Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

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. Full Story

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174921 Aug 18, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Every morning I awake. I don't see why I should be persuading you towards my religious beliefs. This is a tread for you to prove yours. In an era of many people giving their beliefs, I don't rank Atheist in the top 10 of likelihood.
Of course you don't think that-- you are in the MAJORITY at the present time.

But that time has come-- and is going, fast.

Soon?

Soon you **will** be required to justify your bigotry and hate-- or you will be penalized for public display of it.

Just as you can no longer openly display your hate for People Of Color in the US?(well-- for the most part)

And you are rapidly losing your "right" to display your hatred of LGBT?

Soon enough, you'll be in the **minority** with regards to your idiotic beliefs.

You really ought to be thinking about **that** and begin formulating your "justification" for your ugly hatebeliefs.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174922 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> About time. When defining the age of the universe time is defined linear. 16 bil yrs ago or whatever. Now time is defined as a point on a globe?
The above idiotic statement?

Is 100% proof you are not qualified in ANY way to criticize ANYTHING about physics.

At all.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#174923 Aug 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>But it is not a statement that directly applies to the real world. It follows from certain *assumptions* and definitions concerning 1,+,= and 2 and their properties. These assumptions are invented by humans as a language to help us understand. Because they are abstract, that language can potentially be used in a large number of situations. But it is an experimental question whether the assumptions hold in any given physical situation. Pure logic cannot say when such assumptions do and do not hold.

For example, the equation 1+1=2 doe not hold in the following:

1. Take 1 marble and smash it into another 1 marble at high energy. You will get 0 pebbles and a variety of fragments.

2. Take 1 quart of water and 1 quart of alcohol and mix them. You will not get 2 quarts of mixture, but slightly less.

3. Take 1 proton and smash it into another 1 proton. You will often get out 3 protons and one anti-proton. Sometimes you will get more.

The point is that the assumptions of the abstract statement 1+1=2 do not apply in these physical cases, so the conclusion may fail (and actually does in these examples).

What happens in abstract mathematics and logic is that we *assume* certain basic propositions and rules of deduction and derive new propositions. As long as the assumptions and rules of deduction are correct, the conclusions are valid. But in no physical situation can you absolutely know that the assumptions are, in fact, correct. So what happens is that we *test* the assumptions to the best of our ability and then use the conclusions, testing them also as a further test of our assumptions. In this way, we learn which assumptions hold for the real world and which do not. Even more, we learn when various assumptions can and cannot be used to help us understand what happens in reality.
"Take 1 marble and smash it into another 1 marble at high energy. You will get 0 pebbles and a variety of fragments."

This is not 1+1
This is something like ((1(impact survivability speed))/(speed))+((1(impact survivability speed))/(speed))=x

"Take 1 quart of water and 1 quart of alcohol and mix them. You will not get 2 quarts of mixture, but slightly less."

This is not 1+ 1= 2

This is 1a + 1b = 1a + 1b

"Take 1 proton and smash it into another 1 proton. You will often get out 3 protons and one anti-proton. Sometimes you will get more."

1a+1a+E=x

Well these formulas are not perfect you should get the idea that you are adding more to the equation then just 1+1.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#174924 Aug 18, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
And the majority of Topix self professed atheists don't know WTF they believe. But the name sounds cool, and it gives them a license to be obnoxious, they believe.
License to be obnoxious. 100% correct. That is all atheism is. An imaginary license to behave in any way they choose with no accountability to anyone or anything. It is the ultimate delusion. To be fair there are a few notable exceptions, Poly, Hiding and Aura come to mind.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#174925 Aug 18, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
If the universe expanded from a singularity, outward in all directions, yes, gravity could be considered as curved spacetime. Would certainly take on that appearance to an observer in the midst. Might not be, but would certainly look that way. One could even think that space would be curved according to the mass distributions it is in line with. It could be more curvy in some places more than others. Could even create, oops, there's that word, forms and shapes.
Gravity has one pretty well defined characteristic. It works in straight lines. Always has.
Your curved spacetime is illusory. Caused by staring at papers too much.

Curved space and space/time geometry is only a 2D representation and a way of understanding a 4D effect.
It's taking a linear slice out of a path to represent the effect.
It still doesn't give a complete picture, but allows an abstract understanding what effect acceleration or mass has between two points physically and temporally and the objects on these paths. The truth is somewhere between Newton and Einstein, unfortunately
we haven't discovered it yet.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174926 Aug 18, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"Take 1 marble and smash it into another 1 marble at high energy. You will get 0 pebbles and a variety of fragments."
This is not 1+1
This is something like ((1(impact survivability speed))/(speed))+((1(impact survivability speed))/(speed))=x
"Take 1 quart of water and 1 quart of alcohol and mix them. You will not get 2 quarts of mixture, but slightly less."
This is not 1+ 1= 2
This is 1a + 1b = 1a + 1b
"Take 1 proton and smash it into another 1 proton. You will often get out 3 protons and one anti-proton. Sometimes you will get more."
1a+1a+E=x
Well these formulas are not perfect you should get the idea that you are adding more to the equation then just 1+1.
And that is part of my point: that simply stating that 1+1=2 misses important aspects when it is applied to a physical situation. Whether the abstract rules apply or not is a matter of observation and testing, not of pure logic.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#174927 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> About time. When defining the age of the universe time is defined linear. 16 bil yrs ago or whatever. Now time is defined as a point on a globe?

Time is defined as the temporal distance between two points.
Specifically the temporal distance between the start counting, and the stop counting. This line can be effected by acceleration the same way space can be curved, acceleration curves the path between the temporal distance between two points.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#174928 Aug 18, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you don't think that-- you are in the MAJORITY at the present time.
But that time has come-- and is going, fast.
Soon?
Soon you **will** be required to justify your bigotry and hate-- or you will be penalized for public display of it.
Just as you can no longer openly display your hate for People Of Color in the US?(well-- for the most part)
And you are rapidly losing your "right" to display your hatred of LGBT?
Soon enough, you'll be in the **minority** with regards to your idiotic beliefs.
You really ought to be thinking about **that** and begin formulating your "justification" for your ugly hatebeliefs.
According to Dr Michael Newton what you suggest will happen. I do see Atheist reacting as you suggest. Atheism will remain a unproven faith. You'll prove Orwell correct as you introduce things like 2+2=5. It will be the end of science as we know it, because my original statement is true and you know it. That is Atheism can't be a proven fact, unless man knew everything. We won't know everything but in such a society we would pretend we do, actually more like demand it. Books will be burned and sciences will be forbidden. All because The Universe is gathering so many intelligent beings that not all of them could have intelligent souls. I would predict a cleaner Earth, but when Earth dies so would the Human Race.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174929 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> BS, Why do you make these idiot comparisons? What are you attempting to accomplish? 1+1=2 is true within its own context which is elemental math. You pull it out of context for what purpose other than obfuscation? You introduce a chess game for what? 1+1=2 exists in the same manner as E=MC2 as abstract concepts not time dependent. Because they are abstract they lack causal power. Truth is not time dependent. These constructs point to a source which is also not time dependent. We call that source God.
I meant it in a very literal and precise sense: we invent the rules of chess. A game of chess is supposed to follow those rules to be a 'valid' game. You can have problems where, for example, you give a particular position and ask for how to get checkmate in, say, 3 moves. It is an abstract system.

In exactly the same way, we invent the rules for math and logic. Once those rules are decided, we call an argument 'valid' if it follows those rules. But whether those rules apply to any given situation is determined by testing and observation.

Even your example of E=mc^2 is a proposed *physical* link that needs to be tested to see if it is valid or not. In point of fact, it misses some subtleties; light doesn't obey this equation. Nor do masses in motion. For such we actually have E^2=m^2c^4 +p^2 c^2 where p is the momentum of the particle. This is true even for photons (light) because m=0 and E=pc.

So, your example actually proves my point: whether the abstract system is true for the real world is a matter of observation and testing. it is not automatic.

Finally, the fact that mathematics and logic follow from assumptions and rules of inference has absolutely nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a deity. We make the rules, we follow those rules and we do experiments to see if those rules apply to reality. Sometimes they do and sometimes they do not. It isn't nearly as automatic as you might think.

This was first noticed in math about 200 years ago when it was realized that geometry is NOT a priori, as everyone up t that point expected. Non-Euclidean geometry is just as consistent as ordinary geometry but with different assumptions and different conclusions. For example, in ordinary geometry, the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees. That is false for non-Euclidean geometry. Different assumptions lead to different conclusions.

In the same way, there are number systems where 5 is not prime, or where 1+1=0, or where you get different results depending on the order of multiplication. All of these are internally consistent and are just as good as 'ordinary' arithmetic. Many are even useful for understanding the real world.

Even logic has variances. There are versions of logic where the law of excluded middle fails; where propositions do not have to be either true or false; etc. Once again, different assumptions lead to different conclusions. Whether any particular collection of assumptions is useful or not for understanding the real world is a matter of testing and observation.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#174930 Aug 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
I meant it in a very literal and precise sense: we invent the rules of chess.
Which involves intelligence. The game starts with an idea and a purpose. It is not random. So i don't really know what your point is here as it relates to your conclusions since you do not allow for intelligence.
In exactly the same way, we invent the rules for math and logic.
We cannot invent what was already there. They are discovered. The universe is intelligible and points to a source. That source is what we call God. I have no comment on the rest of your post.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#174931 Aug 18, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, I didn't know that was possible.
Uhm, how did you go from the above to the below?
<quoted text>
I understand biological processes a lot better than you do, Dave, and I find your conclusions inferring a creator unwarranted.
Evolution by natural selection.
<quoted text>
3.9 billion years of evolution isn't enough time?
Really? And you know this how?
<quoted text>
Awesome. Can't want to hang out with him again.
"On another note.
Keep your running shoes handy. Godzilla has been twitching and will be waking soon."

"Awesome. Can't want to hang out with him again."

http://www.weather.com/news/volcano-japan-sak...

"The eruption is the latest in a string of recent natural calamities in Japan. A deadly, record-shattering heat wave has gripped Japan most of this month. Northern Japan suffered deadly landslides earlier this month and has seen additional heavy rainfall and floods in more recent days"

You know I am a figurative writer.

I went through a lot of trouble finding that post. I won't do it again.

Pay attention, little girl. Listen to Dave.

I said he was twitching. While your lectures can put us to sleep, I would suggest you shift to lullabies or an appropriate Buddhist chant.



You really want him to go back sheepy bye. Very soon.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174932 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Which involves intelligence. The game starts with an idea and a purpose. It is not random. So i don't really know what your point is here as it relates to your conclusions since you do not allow for intelligence.
My point is that *we* invent the rules. We are the intelligence.
We cannot invent what was already there. They are discovered.
The rules of math and logic are not discovered; they are invented by us. The laws of physics are discovered, but they are not produced by an intelligence: they are descriptions of how the natural worlds works.
The universe is intelligible and points to a source.
I disagree that the intelligibility of the universe points to a source. That seems to be your basic assumption without any proof. In fact, the evidence we have points *away* from an Underlying intelligence and *to* the simple dynamics of the natural world.

Specifically, why do you think an intelligence is required? How would things be different without an intelligence? What evidence do you have of this?
That source is what we call God. I have no comment on the rest of your post.
I am not surprised. It was probably too much for you to comprehend. No, math and logic are not 'out there' to be discovered. Instead, they are rules we invent to help us understand the universe around us. We decide what the rules are to make the whole more comprehensible to us. And like I said, there are even alternative rules that can and are used for certain purposes.
Bongo

Coram, NY

#174933 Aug 18, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
"On another note.
Keep your running shoes handy. Godzilla has been twitching and will be waking soon."
"Awesome. Can't want to hang out with him again."
http://www.weather.com/news/volcano-japan-sak...
"The eruption is the latest in a string of recent natural calamities in Japan. A deadly, record-shattering heat wave has gripped Japan most of this month. Northern Japan suffered deadly landslides earlier this month and has seen additional heavy rainfall and floods in more recent days"
You know I am a figurative writer.
I went through a lot of trouble finding that post. I won't do it again.
Pay attention, little girl. Listen to Dave.
I said he was twitching. While your lectures can put us to sleep, I would suggest you shift to lullabies or an appropriate Buddhist chant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =B2rZNsqS-awXX
You really want him to go back sheepy bye. Very soon.
bwhahaha, oh, are all these calamities plaguing Japan acts of God?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#174934 Aug 18, 2013


A most interesting and enlightening video about establishing standards. The stuff you use in physics. It is about how the kilogram came to be and is established.

These are the basis of all calculation as far back as they started using them. There was a discussion a day or so about compounding of error.

That is a good presentation.

You should realize the arbitrariness that can creep into physics and its determinations if you base it on standards such as this instead of ratios. Ratios are more process oriented, which lowers the idol count, and gives a better picture of what is what.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#174935 Aug 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
My point is that *we* invent the rules. We are the intelligence.
<quoted text>
The rules of math and logic are not discovered; they are invented by us. The laws of physics are discovered, but they are not produced by an intelligence: they are descriptions of how the natural worlds works.
<quoted text>
I disagree that the intelligibility of the universe points to a source. That seems to be your basic assumption without any proof. In fact, the evidence we have points *away* from an Underlying intelligence and *to* the simple dynamics of the natural world.
Specifically, why do you think an intelligence is required? How would things be different without an intelligence? What evidence do you have of this?
<quoted text>
I am not surprised. It was probably too much for you to comprehend. No, math and logic are not 'out there' to be discovered. Instead, they are rules we invent to help us understand the universe around us. We decide what the rules are to make the whole more comprehensible to us. And like I said, there are even alternative rules that can and are used for certain purposes.
We provide understanding by definition, we define what is seen. We have become increasingly more accurate in definition. AND, This is a human thing, that was not given but was taken , by many years of discovery.

Believers will never understand this, they believe things.
They do not require the need that they be true, only desirable to their belief.

While we by definition , categorize and sort all mysteries out and take the good with the bad. No matter if it were desirable to understand the consequences of it or not.
The believers will manufacture the belief to fit at any price.

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#174936 Aug 18, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> We provide understanding by definition, we define what is seen. We have become increasingly more accurate in definition. AND, This is a human thing, that was not given but was taken , by many years of discovery.
Believers will never understand this, they believe things.
They do not require the need that they be true, only desirable to their belief.
While we by definition , categorize and sort all mysteries out and take the good with the bad. No matter if it were desirable to understand the consequences of it or not.
The believers will manufacture the belief to fit at any price.
you provide bull-$#!t

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#174937 Aug 18, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> bwhahaha, oh, are all these calamities plaguing Japan acts of God?
I don't know about God, Catcher. Could be Buddha reading Topix and a little peeved at Hiding.

You get warpage on structures when you change things like energy levels and heat. Most notably on large structures, like the ground. You can easily fall into very minute percentagewise changes in hundreds or thousands of miles. This is happening all over the globe, but perhaps with a bit more oomph than we have been used to. Your global warming. Energy seeks equilibrium. It don't matter what gets in the way.
Bongo

Coram, NY

#174938 Aug 18, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know about God, Catcher. Could be Buddha reading Topix and a little peeved at Hiding.
You get warpage on structures when you change things like energy levels and heat. Most notably on large structures, like the ground. You can easily fall into very minute percentagewise changes in hundreds or thousands of miles. This is happening all over the globe, but perhaps with a bit more oomph than we have been used to. Your global warming. Energy seeks equilibrium. It don't matter what gets in the way.
Ah good ol irresistible force
Dr shrink

Baltimore, MD

#174939 Aug 18, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know about God, Catcher. Could be Buddha reading Topix and a little peeved at Hiding.
You get warpage on structures when you change things like energy levels and heat. Most notably on large structures, like the ground. You can easily fall into very minute percentagewise changes in hundreds or thousands of miles. This is happening all over the globe, but perhaps with a bit more oomph than we have been used to. Your global warming. Energy seeks equilibrium. It don't matter what gets in the way.
bongo
is psychopath, and his halucinations are worse everyday

those posters made him horrible sick and delusional- IT IS MANIACIAL SHISOPHREMNIA qualify him only to close mental institution

around globe nothing happen,only government media false propganda Lies and suck money from idiots beliving them from you too?

“The King of R&R”

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#174940 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> License to be obnoxious. 100% correct. That is all atheism is. An imaginary license to behave in any way they choose with no accountability to anyone or anything. It is the ultimate delusion. To be fair there are a few notable exceptions, Poly, Hiding and Aura come to mind.
Be advised Dave Nelson was hospitlized for 5 years to cure its delusional accusations against the True Believers!

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 10 min shinningelectr0n 1,153,011
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 47 min Bruin For Life 28,358
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr Country Girl 306,951
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 2 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 2,655
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 4 hr JAX 201,148
Should child beauty pageants be banned? Tue Roy the Boy 685
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Tue The Real Daniel S... 281