist wrote:
<quoted text>
Please define willfully ignorant for us.
Are you willfully ignorant of Islam of Judaism of Taoism?
Are you willfully ignorant of modern science?
Are you willfully ignorant of fossils, of dinosaurs?
I do appreciate you sharing your mythology but that's all it is - mythology.
I challenge you to provide evidence that your God is the only true God in a way religions other than yours cannot do or provide evidence that your holy book is true in a way that religions other than yours cannot do with their holy books.
Now... just how willfully ignorant are you?
Have a great day unless you've made other plans.
willfully ignorant in your case, is that you're here to attack Christianity rather than Islam or Judaism or Taoism.....

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#233409 Jul 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I get it. You are saying a very small thing became extended to an infinite distance
But, as everyone but you knows, achieving an infinite by a sequence of finite addition is impossible.
That's the only kink in your theory - it's impossible.
Hope you can work around it.
Your belief that it is impossible has been observed extensively. But it doesn't mean it's impossible, it means it was infinite the whole time.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233410 Jul 24, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Your belief that it is impossible has been observed extensively. But it doesn't mean it's impossible, it means it was infinite the whole time.
You changed your story again.

It could not have been infinite the whole time, because you already explained "infintesimally small" in relation to the birth of the universe. Some describe the beginning as "infinitely dense", but that is not "infinitely large". It's also not infinitely dense either, but that's another story.

Now, you have the problem of something very small in extent, "infintesimally small", expanding to a distance that is "infinite".

We can estimate the elapsed time at 13.8 billion years.

So your problem is "A" x 13.8 billion = Infinity, where "A" is the average rate of expansion.

What is "A"?

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#233411 Jul 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You changed your story again.
It could not have been infinite the whole time, because you already explained "infintesimally small" in relation to the birth of the universe. Some describe the beginning as "infinitely dense", but that is not "infinitely large". It's also not infinitely dense either, but that's another story.
Now, you have the problem of something very small in extent, "infintesimally small", expanding to a distance that is "infinite".
We can estimate the elapsed time at 13.8 billion years.
So your problem is "A" x 13.8 billion = Infinity, where "A" is the average rate of expansion.
What is "A"?
An infinitesimal is infinitely small, Buck.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233412 Jul 24, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:

"An immeasurably small thing became an immeasurably large thing."

Aura Mytha wrote:

"...it was infinite the whole time."
----------

Bwahahahhahahahahahhahahhahaha hahahahahhahahahahhahahahahaha hahhahahahhahahahhah....whoa.
----------

Buck: "A finite cannot become infinite by addition"

Aura: "It started infinite"

Buck: "But Big Bang theory says it started small"

Aura: "That's right. It started infintesimally small"

Buck: "But a small finite cannot become infinite by addition"

Aura: "It started infinite"

Buck: "You said it started very small. How can it be very small but extend an infinite distance?"

Aura: "Because you can't measure it"

Buck: "What if you had an infinitely long measuring tape?"

Aura:...scratches his head...

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233413 Jul 24, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>An infinitesimal is infinitely small, Buck.
So what?

Infinitely small still has to have its components traverse infinite distance to expand to the infinite universe you claim.

Infinitley small just means your expansion has to start from zero instead of some small finite number.

You still have the same problem.

"A" x 13.8 billion = Infinity

What is "A"? Are you afraid to answer?

Meanwhile, if something is "infinitely small", what if you cut it in half?

It would be half as large, and also equally large.

Which means nothing can be infinitely small.

Any such computation involving "infinitely small" cannot represent anything in the actual universe. Neither can "infinitely large".

A computational foundation where "less than" and "equal to" are not contradictory is not a representation of reality.

An infinite universe is impossible in reality.

In your head? That's another story.

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 Incognito4Ever 1,656,484
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 5 min June VanDerMark 322,021
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 1 hr Trojan 35,083
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 2 hr Research 11,896
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Nov 26 Okboy 201,885
How to Recover Deleted or lost Contacts from Sa... (Dec '14) Sep '17 Alice Meng 13
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Sep '17 Love 292
More from around the web