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

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#127702 Oct 5, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Hehehe.
Hey, Predictions for tomorrow's rugby? SA vs NZ and Australia versus the Pumas?
ANZACs
stu

Brisbane, Australia

#127706 Oct 5, 2012
discocrisco wrote:
Maybe, the Christians got it right on the God thing. What they didn't know that is there is intelligent life right and God manifested himself in another way than us.
And there is millions of our civilizations among this universe and millions of ways God revealed himslf to them
But see it was none of business to know how he did it. It is beyond our feeble little minds. Us humans think we are terminally unique. Guess what. We are not. We are little specks in the infinite, large cosmos.
politics and religion is not us.
We are more insightful.
The spirit within the infinite may decide.
The notion of butterflies and cottoncandy clouds is half a nonsense.
The work we are called to do awaits.
Civilization is spirit
We are Babylon, Etruscan, Christian, Muslim, and secular.
All connected one with the past and into the future infinite.
Where else should we go?
The buddhists can come. To be a Jew can be a good thing. Why not? Lose your pain.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#127707 Oct 5, 2012
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
ANZACs
Whuddat?

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#127708 Oct 5, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Whuddat?
Sorry, ANZAC stands Australia and New Zealand Army Corps (1914 - 1918) So when I wrote ANZACs I was implying both Australia and New Zealand to win.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#127709 Oct 5, 2012
Gate Keeper 1 wrote:
<quoted text>Let's put this in perspective, 99% of gay men prefer oral anal sex, is that what you meant by waste left by one person. OMG you must eat a lot.
With your gay bashing you must be a closet gay.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#127710 Oct 5, 2012
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, ANZAC stands Australia and New Zealand Army Corps (1914 - 1918) So when I wrote ANZACs I was implying both Australia and New Zealand to win.
I am picking the Boks, not just for loyalty. The talent we have in this new team is staggering. We destroyed the Wallabies 31-8 last week, with the scoreboard being very kind to the Aussies. On any other day, we would have put 50 beyond them.

The All Blacks made the long trek back from Argentina, playing in our Highveld...in front of 90,000 fans. I think that we are going to take them.

The Wallabies... Not looking good. Valtures circling around Deans' head, the Cooper saga taking its toll, the travel to Argentina, the massive loss to the Boks and the physical toll that game took... If I was betting money on that match, I'd put a penny on the Pumas for the upset

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#127711 Oct 5, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
I am picking the Boks, not just for loyalty. The talent we have in this new team is staggering. We destroyed the Wallabies 31-8 last week, with the scoreboard being very kind to the Aussies. On any other day, we would have put 50 beyond them.
The All Blacks made the long trek back from Argentina, playing in our Highveld...in front of 90,000 fans. I think that we are going to take them.
The Wallabies... Not looking good. Valtures circling around Deans' head, the Cooper saga taking its toll, the travel to Argentina, the massive loss to the Boks and the physical toll that game took... If I was betting money on that match, I'd put a penny on the Pumas for the upset
As you may gather I don't follow sport.

BTW The Bathurst 1000 is on this weekend if you are into motor sport if you can watch.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#127712 Oct 5, 2012
Gate Keeper 1 wrote:
<quoted text>Let's put this in perspective, 99% of gay men prefer oral anal sex,
What's that taste like?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#127713 Oct 5, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
The bipolarity of EM is what makes it the primary shaper of matter over distance.
No, it is what makes it more irrelevant over distance.
A simple example.
Hang many magnetized welding rods in an enclosed area. The flux fields are much stronger than the gravity of each. The reach is the same. Eventually they will spin and line up in accordance with that polarity.
key word: eventually. The reason it takes so much time is that the EM force is small here. In fact, it is much, much smaller than gravity. How do you tell? Cut the cords holding them up and see if they fall.
For that matter, take a magnet and drop it. It will fall. And it will fall whether the north pole of that magnet is up or down, and whether you drop it at the equator or the north magnetic pole. While very powerful up close, the EM field decreases quickly with distance and will not be enough to hold the magnet up.
If they were all hung in a straight line they would all wind up pointing in the same direction, nsnsnsnsnsnsns. Otherwise they will assume a geometry according to the balance of field strength. That extended flux gives leverage on the centers of gravity causing them to spin seeking equilibrium of those forces. It is a much stronger force than gravity.
Again, the amount of force determine how long it takes for this equilibrium to be reached. In your example, it will take a fairly long time because the EM force here is relatively weak.
If they weren't magnetized, they would still seek this geometry based upon the length because of gravity being stronger along that length, but it is so weak it would take a very long time.
Only if you use a magnetic material like steel. Now try it with a non-magnetic material like carbon.
If a galaxy has a magnetic field, it will reach further than the gravity along the same axis.
Nope. And here's why. Take two magnetic and put them side by side with north and south poles together. Compare how much that pair attracts another magnet to how much each individual one does. The pair will attract much less because one will attract and the other repel. Now, if you do four instead of two, the total attraction will be much less again.
In most materials, there is an equal amount of positive charges and negative charges: the net result is the electric field tends to cancel out. The same holds for most materials for magnetic fields: those with magnetic domains tend to have them oriented randomly, which cancels their effects. The only time this is NOT the case is when the charges do not balance out or the magnetic regions are lined up.
You have to keep in mind that those EM fields have to merge to create a larger one for this directionality to really kick in. This attraction and repulsion is relative at first only to the magnetized mass.
And it will cancel if they are aligned oppositely, not add.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#127714 Oct 5, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
Black holes have to add a tremendous amount to the gravitational field they are located in. They are a recent "discovery", along with the theories of dark energy and dark mass.
Why those theories?
Because the model based upon gravity didn't work.
Actually, the basic theories do still work. But you need to know the types of matter and energy and their properties upon expansion to put into the model.
Amusing. All of those cosmological calculations based upon gravity, and the gravitational constant definition based upon the observations. And then those buggers show up.
Surely they can't be so evenly distributed throughout the universe to take up the slack in those calculations.
Well, we can actually map out the locations of the dark matter. Dark energy is more tricky, but has a lot of support.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#127715 Oct 5, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Isn't there talk of a super force?
There is the conception of super force , that would be all energy combined released from infinite density aka: within the infinitesimal.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#127716 Oct 5, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Dave...shocking as this may sound, archaeology relies on evidence based methodologies, not pure speculation by "armchair fantasizers."
Science has shown, again and again, that personal introspection does not produce facts. You're stuck in this mode and, for reasons of insecurity, dislike the people who actually use methodologies to produce knowledge.
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You are emotional and irrational tonight. More so than usual.
Slaves usually require security to prevent escape, particularly if they look like their masters. That adds a lot of overhead to a budget.
Conscripts and contractors don't. The law catches up with them if they default.
You don't have a very good understanding of how people live together in civilizations. Old and new. Too much stereotyping from reading too many books in lieu of actually thinking.
Ask draftees if they considered they were slaves. They worked right along with the contracted. The government "owned" both of them.
hahahaha, dude, there's no emotion except laughter in my above. It's honestly shocking how ignorant you are.

You are blinded by your own ignorance. You don't know anything outside of Dave's life and you presume it upon peoples from thousands of years ago in your fantasies. Sorry, baby, the world doesn't work like that.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#127717 Oct 5, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it is what makes it more irrelevant over distance.
<quoted text>
key word: eventually. The reason it takes so much time is that the EM force is small here. In fact, it is much, much smaller than gravity. How do you tell? Cut the cords holding them up and see if they fall.
For that matter, take a magnet and drop it. It will fall. And it will fall whether the north pole of that magnet is up or down, and whether you drop it at the equator or the north magnetic pole. While very powerful up close, the EM field decreases quickly with distance and will not be enough to hold the magnet up.
<quoted text>
Again, the amount of force determine how long it takes for this equilibrium to be reached. In your example, it will take a fairly long time because the EM force here is relatively weak.
<quoted text>
Only if you use a magnetic material like steel. Now try it with a non-magnetic material like carbon.
<quoted text>
Nope. And here's why. Take two magnetic and put them side by side with north and south poles together. Compare how much that pair attracts another magnet to how much each individual one does. The pair will attract much less because one will attract and the other repel. Now, if you do four instead of two, the total attraction will be much less again.
In most materials, there is an equal amount of positive charges and negative charges: the net result is the electric field tends to cancel out. The same holds for most materials for magnetic fields: those with magnetic domains tend to have them oriented randomly, which cancels their effects. The only time this is NOT the case is when the charges do not balance out or the magnetic regions are lined up.
<quoted text>
And it will cancel if they are aligned oppositely, not add.
That was pretty weak.

Hang a 100 ton block of rock. Hang a one pound bar of steel perfectly parallel adjacent to it so it just rests against the surface. Approach, you don't even have to contact it, the one pound bar with a refrigerator magnet. It will pull the bar away from the block. The magnetism in that refrigerator will overcome the gravity pull of the block, PLUS the pull of gravity of the earth on the bar, as for it to swing away it has to rise up a bit. The arc of the string.

Iron filings in a flux field line up between the poles. Each filing is a separate magnet. You will get the same effect if you magnetize one filing, the rest will get caught in the filed and start adding up until the total excess of magnetism is used up.

The iron is EM neutral until an external magnetic field affects it, and it tries to pass that excess on.

Over 99% of the matter in the universe is not EM neutral.

I posted a link a few days ago about short bursts of inrafred light being used to change magnetic domains. This was mainstream science research. This was light, EM, introducing an excess of magnetism to an EM neutral material. How far does light travel in this universe? As far as you can see?

Light particles can travel at least 13 billion light years and alter the EM signature of a neutral material, then making it subject to other magnetic fields more local to it. Energy 13 billion years from the past.

Smoke that.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#127718 Oct 5, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
hahahaha, dude, there's no emotion except laughter in my above. It's honestly shocking how ignorant you are.
You are blinded by your own ignorance. You don't know anything outside of Dave's life and you presume it upon peoples from thousands of years ago in your fantasies. Sorry, baby, the world doesn't work like that.
No intelligence, either.

You are doing good.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#127719 Oct 5, 2012
It can be very cute when the kiddies come running home all excited about something new they learned about in school.

It can be very exasperating and a pain in the ass when they get into arguments with you because they don't understand what they learned. They get these little emotional mental blocks that takes time for them to get over.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#127720 Oct 5, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>ians is correct, I for one enjoy coming here to see the good posts that pop up once in a while. Dave is mostly spam, but he provokes interesting discussion.
Thank you dear sir!:)

Dave is the ignorant foil we use to answer questions. Honestly, I'd like a somewhat more informed, less insane foil, but this is what we got stuck with. Answering his level is a bit insulting to the readers, since they'd generally have greater education and not be delusional, but oh well. Sorry readers.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#127721 Oct 5, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
No intelligence, either.
I know. Sometimes it just hurts reading your posts. Devoid of knowledge, devoid of intelligence.
You are doing good.
Not a lot to work with, given your posts, but I do ok.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#127722 Oct 5, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>no, I'm sure the Jews would have made excellent slaves :)
Entirely unlike the Cubans, who had to be exterminated so that hard working slaves be brought. Oh, the trials and tribulations that Catholics went through to get good slaves.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#127723 Oct 5, 2012
G_O_D wrote:
1. The pyraomids were built mikenia before the Hebrews even existed.
2. The Hebrews are the same peole as the Canaanires.
3. There is no record in all of Egypt for slave labor. Rather the archaelogical record and several written records indicates that laborers on the royal building projects were well provided for.
4. Even many Jewish scholars admit that the "Exodus" is more Heroic Legend than History.
5. Jesus never mentions Exodus, Pharoe or Egypt. So as far as Chrisitnaity should be concerned, it is as meaningless as Stonehenge is to Hinduism.
Yup to all.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#127724 Oct 5, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
As far as evidence of slave labor. The evidence stands tall in the form of pyramids.
False. Pyramids are evidence of labor, not slave labor.

Why do you choose to ignore new information, like the article I quoted for you that discussed the findings of an archaeologist?

It's a weak belief system that only seeks to support itself - a lot like Sadam Husein's gov't.

Strong belief systems challenge their beliefs, test the boundaries. Do we really know what we know? How accurate is what we know?

None of you theists do this. Dave is happy to pretend in his delusions that he has it all figured out. You're making the same mistake here and with other knowledge.

I don't. I actively test my knowledge and actively disbelieve it. That keeps my knowledge up to date, secure in a way yours can never be. You'll always be fighting new information whereas I'll be pondering it.

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... 3 hr Even Steven 903
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 9 hr thetruth 14,438
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 9 hr thetruth 17
Young atheists: The political leaders of tomorrow 9 hr tha Professor 1
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 9 hr tha Professor 2
Siro is writing a new book 20 hr thetruth 5
Why the Internet is slowly strangling religion 22 hr P_Smith 1

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE