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
169,221 - 169,240 of 224,740 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176392
Sep 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I never call them stupid. I say they were ignorant of many things we are aware of today. They made many mistakes, although typically not stupid ones. I'm sure we make many mistakes also.
"I'm sure we make many mistakes also."

Oh, really now?

So your proclamations based upon the scientific method may be in error?

Still won't keep maternal great-granny^4 from twisting your ear and lecturing you for calling her a dumb cow. Or paternal great-grandpa^2 from switching you but good for calling him dumb.

They are probably all gathering now to welcome you home.

You are in trouble, boy.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176393
Sep 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
Sorry, I thought you might be smart enough or resourceful enough to figure it out on your own.
The viewpoint was that the stars were small hols in the bowl letting through the light from the other side. That was the standard explanation for stars until the middle ages. They were wrong.
Sounds like a description of a colander or Spaghetti strainer. Just gets weirder and weirder. Am sure you are just regurgitating another warped interpretation of Genesis 1:6-8. A giant colander in the sky supported by pillars and the holes let the light from the stars shine through according to you. LOL! Only on Topix!
xianity is EVIL

Windsor, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176394
Sep 4, 2013
 
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Ye who post The Atheist verses. I agree atheism is not a religion, however Atheism is. If you don't believe, don't seek others to join you. Don't except mythology, in other words don't try to claim what has not been proven, to be fact. Except what can't be proven. Don't jump ANY science claims. In other words don't scream fact until absolutely proven. You could be a (a)theist. If you spend time bickering with theist. You are an (A)theist. There is no reason to prove to others, to sell.
LLL
when you figure a way to sell atheism let me know,ok
untill then you WILL have to accept opposing arguments to the IDIotic religitards spewing LIEs as if it was Truth,
If you dont like it dont read it..

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176395
Sep 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

xianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
LLL
when you figure a way to sell atheism let me know,ok
untill then you WILL have to accept opposing arguments to the IDIotic religitards spewing LIEs as if it was Truth,
If you dont like it dont read it..
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
It was your anarchistic posts on this forum.

“The King of R&R”

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176396
Sep 4, 2013
 
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Good post, you just described all online atheist. I was trying not to bring this up, but I never meet anyone that would publicly talk like you and Little Red Bobbing Hood. I have heard many Christians say openly in public. Atheist will burn in hell. I don't say that but I would have no trouble pointing out Atheism sucks. In regards to Atheist personal life, they suck too. Thank God here is a God and I know better than you.
And what have you and "your" god talked about? What was "your" god's response, after your question? Were your prayers answered? What will be your next contact, and what will you ask of "your" god? Possibly redemption for all of your innumerable, countless, earthly Sins?
Wackosaki

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176397
Sep 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

God’s laughter. Psalm 2:1–4 says:

“Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.”

“The King of R&R”

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176398
Sep 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Ye who post The Atheist verses. I agree atheism is not a religion, however Atheism is. If you don't believe, don't seek others to join you. Don't except mythology, in other words don't try to claim what has not been proven, to be fact. Except what can't be proven. Don't jump ANY science claims. In other words don't scream fact until absolutely proven. You could be a (a)theist. If you spend time bickering with theist. You are an (A)theist. There is no reason to prove to others, to sell.
Simply present the proof where a decedent who has knowingly gone to heaven (i.e., A Saint) who has communicated proof of this transition to a living person on planet Earth. There have been most assuredly tens of thousands of such instances. Show us all proof on just one. Now that is not asking, virtually, something hardly measurable. If you come through, you will be the first in history to do so.
EXPERT

Redding, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176399
Sep 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Redoran wrote:
<quoted text>
Simply present the proof where a decedent who has knowingly gone to heaven (i.e., A Saint) who has communicated proof of this transition to a living person on planet Earth. There have been most assuredly tens of thousands of such instances. Show us all proof on just one. Now that is not asking, virtually, something hardly measurable. If you come through, you will be the first in history to do so.
Rational thought and logic are not strong points for you, are they?

Helmet + short yellow bus = Redoran

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176400
Sep 5, 2013
 
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>I not only believe in God or Gods, I believe in two styles of Gods.

1. The real McCoy. This is a style that does not need worshipers. Such a sort not only is in your DNA it makes adjustments. Example black American people are often afraid of dogs by nature. The Lynch Farm and other slave handlers used dogs to punish. The grand child of a victim of this abuse will avoid and possible fear dogs. There could be more than one creator/protector God. I believe Earth is a God. Or at the very least a higher form of life. Let's not leave out a good chance we were created by Extra Terrestrials. I think we are most likely a computer simulation.

2. Gods we create. The human mind is that powerful, in my opinion. I believe the power of believe has made Jesus a power that does answer prayers.

In my opinion it is clear the frequently posting online Atheist does believe in the power of the human mind also. To spread Atheism, you have to be a hater. I do respect an atheist, that just doubts. No effort to convert others. For someone like that to claim they have no faith, I would say true. Id you try to deliver anything as an answer, you have faith.
I have faith in science. I actually don't understand why someone wouldn't want to use the word faith. It is not just a word for religion.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176401
Sep 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>I understand with and agree with your statement. In regards to this conversation message tread. It is hard to discuss beliefs without getting condescending. I see this as where Atheist show they are people of faith and belief. In my opinion the biggest proof that Atheist do have faith, belief and are even religious, to a point they are fanatics and fundamentalist. Is their drive to respond, if seeing something they disagree with. I hate to say it, but you can't ever have a real conversation with them. They're just too competitive about this. The online Atheist has turned atheism into Atheism, which is a religion.
I have to disagree...I do not believe in any deities, but I also understand the definition of faith, which is simply the complete trust in something or someone... Just because I have faith in something doesn't make it a religion. I have faith that science will eventually find answers to things because science has proven to find answers to things through testing. That is different from the religious definition of faith which is having a faith in something that you cannot see, touch, smell, taste or feel. There are two definitions which are similar, but one is based on evidence and one is not. That's why I don't understand why people argue over the word. Atheism in my opinion is not a religion. It is by definition simply not having a belief in a deity.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176402
Sep 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>I understand with and agree with your statement. In regards to this conversation message tread. It is hard to discuss beliefs without getting condescending. I see this as where Atheist show they are people of faith and belief. In my opinion the biggest proof that Atheist do have faith, belief and are even religious, to a point they are fanatics and fundamentalist. Is their drive to respond, if seeing something they disagree with. I hate to say it, but you can't ever have a real conversation with them. They're just too competitive about this. The online Atheist has turned atheism into Atheism, which is a religion.
The definition of religion even points out that atheism is not a religion. It seems cut and dry to me.
EXPERT

Redding, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176403
Sep 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
The definition of religion even points out that atheism is not a religion. It seems cut and dry to me.
'cause it is a cop out, often used by cowards that wont take a position.

You try to claim a materialist world view, but don't live your life like that. Also, that view collapses on itself.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176404
Sep 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like a description of a colander or Spaghetti strainer. Just gets weirder and weirder. Am sure you are just regurgitating another warped interpretation of Genesis 1:6-8. A giant colander in the sky supported by pillars and the holes let the light from the stars shine through according to you. LOL! Only on Topix!
Just to be clear, the stars in this view *were* the holes in the collander. They imagined the region beyond the collander (heaven) as a place of pure light and the holes let through the light from that region. The holes themselves were the star that we see.

Actually, this was not just the Genesis viewpoint, but rather a very common viewpoint across cultures before it was realized the earth is round. Even after that discovery, the collander view of the sky and stars was common until the middle ages.

Try actually reading your Bible. You might find it says things you don't like very much.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176405
Sep 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
"I'm sure we make many mistakes also."
Oh, really now?
So your proclamations based upon the scientific method may be in error?
Still won't keep maternal great-granny^4 from twisting your ear and lecturing you for calling her a dumb cow. Or paternal great-grandpa^2 from switching you but good for calling him dumb.
They are probably all gathering now to welcome you home.
You are in trouble, boy.
Yes, of course we make mistakes. That's part of being human. The whole point of science is that we continue to test our ideas so we can find and correct our mistakes.

What that means is that the mistake of thinking of the earth as the center of the solar system and the sun and planets moving around it will not be repeated. The mistake of thinking of heat as a fluid (phlogiston) will not be repeated. The mistake of thinking that atoms and molecules act like classical objects will not be repeated.

Furthermore, revolvutions in science tend not to be destructive, buit instead they tend to be progressive. The old ideas, if they really worked, do not just go away. Instead, they stick around as approximations. So, newton's laws have been replaced by Einstein's and by quantum mechanics. But they are still useful for flying probes to the planets. Darwin's ideas on evolution have been enhanced by the introduction of genetics and population dynamics. The germ theorty of disease is known to be wrong for genetic diseases, etc.

The core facts, once discovered and verified, do not change. Instead, they are given more precision. The planets still orbit the sun, but we have tweaked the specifics from Kepler, to Newton, to Einstein to agree with observations.

And, again, that is the heart of science: to use observations to determine which of our ideas are right or wrong. We do not just sit at desks and blindly calculate. We then take those calculations and test to see if they agree with the real world. You claim that scientists have left the real world, but in reality they have let the real world lead them the whole time.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176406
Sep 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dave Nelson wrote:
Energy and heat are two very poorly defined terms, and a primary cause for the poor model. Energy is motion, either of mass or space.
No, energy is one of the properties of motion. But, for example, momentum is another. They are different properties.
Bare bones definition.
Which is useless without the details.
The definitions you attempt to get in physics is a circular reference to measurements of energy. There is no real "face" of "energy".
And yet there are many ways to measure it from the motion.
The same goes with heat. Heat is basically packets of that motion created by that motion encountering resistance.
No. Heat is random motion of molecules. The higher their kinetic energy, the higher the heat content of the material. Resistance is not an issue. yet another one of those mistakes we no longer make.
Kind of like water splashing, but the water is space. That space hits other space within atomic structures and vibrates it. Space itself is very much a carrier of energy.
Yes, like photons of light, for example.
It is like an electrical ground plane providing a return path. Light is a carrier of that energy, but it is just motion wrapped up in a ball, so to speak.
or not.
There is a lot of noise or undercurrents in that space ground plane, just like in an electrical one.
A vivid imagination you have there.
Those millions of degrees are apparent based upon models developed here, not actual measurements.
Measurements here of the photons coming from space that carry information about the conditions where they originated. Something at millions of degrees has a very characteristic spectrum of light it emits.
Black holes give out jets, links have been posted about that.
Yes.
That is stripping the packets of motion and sending them in one direction, but they are encountering resistance and getting wrapped back up to a degree, probably because there are bits and pieces that didn't get completely unwound and got caught in the stream.
Huh?
You are basically separating the "positive" and "negative". Positive is nuclei and gravity, but the nuclei is being stripped. You won't see any light coming from that, just gravity, and accelerated at that. You lose the charge that was in it. Your "negative" is the electron clouds, and they are repelling the hell out of each other, that EM force being so much stronger than gravity, and so much less mass.
Well, you do get a plasma around black holes. But that doesn't make a separation of the charges in the way you seem to think. The nuclei and electrons are interspersed.
Or something like that.
Or nothing at all like that.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176407
Sep 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dave Nelson wrote:
Come to think about it a little.
The same phenomenon that causes centripetal force has to also apply on the galactic scale.
Yes. it is called a rotating coordinate frame.
It is like an acceleration of gravity.
Acceleration is *due* to gravity. gravity itself does not accelerate.
Look at the black hole vortex spin direction, and angle, to the galactic plane, or mass density if globular. Then observe the jet and see where it comes out.
Typically along the spin axis of the black hole.
This could give an indication of how the electron shells start getting stripped off.
In what way would it give this information?
When those shells get removed you have nothing but the strong force to keep nuclei and nucleons apart.
Nuclei are positively charged. The EM force will be quite sufficient to keep them apart unless they have a high enough kinetic energy to overcome that force (i.e, high temperature, which allows fusion of nuclei).
Their spin starts to get stopped and motion unwound.
Um, no. Nuclear spins don't stop. Neither do electron spins. No 'unwound motion', whatever that means.
You have your collapsing universe, but instead of disappearing, it just sends out a stream of unwrapped space, which adds even more attraction as it creates a wake to be filled. It will appear as supergravity, or a much larger mass than it really is.
Or not.
Look for effects at a distance from the other side of the visible jet. Something will not be "normal" in that path.
There is typically another jet.
For a long ways out. Or you may wind up with a sphere with that black hole near the middle and matter reforming around its surface. See where the visible jet material goes.
We do. It keeps going. We can often track it for hundreds to thousands of light years away from the black hole. You could try to look at the actual data when coming up with your hypotheses.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176408
Sep 5, 2013
 
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>'cause it is a cop out, often used by cowards that wont take a position.

You try to claim a materialist world view, but don't live your life like that. Also, that view collapses on itself.
I don't live my life like what?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176409
Sep 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just to be clear, the stars in this view *were* the holes in the collander. They imagined the region beyond the collander (heaven) as a place of pure light and the holes let through the light from that region. The holes themselves were the star that we see.
Actually, this was not just the Genesis viewpoint, but rather a very common viewpoint across cultures before it was realized the earth is round. Even after that discovery, the collander view of the sky and stars was common until the middle ages.
Try actually reading your Bible. You might find it says things you don't like very much.
I have been reading it for 35+ years and use credible commentaries or consult PH.Ds in relevant fields. There are group discussions. They are called Bible Studies run by educated working and family men. That would not include Topix atheists who make a mockery of Scripture and only demonstrate their willful ignorance. They are according to Scripture untaught and unstable and distort Scripture to their own destruction.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176410
Sep 5, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. it is called a rotating coordinate frame.
<quoted text>
Acceleration is *due* to gravity. gravity itself does not accelerate.
<quoted text>
Typically along the spin axis of the black hole.
<quoted text>
In what way would it give this information?
<quoted text>
Nuclei are positively charged. The EM force will be quite sufficient to keep them apart unless they have a high enough kinetic energy to overcome that force (i.e, high temperature, which allows fusion of nuclei).
<quoted text>
Um, no. Nuclear spins don't stop. Neither do electron spins. No 'unwound motion', whatever that means.
<quoted text>
Or not.
<quoted text>
There is typically another jet.
<quoted text>
We do. It keeps going. We can often track it for hundreds to thousands of light years away from the black hole. You could try to look at the actual data when coming up with your hypotheses.
Your disconnect from material reality is showing.

One example is the nuclear spins don't stop. May I point out that something started their spins? Something to do with the BBT?

Do you understand that force can stop things from spinning? Do you understand forces exerted by lots and lots of atoms can work against the force that causes spin within one nuclei? It can get overpowered.

A rotating coordinate frame. Lovely. What colors do they come in? I think you miss the fact it is an action, not a drawing. There is a cause for actions. In the real world, anyhow.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176412
Sep 5, 2013
 
lol

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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

Search the NCAA Basketball Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 11 min THE DEVIL 1,085,034
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr Brian_G 305,186
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 3 hr Trojan 26,759
Charlotte Hornets: Does Josh Davis Deserve a Ro... Thu TJS 1
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Jul 30 Robert Z 278
K-State's Stephen Hurt adapting to new surround... Jul 29 Monica 2
loan offer with low interest Jul 28 Pastor james 1
•••
•••
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••