Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258473 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: 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.

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.

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?)

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...

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.

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

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

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?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233905 Jul 30, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
A Paper Illustrating More of Crothers' Relativity Errors
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blog...
CMC or
Creationist moron crap
At least Creationists have the decency to invoke the supernatural.

You invoked 3 miracles out of pure materialism.

You are far less coherent than a Creationist.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233906 Jul 30, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
A Paper Illustrating More of Crothers' Relativity Errors
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blog...
CMC or
Creationist moron crap
Here is Crothers' refutation of that paper.

Proving black holes cannot exist.

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/REP...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233907 Jul 30, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Actually a NASA astrophysicist wrote that, but we know NASA astrophysicist's are morons compared to you.
An astrophysicist wrote it?

Why didn't you just say God wrote it?

If you have nothing but appeal-to-authority, go all the way, man.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233908 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.
Good advice, Dave.

I fear Aura is about one infinitely small step away from forming a mass-suicide pact with other cult members who expect to be picked up by an infinite starship and shuttled away to a black hole event horizon.

The cult leaders told him they can never reach it, but they will be there someday.

Since: Sep 08

United States

#233909 Jul 30, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Good advice, Dave.
I fear Aura is about one infinitely small step away from forming a mass-suicide pact with other cult members who expect to be picked up by an infinite starship and shuttled away to a black hole event horizon.
The cult leaders told him they can never reach it, but they will be there someday.
The infinite possibilities and infinite patience will get them to their nirvana. Then they can tell us non-believers nyaahh! and I told you so. They have great faith in that.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233910 Jul 30, 2014
Black Holes Aren’t Black After All, Say Theoretical Physicists

" Many physicists scratch their feet and stare at the ground when confronted with the idea of an infinitely dense object."

"In the last year or so, an intense debate about the paradoxical properties of black holes has left a number of theoretical physicists, including Stephen Hawking, suggesting that black holes might not exist at all, at least not in the form that anyone had imagined."

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) 16 min replaytime 66,924
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr replaytime 28,533
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 3 hr replaytime 3,466
is it ever right to hate Christians as a group? 14 hr Superwilly 19
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) 18 hr superwilly 457
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) Apr 22 IB DaMann 5,975
News Unholy? Atheists should embrace the science of ... Apr 20 Eagle 12 9
More from around the web