Atheists on the march in America

Aug 26, 2009 Full story: TurkishPress.com 70,983

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

Full Story
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#66096 Dec 19, 2012
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

#66097 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?
When my dog farts, I move and fast. Would that be considered a force to your way of thinking?
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#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

#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

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#66106 Dec 19, 2012
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

Santa Cruz, CA

#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

Santa Cruz, CA

#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

#66109 Dec 19, 2012
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

#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

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#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

#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?)

Since: Mar 11

United States

#66113 Dec 19, 2012
Whereas religion says the great sky wizard did it and leave it at that.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66114 Dec 20, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really think a catholic priest would suspend his religious beliefs to come up with a scientific hypothesis that excludes God from creation?
Yes. LeMaitre did just that. He proposed a scientific theory that derived from Einstein's general relativity. He later chided the Pope for using that theory to support the Genesis account.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#66115 Dec 20, 2012
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
In many, but not all, of them.
Secondly: If you do, find beauty, is that why you try to teach them here on this thread?
No. I try to teach them because they represent the hard work of many people over the centuries and are the best explanation we have for how the universe works.
(If you do not find beauty, then to what end do you try to educate?)
Education itself is the goal. I wish to live in an educated society.

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 min Bozo the Clown 227,463
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 9 min Eman 22,197
Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 1 hr Patrick 47
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 5 hr Patrick 925
Stump a theist with 2 questions 8 hr Patrick 26
An atheist returns to Christ (Jan '09) 10 hr True Christian wi... 4,086
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 21 hr Patrick 189
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••