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
169,941 - 169,960 of 226,296 Comments Last updated 9 min ago

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#177180 Sep 12, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Did you see that Lincock has claimed to be Irish?
WTFuck?!
All the Irish people I know can write.
<quoted text>
I had not seen that.

I hereby excommunicate, expatriate and transfenestrate him.

Were he ever Irish, he is so no longer.
xianity is EVIL

Windsor, Canada

#177181 Sep 12, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
<quoted text>
similar to the rest of your posts?
You and Bob are a funny team!
YOU and the kristains are however a SAD team and pathetic excuse for a human!

LLL

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#177182 Sep 12, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
What color is a probability wave? The color of graphite?
Color is an attribute of EM waves. Probability waves are not EM waves. You can, if you want, speak of frequencies and wavelengths for probability waves, but most real waves are combinations of several different frequencies.
If the electrons form a cloud from motion then you have that wake thing I have referred to.
No. No wake. The electrons are not moving through the cloud. The cloud describes the probability distribution of the electrons.
You have a field generated around the nucleus that any particle or adjacent field will have to navigate or deal with, and it is what enables pressure, like a bubble skin. Our "solidity". Why would you ever think I was referring to going "through" an elementary particle?
That was the language you used. One thing you have top learn is to use precise language when talking about these things.

The electron cloud surrounding the nucleus will repel other electron clouds that come close and *that* is what produces the 'solidity' of macroscopic objects. Objects that are not repelled by electrons (such as neutrons) have no problem going through the electron cloud.
Take away that bubble and you open the nucleus up to nearby influences that were mitigated by it.
Nope. The repulsion of protons in different nuclei is a much more important effect than the electron cloud in keeping nuclei from interacting. And we weren't talking about interacting nuclei, but stability of an individual nucleus. Removing the electrons from around a nucleus will not affect the stability of that nucleus (except, as I said, if the nucleus was prone to electron capture, in which case, the nucleus becomes *more* stable).
The nucleus starts coming apart, and at the least makes it very susceptible to other electron clouds and charges.
Simply wrong. If you take a nucleus of, say, an iron atom and remove all the electrons from around it, that nucleus is no more prone to 'come apart'. This is actually something that people do and measure. You are simply wrong here.

If you take an atom with an unstable nucleus (say, uranium) and remove the electrons, the nucleus is no more likely to decay than it was when the electrons were around it. Again, this is something we can actually do and measure.
The EM charge held everything inside in place.
Again, wrong. The EM force in a nucleus is actually the main force driving it apart (those protons are all positively charged and will repel each other via EM). What keeps the nucleus together is the strong nuclear force, which is quite different in many ways from the EM force.
Do not forget the EM field was shared among those nuclear particles.[QUOTE]
And that EM force is primarily repulsive in a nucleus.

[QUOTE] I believe your neutron will turn into other particles, including electrons. That is because things ain't so neutral anymore when that EM cloud is gone.
Yes, the nucleus alone will be positively charged. But the repulsion from the EM force is countered by the attraction of the strong force. Whether or not there are electrons in orbit is irrelevant to the balance of forces.
You move the protons and neutron and you move the strong forces holding them together. They are very, very local. The strong force does not sit on a throne, Poly. It is just an effect within the nucleus.
The strong force is a force between the nucleons (protons and neutrons).
You need to start understanding what you know. Get a picture of what is happening.
I do understand what I know here. and I understand that you do NOT know anything about these things.
xianity is EVIL

Windsor, Canada

#177183 Sep 12, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
Are they Christians making fun of Atheism?
JESUS: Luke 14:26, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters yes, even his own life he cannot be my disciple."
Thinking

UK

#177184 Sep 12, 2013
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

He can never be Pat again, thanks to you.
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>I had not seen that.
I hereby excommunicate, expatriate and transfenestrate him.
Were he ever Irish, he is so no longer.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#177185 Sep 12, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
"Huh? Why would you think that? The mere expansion is understandable by having an initial velocity at the beginning. The acceleration of the expansion is understandable via the cosmological constant. Both are squarely in the laws of gravity (i.e, general relativity). No 'power source' is required from 'outside'."
That is vague.
I can be a lot less vague if you allow some mathematics.
Your initial velocity started bouncing off the walls. Straight paths became bank shots and curved.
huh? there were no walls.
As the center expanded outwards it had to push a lot with it. The stuff between the leading edge of the expansion and the core where it all started.
This shows a complete lack of understanding of what the Big Bang model says. There is no 'leading edge'. The expansion literally happens throughout space. There is no 'core'. All points of space 'look' the same.

Your l;ack of understanding of what the model says makes your further comments meaningless. They are based on a faulty understanding of the physics.
All of that stuff made up the mass of today. The expansion produces a stretching on that core, also.
No core.
You have a push and a pull. You have a single object, mass, volume,or whatever you want to call it that grew rather exponentially, likened to a mass turning into a vacuum.
Nope, no single 'object' that grew.
Modern physics says it started as a singularity, or particle, not me.
The singularity is not a particle. Your lack of understanding of what modern physics says is the issue.
You have to account for that volume change and how it can happen based upon known physics. It can't happen with a pencil.
It *is* based on known physics. In particular, it is based on general relativity, which is the modern description of gravity.
Dark energy and mass is the latest theory on the expansion.
As supported by the data.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#177187 Sep 12, 2013
followerofSatan wrote:
<quoted text>
idiotic fundie extrapolation .....matter/energy existed as a singularity before the Big Bang....your little presentation skipped over that little detail....back to the drawing board and remember, never too late to get an education....
Excuse me, I did not make that response. Professor Stephan Hawking Cambridge University argumentatively The World's Smartest man gave you that 1 minute and 50 second response. If you were not so stupid you would feel stupid, after saying what you did.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#177188 Sep 12, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes... we know you have zero counter-argument here.
My point is valid: religion is the **opposite** of science.
Science seeks to **understand** the universe.
Religion seeks to re-fabricate it in it's wish-fulfillment image-- and will **deny** any and all facts that contradict religion's claims.
The two cannot co-exist peacefully-- religion will **always** be forced to **deny** science, as science proves over and over, that religion is just a big lie.
That is because your statement is too stupid to be worthy of a response. The fact you go on, is the difference between you being an idiot, and being a stubborn idiot.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#177189 Sep 12, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Is anything in the above provable or an actual... argument?
No?
Interesting.
The only thing that has been provable in this tread is your third grade reading comprehension if that. I would love to see how much spell check saves you. After noting your failed reading comprehension I should expect something as stupid as "Religion has never had any interest in science."

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#177190 Sep 12, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I can be a lot less vague if you allow some mathematics.
<quoted text>
huh? there were no walls.
<quoted text>
This shows a complete lack of understanding of what the Big Bang model says. There is no 'leading edge'. The expansion literally happens throughout space. There is no 'core'. All points of space 'look' the same.
Your l;ack of understanding of what the model says makes your further comments meaningless. They are based on a faulty understanding of the physics.
<quoted text>
No core.
<quoted text>
Nope, no single 'object' that grew.
<quoted text>
The singularity is not a particle. Your lack of understanding of what modern physics says is the issue.
<quoted text>
It *is* based on known physics. In particular, it is based on general relativity, which is the modern description of gravity.
<quoted text>
As supported by the data.
" It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across."

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.h...

That's NASA, not Polymath.

So how did you get from a volume of millimeters to billions of light years in a flash without a leading edge? Other than magic.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#177191 Sep 12, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
The above video is not in any way, shape or form, an argument.
Nor does it support you in any way. Naturally.
<quoted text>
That is so YOU! At least you admit it when you are being an azzhole.
That was Stephen Hawkins, did you catch the last paragraph. What's up stupid. You could deny forever

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#177192 Sep 12, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
The video is bullshit.
It's very first point? Wrong-- it's the same bullshit "you cannot create something from nothing" non-argument.
The Big Bang does not **claim** "something from nothing".
That is a strawman religious bullshit ploy-- and it IGNORES a fatal flaw:
From whence came their god, if you cannot make something from nothing?
If they can excuse their god as "always was" then so can we-- the universe always was in one shape or another.
The video it bullshit-- just like you.
Stephen "The World's Smartest Man" Hawking, in your face loser. Now give me your duh duh duh response denier.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#177193 Sep 12, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
<quoted text>
similar to the rest of your posts?
You and Bob are a funny team!
Not nearly as funny as the team that believes in talking snakes, magic fruit trees, life from a pile of dirt, and who worship a genocidal maniac. WTF is wrong with you people anyway!!!!!

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#177194 Sep 12, 2013
every game wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for showing us all how ugly and childish an atheist can be.
It does make the victory so much sweeter. Little Red Bobbing Hood could not take my word for it, that Mr Hawking, and I admit at first I did spell his name wrong. Admitted that it could not be proven god does not exist. Babbling Bob is so stupid even after Cambridge's highest professor, the keeper of The Chair, has set him straight. He says "that's not proof." What a dolt.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#177195 Sep 12, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
" It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across."
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.h...
That's NASA, not Polymath.
So how did you get from a volume of millimeters to billions of light years in a flash without a leading edge? Other than magic.
Every single day.

Is another opportunity to embarass themselves and their failed 2005 cult.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#177196 Sep 12, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
It does make the victory so much sweeter. Little Red Bobbing Hood could not take my word for it, that Mr Hawking, and I admit at first I did spell his name wrong. Admitted that it could not be proven god does not exist. Babbling Bob is so stupid even after Cambridge's highest professor, the keeper of The Chair, has set him straight. He says "that's not proof." What a dolt.
You'll look less stupid and arrogant after you've proven the god you're here to lie to us about.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#177197 Sep 12, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
There are many mistakes in this short video. The first is when it claims that nothing can come from nothing. This is known to be false becaus3e of quantum mechanics: it is actually quite common for particl3es to be formed out of exactly nothing.
The second is the claim that there must have been something before the universe because the universe had a beginning. That is false because time itself began with the universe. Without time, there could be no 'before'.
The third problem is that the video incorrectly describes the first law of thermodynamics. Instead of claiming that energy is eternal, it merely says that the total energy at one time has to be the same as the total energy at any other time. In other words, energy and time are co-existent.
In particular, if time had a beginning, that beginning was the same as the beginning of energy and the universe.
Further, the law of conservation of energy says that the total energy balance *of the universe* is constant. In particular, any energy transfer *into* the universe would be a violation of that law. Your video proposes just such a transfer, so it is in direct contradiction to the very law it claims as support.
Finally, it claims that anyone who does not agree with the failed argument is just being stubborn, instead of actually being interested in the *correct* applications of the known laws of physics. Since it gets so many particulars wrong in ways that directly affect the argument, this is simply rank dishonesty.
<quoted text>
Church lady was wonderful!
No dice home slice that was Stephen Hawking, enough said.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#177198 Sep 12, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Stephen "The World's Smartest Man" Hawking, in your face loser. Now give me your duh duh duh response denier.
This comes from a cowardly creationist who denies fossils.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#177199 Sep 12, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
This comes from a cowardly creationist who denies fossils.
Mr Hawking nor myself denies evolution. I do disagree with some details others have, that THEY CAN'T PROVE. The monkey in the middle. If we came from a tree primate. 1. Our feet would be much different then they are. 2. We would be so much more stronger and faster. We'd be able to beat the 50 pound monkey that could rip us to shreds. You are a fool for trying to put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head. As Orwell claimed you would, worm meat.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#177200 Sep 12, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Mr Hawking nor myself denies evolution. I do disagree with some details others have, that THEY CAN'T PROVE. The monkey in the middle. If we came from a tree primate. 1. Our feet would be much different then they are. 2. We would be so much more stronger and faster. We'd be able to beat the 50 pound monkey that could rip us to shreds. You are a fool for trying to put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head. As Orwell claimed you would, worm meat.
idiot theist who denies the fact of evolution.

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.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min John Galt 1,099,947
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr Pearl Jam 305,446
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 17 hr PEE PEE PETE 27,068
I got my loan from stephenloanhelp@hotmail.com (May '13) Aug 26 RICK SERVICE 29
offer Aug 23 Peter 1
Addition of Emmitt Holt is "Big" for Indiana Aug 23 Mike Williams 1
Ex-Hoosier Zeller embraces NBA learning Aug 23 Mike Williams 1
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

NCAA Basketball People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••