Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

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. Full Story

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#234197 Aug 4, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Stephen Crothers??? This would be the same Stephen Crothers who is proud of being expelled from his PhD course?
Being expelled from a PhD course - now there's something YOU will never need to worry about!

Bwahahahahahahaahhaaaaa....

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#234198 Aug 4, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Great rebuttal.
Did Stalin believe in black holes?
Bwahahahaahahahahahhaaaaaa....
Surely not another buckism

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#234199 Aug 4, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Being expelled from a PhD course - now there's something YOU will never need to worry about!
Bwahahahahahahaahhaaaaa....
Correct, I have my bachelors and masters, no need for a doctorate to make you look foolish

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#234200 Aug 4, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct, I have my bachelors and masters, no need for a doctorate to make you look foolish
You could do your thesis on "Stalin's Christianity"

Bwahahahahhahahahhahahahahhaah haaaaaa...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#234201 Aug 4, 2014
Why Black Holes Do Not Exist

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#234202 Aug 4, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You could do your thesis on "Stalin's Christianity"
Bwahahahahhahahahhahahahahhaah haaaaaa...
Nope, but how about ‘the ignorance and stupidity of buck crick’?
CunningLinguist

Inverness, FL

#234203 Aug 4, 2014
Steven Crothers is a crackpot.

Another feeble attempt to associate creationism with a Big Bang

Dr. Jason Sharples has published a paper in 'Progress in Physics',“Coordinate Transformations and Metric Extension: a Rebuttal to the Relativistic Claims of Stephen J. Crothers” which points out some of the many strange errors that Stephen J. Crothers makes in his somewhat bizarre interpretation of relativity.

Dr. Sharples exposes Crothers' misstatements in a very pedagogical way, choosing simpler examples, such as 2-dimensional geometry, and applying Crothers' analysis methods. This technique illustrates that Crothers' claims of 'fatal problems for general relativity' are actually problems in Mr. Crothers' interpretation of general relativity.

For example, Mr. Crothers' likes to claim that General Relativity has an internal contradiction because the metric radius in a Hilbert form of the Schwarzschild metric is not equal to the Gaussian curvature (Wikipedia: Gaussian Curvature) of the metric. Dr. Sharples uses the simple example of a spherical line element in a Euclidean (flat) 3-dimensional space to illustrate that these quantities are not equal even in this simplified case and are not required to be equal.

Crothers' analysis is seriously flawed. I wonder how Crothers would make his 'interpretation' of the spherically-symmetric solution consistent with the physics needed to make a reliable GPS receiver.

N'est ce pas

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#234204 Aug 4, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No it isn't.
Speed is units of distance per unit of time.
To get infinite speed, you need infinite distance divided by some span of time.
You are proposing to prove infinite distance by use of infinite distance.
You're a moron.
Impossible speed for 13.7 billion years is ...infinite.

"To get infinite speed, you need infinite distance divided by some span of time."

This is the same thing ..moron

The Infinite expansion of space/time for 13.7 billion years = infinity
You're welcome..

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#234205 Aug 4, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
They just have to exist. Right?
Argument from Final Consequence Fallacy
No they don't have to exist, but they were a prediction of the consequences if general relativity.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#234206 Aug 4, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's lovely, but the problem is they cannot exist, because they are self-contradictory in features, and violate general relativity.
Other than those problems, you're spot on.
You're referring to Bible stories, right?

Off to the gym.
religionislies

Exeter, UK

#234207 Aug 4, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
They just have to exist. Right?
Argument from Final Consequence Fallacy
Black holes are a fact because of the overwhelming evidence for them.

Creationism is a lie because of the overwhelming evidence against it.
CunningLinguist

Inverness, FL

#234208 Aug 4, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, but how about ‘the ignorance and stupidity of buck crick’?
Buck, our resident narcissist, is severely challenged by reality; allergic to fact; and actively engaged in a courageous battle with literacy and mental health.

Frankly is hard to believe that someone can live in the age of information and be so out of touch with it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#234209 Aug 4, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Impossible speed for 13.7 billion years is ...infinite.
"To get infinite speed, you need infinite distance divided by some span of time."
This is the same thing ..moron
The Infinite expansion of space/time for 13.7 billion years = infinity
You're welcome..
Are you that stupid?

You just shuffled your "infinity" back to the end of the equation. You inserted infinity into the conclusion by inserting it into the premise.

Your theory now takes this form:

1. The universe expanded at an infinite rate because dividing infinite distance by 13.8 billion years = infinite speed.

2. The universe expanded to infinite distance because infinite speed x 13.8 billion years = infinite distance.

You prove the infinite universe by inserting it in the proof.

Moonie

Charlotte, NC

#234210 Aug 4, 2014
religionislies wrote:
<quoted text>
Black holes are a fact because of the overwhelming evidence for them.
Creationism is a lie because of the overwhelming evidence against it.
Hey Septic aka Jim aka Skeptic go bother someone else with your crap.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#234211 Aug 4, 2014
CunningLinguist wrote:
Steven Crothers is a crackpot.
Another feeble attempt to associate creationism with a Big Bang
Dr. Jason Sharples has published a paper in 'Progress in Physics',“Coordinate Transformations and Metric Extension: a Rebuttal to the Relativistic Claims of Stephen J. Crothers” which points out some of the many strange errors that Stephen J. Crothers makes in his somewhat bizarre interpretation of relativity.
Dr. Sharples exposes Crothers' misstatements in a very pedagogical way, choosing simpler examples, such as 2-dimensional geometry, and applying Crothers' analysis methods. This technique illustrates that Crothers' claims of 'fatal problems for general relativity' are actually problems in Mr. Crothers' interpretation of general relativity.
For example, Mr. Crothers' likes to claim that General Relativity has an internal contradiction because the metric radius in a Hilbert form of the Schwarzschild metric is not equal to the Gaussian curvature (Wikipedia: Gaussian Curvature) of the metric. Dr. Sharples uses the simple example of a spherical line element in a Euclidean (flat) 3-dimensional space to illustrate that these quantities are not equal even in this simplified case and are not required to be equal.
Crothers' analysis is seriously flawed. I wonder how Crothers would make his 'interpretation' of the spherically-symmetric solution consistent with the physics needed to make a reliable GPS receiver.
N'est ce pas
Sharples is wrong, you moron.

If you are going to plagiarize a blog, you might be more credible in your plagiarism if you also posted Crothers' rebuttal to Sharples.

www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/REPLY.pdf

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#234212 Aug 4, 2014
CunningLinguist wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck, our resident narcissist, is severely challenged by reality; allergic to fact; and actively engaged in a courageous battle with literacy and mental health.
Frankly is hard to believe that someone can live in the age of information and be so out of touch with it.
Bluster attempting to be cute.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#234213 Aug 4, 2014
religionislies wrote:
<quoted text>
Black holes are a fact because of the overwhelming evidence for them.
Creationism is a lie because of the overwhelming evidence against it.
Kenneth! What is the frequency?

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#234214 Aug 4, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Sharples is wrong, you moron.
If you are going to plagiarize a blog, you might be more credible in your plagiarism if you also posted Crothers' rebuttal to Sharples.
www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/REPLY.pdf
Have you ever considered that it is not Shaples and all the other scientists who actually study black holes are wrong but the educational failure who was expelled from his PhD studies (Crothers) and does not know what the fook he is talking about?

In the pdf pointed to by your link he makes his rebuttal by repeating the same error and hiding behind masses of irrelevant math – jeez he must be a creationist.

Using Newton’s Laws in the late 1790s, John Michell of England and Pierre-Simon Laplace of France independently suggested the existence of an "invisible star." Michell and Laplace calculated the mass and size – which is now called the "event horizon" – that an object needs in order to have an escape velocity greater than the speed of light. In 1915, Einstein's theory of general relativity predicted the existence of black holes. In 1967 John Wheeler, an American theoretical physicist, applied the term "black hole" to these collapsed objects.
http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answ...

And to be honest I am pretty sure that Einstein knew more about what he wrote than a failure of the US education system

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#234215 Aug 4, 2014
CunningLinguist wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck, our resident narcissist, is severely challenged by reality; allergic to fact; and actively engaged in a courageous battle with literacy and mental health.
Frankly is hard to believe that someone can live in the age of information and be so out of touch with it.
Narcissist? Wow I just thought he was an egotestical (correct spelling) moron. ;-)

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#234216 Aug 4, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Kenneth! What is the frequency?
Why do you need the frequency, your tinfoil hat will prevent all frequencies breaking through

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
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 48 min Eagle 12 2,268
Islam is the Enemy (Sep '12) 3 hr Thinking 28
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 3 hr Thinking 119
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 3 hr Thinking 23,178
God' existence 3 hr Thinking 57
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 4 hr thetruth 1,442
Atheism does not exist at all 5 hr thetruth 4
More from around the web