Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 244657 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

#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."

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233911 Jul 30, 2014
.
The Time Barrier that Prevents Formation of Black Holes

" However, the dilation of time that occurs with increasing gravity erects an impenetrable barrier at the Schwarzschild radius that is able to prevent any mass from compacting sufficiently to form a black hole."

http://www.noblackholes.com/time_barrier.html

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233912 Jul 30, 2014
A FEW SIMPLE CONTRADICTIONS (by Stephen J. Crothers)

(1) All the 4 alleged types of black hole model universes are spatially infinite and so they cannot be blended with (superposed) or inserted into a big bang spatially finite model universe (constant positive curvature), nor can they blended with (superposed) or inserted into big bang model universes that possesses constant zero or constant negative curvature because no alleged black hole model universe possesses such constant curvatures as the three types of alleged big bang model universes. Thus they are mutually exclusive.

(2) The 4 alleged types of black hole model universes are eternal or not non-static (i.e. they are static or stationary) so they cannot be blended with or put inside any big bang model universe because all three alleged big bang model universes are of finite age (they are non-static). Thus they are mutually exclusive by their contradiction.

(3) The 4-alleged black hole model universes are either asymptotically flat or asymptotically curved and so they cannot be blended with or inserted into any of the three alleged big bang model universes because all big bang model universes are not asymptotically anything. Thus they are mutually exclusive by their contradiction.

(4) All alleged black hole model universes actually contain no matter because although they are alleged to contain only one mass, that of the black hole itself, no such mass appears in any related Einstein field equations. Consider the so-called 'Schwarzschild solution' for the field equations Ric = 0. In Ric = 0 the (energy-momentum tensor)= zero, and hence, by mathematical construction Ric = 0 contains no material sources. However, Einstein and his followers assert that a material source is nonetheless present, namely a star, which, according to Einstein’s followers can 'collapse' to form a black hole. This star is the alleged source of the gravitational field for Ric = 0. However, for de Sitter's empty universe, described by Ric = lambda (g_ij) the (energy-momentum tensor)= 0, and for this very reason de Sitter's universe is empty. Thus it is claimed by the proponents of black holes and big bangs that (energy-momentum tensor = 0) both includes and precludes material sources. This is impossible. Thus they are mutually exclusive by their contradiction. The fact is,(energy-momentum tensor = 0)=(no gravitational field)=(no model universe).

(5) All alleged black holes are alleged to have an escape velocity and no escape velocity simultaneously. This is impossible, because it is a contradiction.

(6) All alleged solutions to various sets of Einstein field equations for black hole model universes obtain their sole respective mass by an arbitrary insertion of Newton’s expression for escape velocity, an implicit two-body relation thus inserted into what is allegedly a solution for a one-mass universe, but which is in fact mass-less universe.(See point (5) above). Inclusion of Newton's implicit two-body relation contradicts the definition of the problem set to be solved.

"Poor physicists, they are allowed to write as much rubbish as they please, but it is not nice for me to have them account for their gibberish."

Stephen J. Crothers

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#233913 Jul 30, 2014
religionisillness wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know what you're talking about.
Black holes are observable evidence you twit.
if it's one thing i bet you know all about, it's lil 'black holes' and brown stars you find in the bath houses in the UK!;-)

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233914 Jul 30, 2014
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
if it's one thing i bet you know all about, it's lil 'black holes' and brown stars you find in the bath houses in the UK!;-)
That was excessively harsh, Wasp Soup.

I like it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233915 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.
Is this the same NASA whose scientists predicted the Arctic would be "ice-free" by the summer of 2013?

When it turned out to be LARGER in the summer of 2013?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/713...




“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#233916 Jul 30, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a closed course of finite length.
....and yet the symbol still "DEMONSTRATES" infinity.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#233917 Jul 30, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Why on its side?
It looks neat. I think Wallis just wanted to do something different with physics.(*shrugs*)

"infinity symbol"
- derived from the Greek word apeiros, meaning 'endless'
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>Wouldn't it be infinite standing upright?
Why not a donut? It's easier to draw.
Where in physics has a circle ever been used as a symbol of infinite? Please post the link to that assertion.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>Are you aware Topix atheists maintain that a donut is infinite?
I'm not - but hey - to each his own, huh? Just like you maintain that there is a "God". Why? How do you know "God" isn't a "donut" too?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>They gave no answer as to how much flour is required for an infinite donut.
Okay. How much text is needed to prove an infinite god?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>The stupidity continues now to the universe and Black Holes.
It's not stupid to talk about these things. The only stupid question, is the one not asked.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>Atheists will apparently believe anything.
I see the same thing with so-called "Christians", "Muslims", "Hindus", "Jews", etc.

Of the sects above - so-called "Christians" are the most gullible.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#233918 Jul 30, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
How am I supposed to believe anything you say, especially when you seem to be projecting unfounded comparisons of black holes and human anatomy?

Odd.

Maybe you should skip the black hole comparison altogether and explain why you think the way you do with a link that expresses your thoughts also?

While you are at the comparison stage - please begin to compare what "Paul" supposedly says with what Jesus supposedly stated. You will find "Paul" wasn't relying on Jesus in many regards.

Thanks for responding.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233919 Jul 30, 2014
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
....and yet the symbol still "DEMONSTRATES" infinity.
No, it doesn't.

A symbol doesn't "demonstrate" anything.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233920 Jul 30, 2014
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
How am I supposed to believe anything you say, especially when you seem to be projecting unfounded comparisons of black holes and human anatomy?
Odd.
Maybe you should skip the black hole comparison altogether and explain why you think the way you do with a link that expresses your thoughts also?
While you are at the comparison stage - please begin to compare what "Paul" supposedly says with what Jesus supposedly stated. You will find "Paul" wasn't relying on Jesus in many regards.
Thanks for responding.
I was responding to a poster who mentioned putting 4.1 million suns into the size of "Uranus".

It was too tempting. "Uranus"; "Your anus'. Get it?

Paul's teachings had little to nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus. He went rogue when the true followers of Jesus cast him out. He invented his own gospel, which became the basis for the Christian religion.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233921 Jul 30, 2014
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
How am I supposed to believe anything you say, especially when you seem to be projecting unfounded comparisons of black holes and human anatomy?
Odd.
Maybe you should skip the black hole comparison altogether and explain why you think the way you do with a link that expresses your thoughts also?
While you are at the comparison stage - please begin to compare what "Paul" supposedly says with what Jesus supposedly stated. You will find "Paul" wasn't relying on Jesus in many regards.
Thanks for responding.
Don't try to lecture me on Paul or Jesus.

I know far more about it than you.

Since: Sep 08

United States

#233922 Jul 30, 2014
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
....and yet the symbol still "DEMONSTRATES" infinity.
No. It demonstrates running around in circles. At less than full speed because you have to hang a curve the whole way. A moebus ring is different because you arebanked the entire way. However you have to do a 180 degree spin in one revolution, which means you have to do it on a plane. It will go to 360 degrees if the plane had depth. The infinity symbol can be done on a single line, but there ain't nothing to flip, which brings up the issue you have no radius on that line to even hang the curve. The single line can represent only a theoretical centerline, which means you really have nothing going nowhere. There ain't no dimension to move around in.

Or something like that.

You gotta analyze these things instead of being just an idol worshipper.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#233923 Jul 30, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it doesn't.
A symbol doesn't "demonstrate" anything.
Sure it does - to the many physics students. This definition also portrays that same thought:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/demons...

5. to exhibit the operation or use of (a device, process, product, or the like), usually to a purchaser or prospect: to demonstrate an automobile.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#233924 Jul 30, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't try to lecture me on Paul or Jesus.
I know far more about it than you.
So you think.

It's okay.....I'm not here to lecture anyone.....just here to help provide those facts that many sweep under the rug.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#233925 Jul 30, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That was excessively harsh, Wasp Soup.
I like it.
LOL! just doing my part in the war against gaytheist fascism!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233926 Jul 30, 2014
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure it does - to the many physics students. This definition also portrays that same thought:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/demons...
5. to exhibit the operation or use of (a device, process, product, or the like), usually to a purchaser or prospect: to demonstrate an automobile.
No, it does not demonstrate anything - except the ability to draw a figure-eight.

Neither does it exhibit an operation or use.

All it does is tell the reader "I'm referring to infinity here".

Which you could also do with the symbol "I'm-referring-to-infinit y-here".

Neither demonstrates anything.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#233927 Jul 30, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it does not demonstrate anything - except the ability to draw a figure-eight.
Neither does it exhibit an operation or use.
All it does is tell the reader "I'm referring to infinity here".
Which you could also do with the symbol "I'm-referring-to-infinit y-here".
Neither demonstrates anything.
Since this is getting nowhere - we'll agree to disagree.

Thanks for responding.
Patrick

United States

#233928 Jul 30, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't try to lecture me on Paul or Jesus.
I know far more about it than you.
As the West ramped up its sanctions against the Russian Federation, on Wednesday Russian President Vladimir Putin convened a high-level meeting of his imaginary friends to craft a response.

Putin spent over six hours consulting with his inner circle of imaginary friends, whom he refers to as the League of Superior Beings.

Attending the meeting were Igor, a powerful brute who can deflect missiles with his bare fists; Dr. Karamazov, who can control the world’s weather; and Ludmila, a sorceress whose powers include the ability to bend time and transform herself into a number of animals and insects.

Putin emerged from the meeting energized and upbeat, telling associates that Igor and Ludmila had put aside their usual rivalry to confront the threat of sanctions.

According to sources, Putin and his imaginary friends are weighing a broad array of options, including covering Europe in icicles and sending U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to another dimension.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233929 Jul 30, 2014
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
Since this is getting nowhere - we'll agree to disagree.
Thanks for responding.
I don't agree to disagree.

If you agree to disagree, it is unilateral.

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) 13 min thetruth 20,452
There is no meaning without God 1 hr Thinking 2
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 6 hr emperorjohn 10,594
Atheists and the "Moses Syndrome" 6 hr Anonymous1386 3
Atheist believe, they are just hiding!!! 16 hr Richardfs 17
Atheists should stop feeding the stereotypes 17 hr Thinking 4
John 3:16 Mon Thinking 65
More from around the web