Atheists on the march in America

Aug 26, 2009 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: TurkishPress.com

When South Florida atheists held their first meeting, they were just five friends, having a beer at a bar.

Comments (Page 3,171)

Showing posts 63,401 - 63,420 of70,904
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66093
Dec 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
There's not much TO know. Do things move by way of gravity? Yes. Then it's a force. Any other stupid questions?
It's difficult to get the big picture when you have such a small screen, isn't it?

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66094
Dec 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

The great sky wizard sends in his angels to hold everything down right?

Lmfao!
digitaldan wrote:
<quoted text>
It's difficult to get the big picture when you have such a small screen, isn't it?
Some Random Dude

Capitola, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66095
Dec 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

digitaldan wrote:
<quoted text>
It's difficult to get the big picture when you have such a small screen, isn't it?
I don't know, you tell me.
Some Random Dude

Capitola, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66096
Dec 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

digitaldan wrote:
<quoted text>
It's difficult to get the big picture when you have such a small screen, isn't it?
Look... I didn't mean to insult you earlier when I made that reference to "intellectual energy". I don't claim to be able to explain how gravity exists. However; a program on the science channel showing celestial bodies bending the universe as an explanation for gravity IS still at this point a theory, first of all. There is a FORCE that brings objects together. If there wasn't, we'd all remain in the same stagnant place. Nothing would move. As a matter of fact, none of us would even be here, because things never could have formed. The fact is simple... the explanation, not so much.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66097
Dec 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
There's not much TO know. Do things move by way of gravity? Yes. Then it's a force. Any other stupid questions?
When my dog farts, I move and fast. Would that be considered a force to your way of thinking?
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66098
Dec 19, 2012
 
You're fooling no one.
Your dog blames it on you.
BBSting wrote:
<quoted text>
When my dog farts, I move and fast. Would that be considered a force to your way of thinking?
John

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66099
Dec 19, 2012
 
john wrote:
Unfortunately, many atheists are antitheists. Foreshadowing where this thread will end up I'll ask a simple question. What position are defending? Disbelief is not belief, and mocking religion/God is usually the response to a simple question. Stump an antitheist! Ask him what he believes.
The above post goes back to 2009. These loons have not contributed one kernel of evidence or made one attempt to debate. Three years and tens of thousands of posts about nothing. Complete whackjobs lmao.
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66100
Dec 19, 2012
 
I believe in freedom despite whackjobs like you.
John wrote:
<quoted text>
The above post goes back to 2009. These loons have not contributed one kernel of evidence or made one attempt to debate. Three years and tens of thousands of posts about nothing. Complete whackjobs lmao.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66101
Dec 19, 2012
 
Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
There's not much TO know. Do things move by way of gravity? Yes. Then it's a force. Any other stupid questions?
First of all, forces in Newtonian physics cause the change of motion, not the motion itself. In the absence of forces, things move in straight lines at uniform speeds.

Now, when you get away from Newtonian physics, the situation becomes more complicated. In curved spacetime, there are no 'straight lines'. There are, however, geodesics which travel minimal distance paths. An analogy would be the great circles on a sphere. They are not straight lines, but they are the 'shortest distance between points'.

So then you get the question of how to define the concept of a force. If a force is something that causes objects to deviate from the geodesics, then gravity is NOT a force. If, instead, forces are defined by whether distances are accelerated, then gravity *is* a force. In general relativity, the first viewpoint is the more common: that gravity is NOT a force because objects in gravitational fields move on spacetime geodesics.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66102
Dec 19, 2012
 
digitaldan wrote:
<quoted text>
Not after science got through with it, no.
Not even when LeMaitre was working on it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66103
Dec 19, 2012
 
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't seem that way when I take off my bra...
And if the contents of the bra have any magnetism, the force of gravity is paltry compared to the attraction from other magnetic objects.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66104
Dec 19, 2012
 
Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Look... I didn't mean to insult you earlier when I made that reference to "intellectual energy". I don't claim to be able to explain how gravity exists. However; a program on the science channel showing celestial bodies bending the universe as an explanation for gravity IS still at this point a theory, first of all. There is a FORCE that brings objects together. If there wasn't, we'd all remain in the same stagnant place. Nothing would move. As a matter of fact, none of us would even be here, because things never could have formed. The fact is simple... the explanation, not so much.
Once again, this is a misunderstanding of the nature of forces. Forces do not cause motion. They cause *changes* in motion. The distinction may seem trivial, but it is one of the crucial differences between Aristotelean and Newtonian mechanics. For Aristotle, F=mv, force was mass times velocity. For newton, F=ma, force is mass times acceleration.

In a Newtonian system, objects will move in straight lines with the same velocity even in the absence of force. Force is not required for motion.

Now, in more modern systems, like general relativity or quantum mechanics, the same basic understanding of the concept of force still holds. There are complications due to curved spacetime or the probabilistic nature of the quantum world, but the same basic idea is that forces cause changes of motion, not the motion itself.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66105
Dec 19, 2012
 
Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Look... I didn't mean to insult you earlier when I made that reference to "intellectual energy". I don't claim to be able to explain how gravity exists. However; a program on the science channel showing celestial bodies bending the universe as an explanation for gravity IS still at this point a theory, first of all. There is a FORCE that brings objects together. If there wasn't, we'd all remain in the same stagnant place. Nothing would move. As a matter of fact, none of us would even be here, because things never could have formed. The fact is simple... the explanation, not so much.
It you saw it on TV, it was designed for lay public consumption, which means it's an oversimplification and may even be wrong according to polykoder. He/she suggests that such information be viewed with suspicion. In reality, this is just an excuse to cover the fact that scientists are generally lousy communicators and more often than not, fail to make their case to the public in comprehensible terms. Anyway, the description of gravity has changed somewhat since Newton and an apple collided. Alternative theories of gravity say it's not a force that objects exert upon each other. It's an effect and not the cause of anything. Instead it "emerges" from the interactions of more fundamental forces.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physic...
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66106
Dec 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not even when LeMaitre was working on it.
Do you really think a catholic priest would suspend his religious beliefs to come up with a scientific hypothesis that excludes God from creation?

"Should a priest reject relativity because it contains no authoritative exposition on the doctrine of the Trinity? Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes. The doctrine of the Trinity is much more abstruse than anything in relativity or quantum mechanics; but, being necessary for salvation, the doctrine is stated in the Bible. If the theory of relativity had also been necessary for salvation, it would have been revealed to Saint Paul or to Moses.

"The Holy Scriptures clearly attest to a "beginning" that one would expect to be reflected in the natural world. Scientific proof only comes from consistency with empirical evidence. Therefore, the distinction of orders is only relevant in the context of verification."

"Both of them (the scientist-believer and the scientist-nonbeliever) attempt at decoding the palimpsest of nature with multiple imbrications in which the traces of the various stages of the world's lengthy evolution has been overlapped and blended. The believer perhaps has an advantage of knowing that the riddle possesses a solution, that the underlying writing finally comes from an intelligent being, and consequently that the problem proposed by nature has been posed in order to be solved, therefore, that its degree of difficulty is presumably measurable with the present and future capacities of humanity."

Science is first of all about discovery. But the more science knows, the more it realizes what it doesn't know.
Some Random Dude

Capitola, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66107
Dec 19, 2012
 
Polymath and Postscript: Thanks for expanding my understanding of the subject. I guess I was being a bit of a jackass earlier... especially to DigitalDan (sorry again Dan). Sometimes I think science over-complicates things; but I understand the need. If we are ever going to save the human race, it won't be through our behavior here on earth. It will be because science finally figured out a way to get us the hell out of here. That's obviously going to take a thorough understanding of how things work at their most basic levels. Anyway... keep fighting the good fight fellas.
Some Random Dude

Capitola, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66108
Dec 19, 2012
 
PS: What I meant by "save the human race" is prevent us from going extinct prematurely. We will obviously go extinct eventually one way or the other.
John

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66109
Dec 19, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Thinking wrote:
I believe in freedom despite whackjobs like you.
<quoted text>
Another Obama loving, baby killing, gun controlling, money stealing loon ducking a simple question. You are a real freedom fighter bigot.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66110
Dec 19, 2012
 
Some Random Dude wrote:
Polymath and Postscript: Thanks for expanding my understanding of the subject. I guess I was being a bit of a jackass earlier... especially to DigitalDan (sorry again Dan). Sometimes I think science over-complicates things; but I understand the need. If we are ever going to save the human race, it won't be through our behavior here on earth. It will be because science finally figured out a way to get us the hell out of here. That's obviously going to take a thorough understanding of how things work at their most basic levels. Anyway... keep fighting the good fight fellas.
Don't be afraid.

Tho man's ignorance thrives in earnest!
And destruction be his goal;
Dust thou are, to dust thou returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
Thinking

Huntingdon, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66111
Dec 19, 2012
 
Whereas your lot shoot six year olds in their gaptoothed faces...
John wrote:
<quoted text>
Another Obama loving, baby killing, gun controlling, money stealing loon ducking a simple question. You are a real freedom fighter bigot.

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66112
Dec 19, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, this is a misunderstanding of the nature of forces. Forces do not cause motion. They cause *changes* in motion. The distinction may seem trivial, but it is one of the crucial differences between Aristotelean and Newtonian mechanics. For Aristotle, F=mv, force was mass times velocity. For newton, F=ma, force is mass times acceleration.
In a Newtonian system, objects will move in straight lines with the same velocity even in the absence of force. Force is not required for motion.
Now, in more modern systems, like general relativity or quantum mechanics, the same basic understanding of the concept of force still holds. There are complications due to curved spacetime or the probabilistic nature of the quantum world, but the same basic idea is that forces cause changes of motion, not the motion itself.
Hello polymath257

I have been looking at this thread for about a week now. And I have a couple of questions....

First: Do you find beauty in the explanations of the Universe, equations, and mathematics you express?

Secondly: If you do, find beauty, is that why you try to teach them here on this thread?

(If you do not find beauty, then to what end do you try to educate?)

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 63,401 - 63,420 of70,904
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••