Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.
Comments
153,221 - 153,240 of 225,579 Comments Last updated 47 min ago

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159391
Mar 10, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No 'decision' is made. Yes, the timing of a radioactive decay is porbabilistic. There is nothing that distinguishes a nucleus that is about to decay from any other nucleus of the same sort.
<quoted text>
Yes, it is a probabilistic event that happens according to the laws of quantum mechanic, which are a-causal. No 'decisions' are made, so no intelligence is implied. But radioactive decays are NOT determined. There is nothing that happens 'just before' a decay that is any different than at any other time. In that sense, they are uncaused.
Sorry if reality doesn't correspond with your intuitions.
That explained it better'n I did.

Thanks.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159392
Mar 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No 'decision' is made. Yes, the timing of a radioactive decay is porbabilistic. There is nothing that distinguishes a nucleus that is about to decay from any other nucleus of the same sort.
<quoted text>
Yes, it is a probabilistic event that happens according to the laws of quantum mechanic, which are a-causal. No 'decisions' are made, so no intelligence is implied. But radioactive decays are NOT determined. There is nothing that happens 'just before' a decay that is any different than at any other time. In that sense, they are uncaused.
Sorry if reality doesn't correspond with your intuitions.
I don't think you can comprehend how idiotic and space cadetish that sounds.

Probabilistic? That means it can happen or not, or will eventually happen?

Poof!! Things just happen. That takes an extraordinary belief beyond what is considered, or was considered, scientific and objective thought.

The numbers ate your brain.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159393
Mar 10, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No 'decision' is made.
But their decay is uncaused.
<quoted text>
Brains are a bit larger than atomic nuclei.
<quoted text>
No. Life is a chemical process.As you like to point out, it is mediated mostly by the E&M force (subject to quantum effects, though). Nuclear decay is mediated by either the strong or weak nuclear forces (depending on the type of decay)
<quoted text>
Non-sequitur.
Decay does have a cause I think, but it
"the cause" is in itself is probabilistic. Or more correctly stated that it is "influenced" by a probabilistic cause . Do you know what I'm talking about?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159394
Mar 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

A word about "intuition".

As organisms that grew from the process, there is s certain innate "intuition" to all of us.

That intuition is what has us allowed to survive, and even develop science for all of these years. It has been active for a lot longer than the last several decades of men who had an intuition, turned it into a theory, which then became worshiped, primarily through books, and is now preached as the truth. Poof!!! Here we are!!! Believe in our magical numbers.

Sound familiar?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159395
Mar 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think you can comprehend how idiotic and space cadetish that sounds.
Probabilistic? That means it can happen or not, or will eventually happen?
Poof!! Things just happen. That takes an extraordinary belief beyond what is considered, or was considered, scientific and objective thought.
The numbers ate your brain.
Yes.

You just don't get ANY of the quantum thing, do you?
Anon

Lakewood, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159396
Mar 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Christians don't believe in invisible wizards. That's an atheist thing.
This coming from the man who stated god touched his head.
blacklagoon

Revere, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159397
Mar 10, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't. Christians don't believe in an invisible sky wizard. That's an atheist thing.
Y'all just can't seem to fathom God in any other way than a magical human being...
Hummm....lets see here.

1.) It exists, or so they say, but it can't be seen..........equals...INVISAB LE

2.) It supposedly created mankind in HIS IMAGE AND LIKENESS....equals----A HUMAN BEING

3.) It created man, supposedly, by scooping up some dirt and blew on it, out popped a fully formed human......equals.....MAGIC.

4.) He supposedly dwells in heaven, heaven is ALWAYS denoted as UP, up equals......THE SKY.

5.) Can't see it (even though it exists and is active in your everyday life, so they say) performs magic like a wizard, dwells in heaven, always looking skyward hence.....AN INVISIBLE SKY WIZARD WHO LOOKS LIKE A MAN. Now twist and turn, but this is how your God thing is described by Christians.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159398
Mar 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Yes.
You just don't get ANY of the quantum thing, do you?
I probably use a version of it in my own thinking, but it is based upon geometry, and not block long formulas.

Now, Mr Devoted Worshiper of mystical science, let me tell you an utter truth. This is in the realm of reality.

This is a fact. Belief in anything else is belief in magic.

Those probabilities and nuclear wild hairs are the result of a wrong theory. You can't make up fantasy particles and use lady luck as props for a real theory. That simple. You missed something along the way. In the case of quantum physics it is likely the theory was based upon a model that was assembled incorrectly.

But instead of doing real science, these theorists keep putting bandaids on a bleeding horse.

Oh, and the science corrects itself routine. It only will if you let it.

Go back and worship your bandaged idol, sorry, meant model.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159399
Mar 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Hummm....lets see here.
1.) It exists, or so they say, but it can't be seen..........equals...INVISAB LE
2.) It supposedly created mankind in HIS IMAGE AND LIKENESS....equals----A HUMAN BEING
3.) It created man, supposedly, by scooping up some dirt and blew on it, out popped a fully formed human......equals.....MAGIC.
4.) He supposedly dwells in heaven, heaven is ALWAYS denoted as UP, up equals......THE SKY.
5.) Can't see it (even though it exists and is active in your everyday life, so they say) performs magic like a wizard, dwells in heaven, always looking skyward hence.....AN INVISIBLE SKY WIZARD WHO LOOKS LIKE A MAN. Now twist and turn, but this is how your God thing is described by Christians.
If you were a hemorrhoid, which you may be, would you see your creator or host?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159401
Mar 10, 2013
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
I probably use a version of it in my own thinking, but it is based upon geometry, and not block long formulas.
Now, Mr Devoted Worshiper of mystical science, let me tell you an utter truth. This is in the realm of reality.
This is a fact. Belief in anything else is belief in magic.
Those probabilities and nuclear wild hairs are the result of a wrong theory. You can't make up fantasy particles and use lady luck as props for a real theory. That simple. You missed something along the way. In the case of quantum physics it is likely the theory was based upon a model that was assembled incorrectly.
But instead of doing real science, these theorists keep putting bandaids on a bleeding horse.
Oh, and the science corrects itself routine. It only will if you let it.
Go back and worship your bandaged idol, sorry, meant model.
Ah, we need to chuck all of modern physics, and follow you.

Gottit.

Wait, that sounds vaguely familiar...

Never mind.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159402
Mar 10, 2013
 
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Hummm....lets see here.
1.) It exists, or so they say, but it can't be seen..........equals...INVISAB LE
2.) It supposedly created mankind in HIS IMAGE AND LIKENESS....equals----A HUMAN BEING
3.) It created man, supposedly, by scooping up some dirt and blew on it, out popped a fully formed human......equals.....MAGIC.
4.) He supposedly dwells in heaven, heaven is ALWAYS denoted as UP, up equals......THE SKY.
5.) Can't see it (even though it exists and is active in your everyday life, so they say) performs magic like a wizard, dwells in heaven, always looking skyward hence.....AN INVISIBLE SKY WIZARD WHO LOOKS LIKE A MAN. Now twist and turn, but this is how your God thing is described by Christians.
BTW, Buckethead do blues.



Jazz and other stuff, too. Even a trumpet is included in some of those.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159403
Mar 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Ah, we need to chuck all of modern physics, and follow you.
Gottit.
Wait, that sounds vaguely familiar...
Never mind.
No need to follow me. Just quit following others blindly because of what you read in a book. They can make misinterpretations and mistakes, too.

But that would leave you all alone.

Don't forget the donation box on your way out.
blacklagoon

Revere, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159404
Mar 10, 2013
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
If you were a hemorrhoid, which you may be, would you see your creator or host?
Invalid point, but do keep trying!!!!
Jimmy

Northwich, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159405
Mar 10, 2013
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
No need to follow me. Just quit following others blindly because of what you read in a book. They can make misinterpretations and mistakes, too.
But that would leave you all alone.
Don't forget the donation box on your way out.
Are you selling scientology?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159406
Mar 10, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Decay does have a cause I think, but it
"the cause" is in itself is probabilistic. Or more correctly stated that it is "influenced" by a probabilistic cause . Do you know what I'm talking about?
Let me be more specific. The composition (and energy level) determines whether the nucleus is stable or not. In that sense, the stability or instability is cased. If it is unstable, the timing of the decay is completely probabilistic. There is no difference between a nucleus that is about to decay and one that is not. In that sense, there is no cause to the decay.
blacklagoon

Revere, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159407
Mar 10, 2013
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW, Buckethead do blues.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =xJ1p8IYbv6EXX
Jazz and other stuff, too. Even a trumpet is included in some of those.
Blues? ha ha ha ha You gotta be kidding!!!! The first part of this the same 4 note bass line over and over. When he finally attempts to play a blues form, which is a very strict musical form, he misplaces the 4 Chord a number of times. A blues need's the 4 chord on the fifth measure, not the seventh like he did a couple of times. He's making a valiant ATTEMPT to play a minor blues, unfortunately he's not using the right tensions on the chords to bring out the true blues sound. I doubt this guy would know a blues, or anything related to jazz if it crawled up his leg and bit him on the ass. I dare say any beginning guitarists could copy what pukebucket has done here. Give me a guitar and a few minutes and I could do better that this. At least I'd put the 4 chord where it belongs. Holy shit, every time you post of these musical abortions he gets worse and worse. LOL

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159408
Mar 10, 2013
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
I probably use a version of it in my own thinking, but it is based upon geometry, and not block long formulas.
Now, Mr Devoted Worshiper of mystical science, let me tell you an utter truth. This is in the realm of reality.
This is a fact. Belief in anything else is belief in magic.
Those probabilities and nuclear wild hairs are the result of a wrong theory. You can't make up fantasy particles and use lady luck as props for a real theory. That simple. You missed something along the way. In the case of quantum physics it is likely the theory was based upon a model that was assembled incorrectly.
But instead of doing real science, these theorists keep putting bandaids on a bleeding horse.
Oh, and the science corrects itself routine. It only will if you let it.
Go back and worship your bandaged idol, sorry, meant model.
The problem is that your belief is not evidence that the theory is wrong. What determines whether a theory is right or wrong is the ability to predict actual observations. And *that* condition is satisfied quite well by quantum mechanics. Furthermore, any assumption of local causality is *known* to be wrong based on actual observations independent of quantum mechanics (although consistent with it).

Sorry that the universe does not have to abide by your intuitions.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159409
Mar 10, 2013
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think you can comprehend how idiotic and space cadetish that sounds.
Probabilistic? That means it can happen or not, or will eventually happen?
Poof!! Things just happen. That takes an extraordinary belief beyond what is considered, or was considered, scientific and objective thought.
The numbers ate your brain.
None the less, this is how the real world works. I'm sorry it doesn't agree with your intuition of your mistaken ideas of how science has to work.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159410
Mar 10, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me be more specific. The composition (and energy level) determines whether the nucleus is stable or not. In that sense, the stability or instability is cased. If it is unstable, the timing of the decay is completely probabilistic. There is no difference between a nucleus that is about to decay and one that is not. In that sense, there is no cause to the decay.

Yes but can it be "influenced" Or isn't it known that there is an influence? I consider it beyond the scope of determination for several factors. But we have discovered several mechanisms as contributing factors.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#159411
Mar 10, 2013
 
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
No need to follow me. Just quit following others blindly because of what you read in a book. They can make misinterpretations and mistakes, too.
But that would leave you all alone.
Don't forget the donation box on your way out.
OK, you give the alternative explanation to the actual observations that have accumulated over the last century. Start with the double-slit experiment and the interference effects of electrons. Then proceed to the properties of the Kaon and the difference between the neutral kaon and its anti-particle. Then you can explain the violations of Bell's inequalities and how you get a picture consistent with your views that agrees with those observations.

You can claim the observations are mis-interpreted, but you have to give an alternative explanation that predicts and explains the observations before you can support that claim.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Other Recent NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min positronium 1,095,458
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 16 min Life is Love 305,384
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 49 min Trojan 26,966
I got my loan from stephenloanhelp@hotmail.com (May '13) Tue RICK SERVICE 28
loan needed (Dec '13) Aug 12 Simon 5
loan offer (Jun '13) Aug 10 Tram 81
Na Aug 9 rrg cgr 1

Search the NCAA Basketball Forum:
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••