Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258461 comments on the Webbunny tumblelog story from Jul 18, 2009, titled Atheism requires as much faith as religion?. In it, Webbunny tumblelog reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Webbunny tumblelog.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#232296 Jul 11, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
What is the finite amount that immediately precedes infinity?
Take that amount, add one. Is the result finite or infinite? Answer: Finite
OK, go to the next larger amount. Add one. Is the result finite or infinite? Answer: Finite
OK, go to the next larger amount. Add one. Is the result finite or infinite? Answer: Finite
OK, go to the next larger amount. Add one. Is the result finite or infinite? Answer: Finite
OK, go to the next larger amount. Add one. Is the result finite or infinite? Answer: Finite
OK, go to the next larger amount. Add one. Is the result finite or infinite? Answer: Finite
OK, go to the next larger amount. Add one. Is the result finite or infinite? Answer: Finite
OK, go to the next larger amount. Add one. Is the result finite or infinite? Answer: Finite
OK, go to the next larger amount. Add one. Is the result finite or infinite? Answer: Finite
OK, go to the next larger amount. Add one. Is the result finite or infinite? Answer: Finite
OK, go to the next larger amount. Add one. Is the result finite or infinite? Answer: Finite
OK, go to the next larger amount. Add one. Is the result finite or infinite? Answer: Finite
OK, go to the next larger amount. Add one. Is the result finite or infinite? Answer: Finite
__________
Please explain how this repetition gets you beyond a finite value.
By never stopping.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#232297 Jul 11, 2014
number four wrote:
<quoted text>It truly is a sign that the apocalypse is nigh , when the the theists exhorts the atheist .." Come on , get back to reality . "
I'm just trying to keep you from a life of ridicule .
No worries, I won't do anything until my job is secure.

Uhm...so...how are you?

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#232298 Jul 11, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>I'd be fascinated.
You do publish, shoot me a link?
Won't be for another 6 years or so. Tenure takes time...assuming I get off my lazy ass, leave topix and start publishing.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232299 Jul 11, 2014
CunningLinguist wrote:
<quoted text>

an atheist -- a being without religious belief.
You changed the definition again.

By your definition, a theist could be an atheist.

You are a moron, RubbingApenis.
Anon

Lakewood, OH

#232300 Jul 11, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Won't be for another 6 years or so. Tenure takes time...assuming I get off my lazy ass, leave topix and start publishing.
To hell with academia. Publish a book on the paranormal that ignites the masses and you'll be a millionaire/scadillionare almost overnight. There are a lot of primitive minds out there just waiting to be exploited. Hell, I'd do it in a heartbeat...

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#232301 Jul 11, 2014
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
To hell with academia. Publish a book on the paranormal that ignites the masses and you'll be a millionaire/scadillionare almost overnight. There are a lot of primitive minds out there just waiting to be exploited. Hell, I'd do it in a heartbeat...
Ok. And one on how God gave humans souls!

Yeah!

(I am just not that corrupt - do you know how long it takes to write a book that you know to be lies?)

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232302 Jul 11, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, sure, you've said all your insults.
I don't remember what you said for pi. Pi is a quantity that never ends, right? That's not infinite to you? Or some infinite value?
Question 2: Einstein's equations on general relativity and approaching the speed of light. You can attempt it - if you try, it requires ever increasing energy, mass and elongation of time. So the first two become infinite values. I'm not sure about the third. How are those not infinite?
Question 3: How do you not say the expansion of the universe is infinite if it continues forever? I said "if" so there's assumptions in there, not "will," so if you would kindly go off that assumption.
Question 4: From my readings - and I'm no physicist - I lean toward the universe will continue expanding till all matter is too far away from each other, everything will eventually dissipate into energy, the universe will grow cold, and eventually after some unknowable period of time, a new expansion phase will begin b/c of some unknown quantum fluctuation.
So I'm not asking you to critique that premise, I already know it's speculative (you're welcome to re-point that out if it makes you feel comfortable) but to assume it and subsequently explain why there is no infinite in that. It seems pretty infinite to me - unlimited expansion until all matter becomes energy, all energy dissipates, nothing ensues, renewed expansion phase.
I mean, if it were true, then we would already have had some unknowable number of expansions to nothingness. How can you not conclude that unknowable number is not infinite?
No quantity representing a physical entity can be infinite.

If expansion continues unending, the expansion at any point is finite in extent. The infinite extent is not realizable. It is theoretical.

Unknowable quantity is not the same as infinite quantity.

"Infinite" and "quantity" is a contradiction.

For an expansion to be infinite in extent, it would have to be infinite in extent before expansion. Any expanding finite can never be anything but finite.

"Finite +1,+2,+3,..." will be finite at any point and any time.

If an expansion could continue for "infinite time", it could be infinite in extent.

But of course, that is circular reasoning, i.e., given an infinite, you can have an infinite.

As I have pointed out, physicists use the term "infinite" indiscriminately and erroneously to represent ideas.

Ideas are not physical reality. Physical reality and an infinite are contradictions.

To consider an infinite value representing reality destroys any rational computational basis for reality.

This is because portions of the value of an infinite are also infinite.

Therefore, "less than" and "equal to" would not be contradictory. In reality, "less than" and "equal to" are contradictory. Therefore, infinity cannot represent reality.



“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#232303 Jul 11, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can measure its parts, it cannot be infinite.

__________
Pfft.
Did you learn that in prison?

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#232304 Jul 11, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No quantity representing a physical entity can be infinite.
Any quantity + more quantity could be infinite.
If the universe is infinite, it was infinite as a singularity.
If there were an infinite staircase, you could count steps going up, till you decided to turn back.
How much of infinity you counted, is irrelevant, because infinity is not a pie.

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#232305 Jul 11, 2014
I gave you an example of an infinite distance that physically exists, in reality. It exists because of the speed of expansion of the universe, the speed of light and the distance across space.
All three of these things physically exist in our world, not just the physicist's theoretical musings.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#232306 Jul 11, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
It's difficult for me to imagine stupidity on your level. So, thank you for this display.
pearls...swine...

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#232307 Jul 11, 2014
CunningLinguist wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I'm not anti-anything!
Others... long before you're saviour said this...
Essentially this concept is old as civilized man... There is nothing original about it in your religion.
"This is the sum of duty. Do not unto others that which would cause you pain if done to you." -- Mahabharata 5:1517, from the Vedic tradition of India, circa 3000 BCE
"What is hateful to you, do not to our fellow man. That is entire Law, all the rest is commentary." -- Talmud, Shabbat 31a, from the Judaic tradition, circa 1300 BCE
"That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself." -- Avesta, Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5, from the Zoroastrian tradition, circa 600 BCE
"Hurt not others in ways that you find hurtful." -- Tripitaka, Udanga-varga 5,18 , from the Buddhist tradition, circa 525 BCE
"Surely it is the maxim of loving kindness, do not unto others that which you would not have done unto you." -- Analects, Lun-yu XV,23, from the Confucian tradition, circa 500 BCE
"One should treat all beings as he himself would be treated." -- Agamas, Sutrakrtanga 1.10, 1-3, from the Jain tradition, circa 500 BCE
"Regard your neighbor's gain as your gain and your neighbor's loss as your loss." -- Tai-shang Kang-ying P'ien, from the Taoist tradition, circa 500 BCE
"Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you." -- Socrates (the Greek philosopher), circa 470-399 BCE
I am an equal opportunity skeptic.
I find all religions to be nothing more than superstition.
I post my opinion and comment.
Enjoy your faith if brings you happiness.
those people and sayings don't exist, they're figments of your very gay imagination!

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#232308 Jul 11, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No quantity representing a physical entity can be infinite.
If expansion continues unending, the expansion at any point is finite in extent. The infinite extent is not realizable. It is theoretical.
Unknowable quantity is not the same as infinite quantity.
"Infinite" and "quantity" is a contradiction.
For an expansion to be infinite in extent, it would have to be infinite in extent before expansion. Any expanding finite can never be anything but finite.
"Finite +1,+2,+3,..." will be finite at any point and any time.
If an expansion could continue for "infinite time", it could be infinite in extent.
But of course, that is circular reasoning, i.e., given an infinite, you can have an infinite.
As I have pointed out, physicists use the term "infinite" indiscriminately and erroneously to represent ideas.
Ideas are not physical reality. Physical reality and an infinite are contradictions.
To consider an infinite value representing reality destroys any rational computational basis for reality.
This is because portions of the value of an infinite are also infinite.
Therefore, "less than" and "equal to" would not be contradictory. In reality, "less than" and "equal to" are contradictory. Therefore, infinity cannot represent reality.
Ok...uh...doesn't the word "expansion" or "continued expansion" denote infinite? I mean, is not the definition of infinite "never ending"?

And so, wouldn't that be finitely measurable at any given time, but changing each unit of time? In that case the process itself would be described as infinite, not the actual count at any given time.

Oh, and if the ever-expanding universe model was correct, then the universe itself would never have had a beginning, so it literally would be infinite - it would meet your qualifications above b/c it started infinite, is expanding and so any slice of it necessarily is infinite.

Anyways, what about pi? It's a finite value, but we can never reach a conclusion with the derived number, so every step you take, there's always one more digit. Concurrently, pi can never be completely defined - so even though you, personally, might be adding digits to your understanding of pi, you haven't merely added a +1 quantity and you've never accurately defined it. Or is that some bizarre failure of our base 10 math system?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232309 Jul 11, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Any quantity + more quantity could be infinite.
If the universe is infinite, it was infinite as a singularity.
If there were an infinite staircase, you could count steps going up, till you decided to turn back.
How much of infinity you counted, is irrelevant, because infinity is not a pie.
Every step on the staircase would be finite. And so would the next,...and the next,...

You could stand on one of the steps and say, "Man, that's a long staircase. I can't even see the end of it. I believe it goes to infinity!"

You would be wrong.

Infinity is not a realizable physical phenomenon. It is impossible.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#232310 Jul 11, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh. Just like waaasssuuup?
i like random persecution points cuz they count for more heavenly currency than regular ones!;-)

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#232311 Jul 11, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>I'd be fascinated.
You do publish, shoot me a link?
just watch the movie ghostbusters. hers is the same idea...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232312 Jul 11, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok...uh...doesn't the word "expansion" or "continued expansion" denote infinite? I mean, is not the definition of infinite "never ending"?
And so, wouldn't that be finitely measurable at any given time, but changing each unit of time? In that case the process itself would be described as infinite, not the actual count at any given time.
Oh, and if the ever-expanding universe model was correct, then the universe itself would never have had a beginning, so it literally would be infinite - it would meet your qualifications above b/c it started infinite, is expanding and so any slice of it necessarily is infinite.
Anyways, what about pi? It's a finite value, but we can never reach a conclusion with the derived number, so every step you take, there's always one more digit. Concurrently, pi can never be completely defined - so even though you, personally, might be adding digits to your understanding of pi, you haven't merely added a +1 quantity and you've never accurately defined it. Or is that some bizarre failure of our base 10 math system?
A sequence of addition always gives a finite sum, no matter if it is unending. If it is continuing, the continuation is finite in value at any point, and always will be.

Pi is a mathematical representation of of the relationship between entities. It is not a physical phenomenon.

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#232313 Jul 11, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Every step on the staircase would be finite. And so would the next,...and the next,...
You could stand on one of the steps and say, "Man, that's a long staircase. I can't even see the end of it. I believe it goes to infinity!"
You would be wrong.
Infinity is not a realizable physical phenomenon. It is impossible.
Because you or anyone else believes that, or said so....doesn't make it so.
You could march up the infinite staircase , for all of your days. Never reaching the top counting , but what ever figure you count, is just a portion of an infinite sum.
If you could not count a portion of infinity, concepts like the Grand Hotel could not have been devised or written.
Patrick

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#232314 Jul 11, 2014
CunningLinguist wrote:
<quoted text>
Most religions fall into this category anyway!
Theists do not think this through, or refuse to think lest they disturb their faith.
How can any rituals done over/for/around a baby affect
the baby's understanding of the world around it?
The infant doesn't understand language or geography or personal property or income taxes or.....anything at all, really.
To then present that baby to a priest and after some water sprinkles and some solemn words say that the baby is now Catholic, means that the baby magically understands the difference between a venal sin and a mortal sin.
Can't you see how silly that is?
The baby understands nothing more than was understood before the religious ceremony. And, since the infant in question does not understand, let alone believe, in any kind of God at all, it is an atheist -- a being without religious belief.
Interesting Opinions.....

Science describes accurately the material word.
Metaphysical ideas can not be proved.
Thus each person decides for himself or herself
Philosophical issue tied to our common mortality.

Live a long life and help others

Trolls seem upset that their ideas are not accepted
Anon

Lakewood, OH

#232315 Jul 11, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok. And one on how God gave humans souls!
Yeah!
(I am just not that corrupt - do you know how long it takes to write a book that you know to be lies?)
Not that corrupt? Force yourself!

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
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 min Into The Night 52,232
How To Get To Heaven When You Die 26 min xfrodobagginsx 1
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 28 min xfrodobagginsx 3,868
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 1 hr IB DaMann 509
News Fox Friends Outraged Over Atheists 'Making Chri... 1 hr Eagle 12 223
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) 1 hr Eagle 12 1,677
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr Amused 22,170
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr ChristineM 24,891
More from around the web