Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 238884 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.

Since: Sep 08

United States

#232731 Jul 16, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
10e-34 of a second to begin forming to 10e-23 of a second to fully resolve.
Glad I could be of some help.
And from a few millimeters of volume to the expanse you gaze out upon now in the same time.

POOF!!!!

Keep the faith, lovey.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#232732 Jul 16, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not based on the data. It's based on faith.
We have never known physicists to fudge their descriptions of the data. Right?
Lawrence Krauss: "The universe came from nothing". Absurd.
Stephen Hawking, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."
Absurd. How is there a law of gravity BEFORE the universe exists?
Cosmic Clowning: Stephen Hawking's "New" Theory of Everything is the Same Old CRAP by John Horgan (Scientific American).
"Yet this popularity stems not from the theory's actual merits but rather from the lack of decent alternatives and the stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith."
Keyword: "Faith"
Tony Rothman, physicist, on Hawking's theeory:
"...in any form is completely ridiculous and hence should be called CRAP".
Keyword: "CRAP"
The something-from-nothing theory is only the atheist physicist's version of Creationism Myth.
Any creation myth is as good as another.
You're about as intelligent as a block of cheese, when we talk about conformal time/ proper time and cosmological time within Lorentz manifolds in Minkowski space.
You are assuming time to be independent of motion, progressing at a fixed rate in all reference frames. But it isn't , we now because of general relativity know, that time is relativistic and can be and is dilated, so that time passes at different rates in space.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232733 Jul 16, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Those weren't the Republicans of today, and great cherry picking.
It would take infinite time to list the right-wing malefactors.
And for those who like country music, malefactors means bad guys.
If there was cherry picking, it was yours. You were the one mentioning abolishing slavery.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232734 Jul 16, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You're about as intelligent as a block of cheese, when we talk about conformal time/ proper time and cosmological time within Lorentz manifolds in Minkowski space.
You are assuming time to be independent of motion, progressing at a fixed rate in all reference frames. But it isn't , we now because of general relativity know, that time is relativistic and can be and is dilated, so that time passes at different rates in space.
I'm assuming nothing.

I'm not even assuming you are smart enough to notice it was a physicist calling the idea "CRAP", not me.

Stick with your faith, Brother. Amen.

Oh,...loved all those scientific sounding words you blurted.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#232735 Jul 16, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Bwahahahahahahhahahahahahahha. ..
Guesswork???
Bwhahahahahhahahahahahahahhaah .....
You love guesswork!!!
"Matter created itself" - Christine.
Then you disparage "guesswork".
Bwahahahahahahahhaahhaahahahah ahahahhaahahhaahahahahahaahhah ahahhahahahhahahhahahhahahhaha hhahhahhhahhah....
This is the funniest thread on the internet!!!
Careful you’ll give yourself a seizure – again...

That my dear is not guesswork, it is deduction based on known and observed facts by such renowned thinkers as you listed in you previous post and then “crapped” because your refuse to comprehend their workings which contradict you god dunitwiv magic ploy

There is a considerable difference between god dunitwiv magic cos I can’t fink of nuffin else – doh I was reerrly fick until I funked that one up

And validated, peer reviewed scientific observation

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232736 Jul 16, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
And from a few millimeters of volume to the expanse you gaze out upon now in the same time.
POOF!!!!
Keep the faith, lovey.
Hi, Dave.

I'm learning new things.

From the Topix Scientists, I have now learned that matter created itself, and then expanded an infinite distance.

The expanse of the universe has reached an unreachable magnitude.

Can you tell me, Dave, what the distance was immediately preceding the infinite distance?

What speed and elapsed time does it take to reach an infinite distance?

How many football fields is that?(putting it into terms I can understand)

I apologize in advance for my ignorance on this.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#232737 Jul 16, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
And from a few millimeters of volume to the expanse you gaze out upon now in the same time.
POOF!!!!
Keep the faith, lovey.
My goodness, has your absence has deprived you of thinking matter?

It took 13.8 billion years to reach the state we gaze out on now. In the period of micro fractions of a second (millions of times faster than the fastest clock tick of the fastest computer devised by man) it took for the fundamental laws to resolve the universe expanded from perhaps football size (soccer ball to you) to city size. Which incidentally implies that the inflation was (and incidentally still is) faster than the speed of light.

Note, by several methods we know that this universe is approximately 13.82 billion years old yet it is 46 billion light years in diameter – care to give your profound engineering knowledge a try at explanation?

Keep the fact luggely

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#232738 Jul 16, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi, Dave.
I'm learning new things.
From the Topix Scientists, I have now learned that matter created itself, and then expanded an infinite distance.
The expanse of the universe has reached an unreachable magnitude.
Can you tell me, Dave, what the distance was immediately preceding the infinite distance?
What speed and elapsed time does it take to reach an infinite distance?
How many football fields is that?(putting it into terms I can understand)
I apologize in advance for my ignorance on this.
Not learning too well then are you?

Nope, but you are making buckism steps based on pre-conceived prejudices

Glad you admit you are ignorant though, this is a major step forward in thinking for you, you psychiatrist will be proud.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232739 Jul 16, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Careful you’ll give yourself a seizure – again...
That my dear is not guesswork, it is deduction based on known and observed facts by such renowned thinkers as you listed in you previous post and then “crapped” because your refuse to comprehend their workings which contradict you god dunitwiv magic ploy
There is a considerable difference between god dunitwiv magic cos I can’t fink of nuffin else – doh I was reerrly fick until I funked that one up
And validated, peer reviewed scientific observation
The Hawking-Mlodinow theory of "universe from nothing" is demonstrably CRAP.

Destroying it takes about 10 seconds.

1. It calculates the probability of our observable universe given the "no boundary condition". They do not arrive at the probability of the no boundary condition, they just take it for granted, when it is not physically necessary.

2. The theory is based on sleight-of-hand. Mlodinow and Hawking conclude,“Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6”(p. 180).

The "nothingness" is not "nothingness". As they admit, it is space filled with vacuum energy.

"Clown Cosmology" dismissed.

Since: Sep 08

United States

#232740 Jul 16, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
My goodness, has your absence has deprived you of thinking matter?
It took 13.8 billion years to reach the state we gaze out on now. In the period of micro fractions of a second (millions of times faster than the fastest clock tick of the fastest computer devised by man) it took for the fundamental laws to resolve the universe expanded from perhaps football size (soccer ball to you) to city size. Which incidentally implies that the inflation was (and incidentally still is) faster than the speed of light.
Note, by several methods we know that this universe is approximately 13.82 billion years old yet it is 46 billion light years in diameter – care to give your profound engineering knowledge a try at explanation?
Keep the fact luggely
Whoopee!!!

It's the ice cream truck!

Oops. My mistake, it is just Christine.

Since: Sep 08

United States

#232741 Jul 16, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
My goodness, has your absence has deprived you of thinking matter?
It took 13.8 billion years to reach the state we gaze out on now. In the period of micro fractions of a second (millions of times faster than the fastest clock tick of the fastest computer devised by man) it took for the fundamental laws to resolve the universe expanded from perhaps football size (soccer ball to you) to city size. Which incidentally implies that the inflation was (and incidentally still is) faster than the speed of light.
Note, by several methods we know that this universe is approximately 13.82 billion years old yet it is 46 billion light years in diameter – care to give your profound engineering knowledge a try at explanation?
Keep the fact luggely
Lovey dovey, every one of those methods were done using the polarity of the EM force to observe.

Mankind is trapped in a loop. You won't understand the significance of that.

Since: Sep 08

United States

#232742 Jul 16, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi, Dave.
I'm learning new things.
From the Topix Scientists, I have now learned that matter created itself, and then expanded an infinite distance.
The expanse of the universe has reached an unreachable magnitude.
Can you tell me, Dave, what the distance was immediately preceding the infinite distance?
What speed and elapsed time does it take to reach an infinite distance?
How many football fields is that?(putting it into terms I can understand)
I apologize in advance for my ignorance on this.
A few millimeters according to dingaling's experts.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232743 Jul 16, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
My goodness, has your absence has deprived you of thinking matter?
It took 13.8 billion years to reach the state we gaze out on now. In the period of micro fractions of a second (millions of times faster than the fastest clock tick of the fastest computer devised by man) it took for the fundamental laws to resolve the universe expanded from perhaps football size (soccer ball to you) to city size. Which incidentally implies that the inflation was (and incidentally still is) faster than the speed of light.
Note, by several methods we know that this universe is approximately 13.82 billion years old yet it is 46 billion light years in diameter – care to give your profound engineering knowledge a try at explanation?
Keep the fact luggely
The question is not how old the universe is.

The question is how the universe, or anything, creates itself from nothing.

Or, how a thing goes from non-being to being - all on its own.

That's the big question. Physicists like Hawking and Mlodinow fake answers to it.

And Believers like you are so eager to believe, you swallow it.

One creation myth is as good as another.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#232744 Jul 16, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The Hawking-Mlodinow theory of "universe from nothing" is demonstrably CRAP.
Destroying it takes about 10 seconds.
1. It calculates the probability of our observable universe given the "no boundary condition". They do not arrive at the probability of the no boundary condition, they just take it for granted, when it is not physically necessary.
2. The theory is based on sleight-of-hand. Mlodinow and Hawking conclude,“Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6”(p. 180).
The "nothingness" is not "nothingness". As they admit, it is space filled with vacuum energy.
"Clown Cosmology" dismissed.
Buck stomps his foot again while his other one is stick in his mouth.

1. Garbage, the no boundaries condition is not guessed at, it is a direct observation of the WMAP experiment, as we have argued for the last week or so and you have denied its findings, not my problem. But of course funnymentalist creatard delusionist’s will always deny anything that does not conform to god dunitwiv magic – won’t you? WMAP data exist, the calculation that allows this discussion is correct to 0.4% accuracy. It really does not matter how hard you stomp your foot and scream “I win ‘cos I said so”

2/ are you saying gravity is not a factual? Take a pen, hold it at arms length and let go – what happens? Gravity in action.

On this last you are correct, nothingness as in complete absence of everything nothingness is not the point, however complete lack of particles in that vacuum is. We have discussed what denoted ‘nothing’ in the past and as I remember Michio Kaku had more take on the matter than you.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#232745 Jul 16, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Whoopee!!!
It's the ice cream truck!
Oops. My mistake, it is just Christine.
You have not been taking you tablets again, does your nurse know?

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#232746 Jul 16, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Lovey dovey, every one of those methods were done using the polarity of the EM force to observe.
Mankind is trapped in a loop. You won't understand the significance of that.
Dave’s back...

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#232747 Jul 16, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
A few millimeters according to dingaling's experts.
You also doing buckisms? I didn’t think you were that stupid, perhaps you absence really has screwed you mind.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232748 Jul 16, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Whoopee!!!
It's the ice cream truck!
Oops. My mistake, it is just Christine.
She sells infinite ice cream cones which made themselves.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#232749 Jul 16, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The question is not how old the universe is.
The question is how the universe, or anything, creates itself from nothing.
Or, how a thing goes from non-being to being - all on its own.
That's the big question. Physicists like Hawking and Mlodinow fake answers to it.
And Believers like you are so eager to believe, you swallow it.
One creation myth is as good as another.
There are many questions – don’t get confused by limiting yourself to only what suites your sensibilities

Nope, the creation myth of god dunitwiv magic is based on bronze age guesswork

The premise of the universe came from nothing is based on E=MC^2 (which is proven to be valid), and hundreds of thousands of man hours of research, observation and measurement.

So no, not as good as each o0ther at all.

It seems that you are asking me to believe a bronze age guess with absolutely no evidence to back it up in opposition to scientific understanding based on the universe as we perceive it?

I do find it amazing that intelligent godbots (oxymoron true but really they do exist) choose to hold faith in mythology without any evidence whatsoever while condemning others for having faith in hard facts and deductions made from those hard facts.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232750 Jul 16, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck stomps his foot again while his other one is stick in his mouth.
1. Garbage, the no boundaries condition is not guessed at, it is a direct observation of the WMAP experiment, as we have argued for the last week or so and you have denied its findings, not my problem. But of course funnymentalist creatard delusionist’s will always deny anything that does not conform to god dunitwiv magic – won’t you? WMAP data exist, the calculation that allows this discussion is correct to 0.4% accuracy. It really does not matter how hard you stomp your foot and scream “I win ‘cos I said so”
2/ are you saying gravity is not a factual? Take a pen, hold it at arms length and let go – what happens? Gravity in action.
On this last you are correct, nothingness as in complete absence of everything nothingness is not the point, however complete lack of particles in that vacuum is. We have discussed what denoted ‘nothing’ in the past and as I remember Michio Kaku had more take on the matter than you.
Got it. "Nothing is something" And gravity was present absent the universe.

So the universe came from something, but the something is nothing.

What is the nothing? Answer: "Something".

But I thought it was nothing? Answer: Right. It's nothing.

But you said nothing is something? Answer: Right. Nothing is something.

But you said it was nothing? Answer: Right. It's nothing.

But you said nothing is something? Answer: Right. It's something.

But you said it was nothing? Answer: Right. It's something.

Got it.

Hawking and Mlodinow PRESUPPOSE the existence of space, energy, and gravity, and call it..., wait for it,...wait for it,...wait for it,...

...wait for it,...

...wait for it,...

NOTHING!!

Chrisinemc^2, jump off your roof and see if gravity and energy are...NOTHING.

Bwahahahahahahahhahahahaha....

I just love science!!!

Bwahaahahahahahahahhahahhah...

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 Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr woodtick57 7,178
News Phil Robertson talks against Atheists 1 hr superwilly 80
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 7 hr karl44 7,431
why Atheists believe in incest,pedophilia and b... 9 hr thetruth 29
News .com | What hope is there without God? Wed Kaitlin the Wolf ... 26
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Wed thetruth 2,171
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Tue Kathleen 19,031
More from around the web