Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258512 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

#233885 Jul 29, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Gravity comes from mass not volume, Dave.
Infinite mass = infinite gravity
I can only hope you are playing this for laughs.

Sincerely.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#233886 Jul 29, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
I can only hope you are playing this for laughs.
Sincerely.
As we see, it is the VOLUME of the object, not its MASS, that deforms spacetime. This is a logical observation ...but since 1919, experiments show the contrary.

Einstein demonstrated that spacetime is curved by masses, not by volumes. This assertion, which is verified by experimentation, is totally irrational since, to date, no one can explain how a mass can curve spacetime. So, the question is:


Is spacetime curved:
&#9642; by volume?(logical, but wrong...)
&#9642; or by mass?(irrational, but proven)

http://www.spacetime-model.com/massgravity/ma...

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233887 Jul 30, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Yo even Buck...isn't that stupid.
Thanks, man.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233888 Jul 30, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
What your head?
The Answer
This is indeed difficult to grasp. Actually at the center of a black hole spacetime has infinite curvature and matter is crushed to infinite density under the pull of infinite gravity. At a singularity, space and time cease to exist as we know them. The laws of physics as we know them break down at a singularity, so it's not really possible to envision something with infinite density and zero volume
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/a...
It's hard to envision for good reason - it is universally impossible.

Infinite curvature is impossible. Infinite density is impossible. Infinite gravity is impossible. 0 volume of matter is impossible.

Other than those problems, you have it down pat.

What occurs with this kind of thinking is that "infinity" is used as a direction.

It never gets there. You can walk in any direction, but you can't walk an infinite distance.

If you did, it wouldn't be infinite distance.

If you could walk infinite distance, one step would be infinite distance.

If you walk for 13.9 billion years at one billion times the speed of light, you would be no closer to infinite distance than with your first step.

No closer. And never any closer. Ever.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233889 Jul 30, 2014
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
A figure 8 situated on its side.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity_symbol
Why on its side?

Wouldn't it be infinite standing upright?

Why not a donut? It's easier to draw.

Are you aware Topix atheists maintain that a donut is infinite?

They gave no answer as to how much flour is required for an infinite donut.

The stupidity continues now to the universe and Black Holes.

Atheists will apparently believe anything.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233890 Jul 30, 2014
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
Then by all means, show us an observed black hole.
Any time.
<quoted text>
...and just in case you still have a problem with this information:
Here's the equation: Mp^2 = a^3
Translation: mass times period squared equals distance cubed (actually orbital axis cubed, which is where the "a" comes from).
The upshot: If you want to know how massive the object is at the center of our galaxy, all you need to know are the orbital period of a star revolving around it, as well as the star's distance from the object. Then you can solve for the mass.
Luckily, our infrared telescopes allowed astronomers to observe the orbits of those stars around the mystery object over a long period of time, which is what you see in both those videos. So we were able to figure out A) the stars' orbital periods and B) how far away from the object their orbits are. Which is how we discovered that the object is likely 4.1 million solar masses, and 6.2 light hours in diameter (roughly Uranus' orbit around the Sun). That means this object has crammed the masses of 4.1 million Suns into a space that's as small as Uranus' orbit. Holy freakin' moly. <<<<Only a black hole is capable of doing that.>>>>
http://io9.com/the-video-that-revealed-the-bl...
The masses of 4.1 million Suns put into a space that's as small as Uranus' orbit is FINITE DENSITY..

The mass of 4.1 million Suns is FINITE.

The mass of a billion Suns is FINITE.

The space it's put into - "as small as Uranus' orbit" - is FINITE.

If you crammed the mass of 4.1 million Suns into YOUR ANUS, the density would be FINITE.

Furthermore, that density of those Suns crammed up your ass would be NO CLOSER TO INFINITE DENSITY THAN A TENNIS BALL UP YOUR ASS.

No closer.

If you crammed Suns up your ass for 13.8 billion years, the mass and density would be FINITE.

And it would be no closer to INFINITE than when you stuff your pet gerbil up your ass.

No closer.

And a GERBIL IS FINITE.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233891 Jul 30, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
What your head?
The Answer
This is indeed difficult to grasp. Actually at the center of a black hole spacetime has infinite curvature and matter is crushed to infinite density under the pull of infinite gravity. At a singularity, space and time cease to exist as we know them. The laws of physics as we know them break down at a singularity, so it's not really possible to envision something with infinite density and zero volume
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/a...
This is precious.

The impossibility of a physical infinite is proven to you...

So what to do?

Triple down.

Give us 3 physical infinites at the same time.

And throw in a 0 volume.

You have a weird religion.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233892 Jul 30, 2014
number four wrote:
<quoted text>..it's mathematical ..Pi ..3.14...
and , "Buck Crist" ..never , answered my post ( how 'bout you ).." .Is God's love unconditional " ..ie..infinite ..?
I did answer.

Pi is a mathemetical comparison. It is not physical.

"Unconditional" is not "infinite".

God's love is not a physical quantity.

Pay attention, Fumble More.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233893 Jul 30, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>

Nothing can count that high, but it doesn't mean it hasn't been done.

I'M SAVING THIS ONE!

"It cannot be done, but may have been done"

....resisting urge to guffaw....

I REST MY CASE.

(Why would I think I could have a fruitful argument with someone who is willing to embrace two diametrically opposite views at the same time?)

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233894 Jul 30, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
That's about 1" square.

That's a long way from infinite.

Bwahahahahahahahahahhahahhahah ahhahahhahahahahahahhahahahhah ah...

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233895 Jul 30, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
If the universe is infinite, it counted to infinity. In a finite amount of time.
It expanded like this: 1,2,3,....infinity.
Why would you say you can't count to infinity but the universe can expand to infinity?
It's the same thing.

Aura Mytha wrote:

Nothing can count that high, but it doesn't mean it hasn't been done.
__________

This is a classic, folks.

I have demonstrated how to definitively win an argument.

You get your opponent to admit he is saying two opposite things at the same time.

I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#233896 Jul 30, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It's hard to envision for good reason - it is universally impossible.
Infinite curvature is impossible. Infinite density is impossible. Infinite gravity is impossible. 0 volume of matter is impossible.
Other than those problems, you have it down pat.
What occurs with this kind of thinking is that "infinity" is used as a direction.
It never gets there. You can walk in any direction, but you can't walk an infinite distance.
If you did, it wouldn't be infinite distance.
If you could walk infinite distance, one step would be infinite distance.
If you walk for 13.9 billion years at one billion times the speed of light, you would be no closer to infinite distance than with your first step.
No closer. And never any closer. Ever.
That is essentially correct if everything was how you would logically expect it to be.
What isn't possible, is for them to occur in 3+1 dimensions as we know them.
But you are still assuming that human logic applies, it doesn't.
However there is a flaw to your reasoning here that arises.

"If you walk for 13.9 billion years at one billion times the speed of light, you would be no closer to infinite distance than with your first step."

This is only true if you have stopped walking, if you remain walking at a billion times the speed of light , you will remain at an infinite distance to everything else.

Since: Sep 08

United States

#233897 Jul 30, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
As we see, it is the VOLUME of the object, not its MASS, that deforms spacetime. This is a logical observation ...but since 1919, experiments show the contrary.
Einstein demonstrated that spacetime is curved by masses, not by volumes. This assertion, which is verified by experimentation, is totally irrational since, to date, no one can explain how a mass can curve spacetime. So, the question is:
Is spacetime curved:
&#9642; by volume?(logical, but wrong...)
&#9642; or by mass?(irrational, but proven)
http://www.spacetime-model.com/massgravity/ma...
Do you have a family member you trust completely that you can get online here to discuss something with? It concerns your health.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233898 Jul 30, 2014
Bringing The Black Hole Fallacy Into Focus

[Editor's Note: The following article is a copy of a letter sent by Stephen J. Crothers to the author of an article which was published in the journal Nature which offers no proofs of the outrageous claims it makes regarding black holes.

Anyone who has any doubt about the validity of black hole claims should read this as it offers mathematical proof (in conjunction with referenced material) that black holes cannot exist. Crothers has offered his math for scrutiny to many scientists and theorists and to date none have offered a mathematical refutation of his claims.

Crothers:

"The signatures of the alleged black hole are (a) an infinitely dense-point-mass singularity and (b) an event horizon. Nobody has ever found a black hole, despite the many claims for their discovery here and there and everywhere, because nobody has ever found an infinitely dense point-mass singularity and nobody has ever found an event horizon. Moreover, according to the mathematical theory of black holes, it takes an infinite amount of time for an observer to establish the presence of an event horizon, but nobody has been and nobody will be around for an infinite amount of time, so it is impossible to resolve anything at the alleged event horizon. All claims for the discovery of black holes are thus patently false."

"The geometrical facts already enunciated above are sufficient to prove the black hole a fallacy. On a much simpler level the black hole is inconsistent with the Theory of Relativity. The alleged singularity of the black hole is infinitely dense. Now Special Relativity forbids infinite density because infinite density implies that a material body can acquire the speed of light in vacuum (or equivalently that there is infinite energy), which violates the fundamental premise of Special Relativity. General Relativity, by definition, cannot violate Special Relativity, and so it too forbids infinite density. Thus, the Theory of Relativity forbids infinitely dense point-mass singularities and hence forbids black holes. Consequently, all alleged black hole phenomena are meaningless."

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#233899 Jul 30, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
This is precious.
The impossibility of a physical infinite is proven to you...
So what to do?
Triple down.
Give us 3 physical infinites at the same time.
And throw in a 0 volume.
You have a weird religion.
Actually a NASA astrophysicist wrote that, but we know NASA astrophysicist's are morons compared to you.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#233900 Jul 30, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I'M SAVING THIS ONE!
"It cannot be done, but may have been done"
....resisting urge to guffaw....
I REST MY CASE.
(Why would I think I could have a fruitful argument with someone who is willing to embrace two diametrically opposite views at the same time?)
Yeah well it didn't take an intelligent design either.
All it took was intelligent falling.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#233901 Jul 30, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have a family member you trust completely that you can get online here to discuss something with? It concerns your health.
Take your finger out your nose when you type! Dave

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233902 Jul 30, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
That is essentially correct if everything was how you would logically expect it to be.
What isn't possible, is for them to occur in 3+1 dimensions as we know them.
But you are still assuming that human logic applies, it doesn't.
However there is a flaw to your reasoning here that arises.
"If you walk for 13.9 billion years at one billion times the speed of light, you would be no closer to infinite distance than with your first step."
This is only true if you have stopped walking, if you remain walking at a billion times the speed of light , you will remain at an infinite distance to everything else.
WRONG.

If you remain walking at a billion times the speed of light, you WILL NOT be an infinite distance from anything. Not ever.

Your distance will be (1 billion x speed of light) X elapsed time.

And the product will be finite.

If you "remain" walking at the same rate, each step is the next larger FINITE.

Sorry, but I cannot accept your invitation to join you in abandoning both logic and mathematics.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#233903 Jul 30, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Bringing The Black Hole Fallacy Into Focus
[Editor's Note: The following article is a copy of a letter sent by Stephen J. Crothers to the author of an article which was published in the journal Nature which offers no proofs of the outrageous claims it makes regarding black holes.
Anyone who has any doubt about the validity of black hole claims should read this as it offers mathematical proof (in conjunction with referenced material) that black holes cannot exist. Crothers has offered his math for scrutiny to many scientists and theorists and to date none have offered a mathematical refutation of his claims.
Crothers:
"The signatures of the alleged black hole are (a) an infinitely dense-point-mass singularity and (b) an event horizon. Nobody has ever found a black hole, despite the many claims for their discovery here and there and everywhere, because nobody has ever found an infinitely dense point-mass singularity and nobody has ever found an event horizon. Moreover, according to the mathematical theory of black holes, it takes an infinite amount of time for an observer to establish the presence of an event horizon, but nobody has been and nobody will be around for an infinite amount of time, so it is impossible to resolve anything at the alleged event horizon. All claims for the discovery of black holes are thus patently false."
"The geometrical facts already enunciated above are sufficient to prove the black hole a fallacy. On a much simpler level the black hole is inconsistent with the Theory of Relativity. The alleged singularity of the black hole is infinitely dense. Now Special Relativity forbids infinite density because infinite density implies that a material body can acquire the speed of light in vacuum (or equivalently that there is infinite energy), which violates the fundamental premise of Special Relativity. General Relativity, by definition, cannot violate Special Relativity, and so it too forbids infinite density. Thus, the Theory of Relativity forbids infinitely dense point-mass singularities and hence forbids black holes. Consequently, all alleged black hole phenomena are meaningless."
A Paper Illustrating More of Crothers' Relativity Errors

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blog...

CMC or

Creationist moron crap

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233904 Jul 30, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah well it didn't take an intelligent design either.
All it took was intelligent falling.
Your faith is strong.

Your belief in miracles is touching, in a way.

Yet it will lead some to conclude you are insane.

3 miracles qualifies you for Sainthood.

Have you applied?

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) 14 hr candlesmell 95,390
Why creation? 17 hr Elganned 58
Atheism saved me 17 hr Amused 27
News Scientific, Philosophical Case for God's Existe... Tue Elganned 174
man Mon blacklagoon 3 1
The atheists mind Jun 15 Elganned 63
News Atheism and Wonder Jun 14 Eagle 12 - 50