Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.
Comments
133,981 - 134,000 of 226,397 Comments Last updated 3 hrs ago

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#139379 Nov 20, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
You glued your hands together for a bet?
Using what?
super glue

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#139380 Nov 20, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with much of what you posted.
Now, why the outright denial a supernatural force is responsible? You certainly don't have enough evidence to make that a fact.
Supernatural is another way of saying "not understood".
So in reality supernatural "doesn't exist".^>

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#139381 Nov 20, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> super glue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanoacrylate

Super Glue can ignite cotton. Variations of it are used to close wounds instead of sutures.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#139382 Nov 20, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Supernatural is another way of saying "not understood".
So in reality supernatural "doesn't exist".^>
That was pretty poor.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#139383 Nov 20, 2012
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, Ok, Ok, I believe it! lol
It's a very wet Tuesday!!
Not here.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#139384 Nov 20, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Are dark energy, and the forces of dark matter supernatural? They certainly would be considered such unless they were needed to make your calculations appear correct.
But because they are subject to the laws of physics, they are not.
Would the EM of dark matter work the same as visible?
This is one things we know about dark matter: it does not interact strongly with light, i.e. E&M. So the answer is no.
If the gravity of dark matter originated in the BB, wouldn't the accompanying EM? Along with the nuclear forces? Could it be detected? Is it detected? Would the forces of this darkness cancel that of the visible?
There is no reason particles *have* to interact strongly with E&M: if they are uncharged, for example. I'm not sure how to interpret the rest of your questions: the gravity of dark matter 'originates' in the same way as for ordinary matter: from the energy density (mass included in the energy here). The best bet as of right now is that dark matter is composed of particles that interact primarily through the weak force, not E&M or the strong force. If dark matter is composed of axions, though, there would be a weak interaction with E&M, which could even explain the 511MeV glow around out galaxy. At this point, we need more data.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#139385 Nov 20, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relation...
I don't think you truly grasp the physical realities of quantum mechanics.
You are confusing problems with observing with the actual physical goings on.
Your "randomness" is "magic". POOF!!! Or it is mathematical fudge factors for incorrect observation and interpretation.
\Random may be a sequential set of events but to understand it is takes crunching the numbers to see the pattern. So by all intents and purpose a event that is only repetitive on a scale that large is "random".

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#139386 Nov 20, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relation...
I don't think you truly grasp the physical realities of quantum mechanics.
You are confusing problems with observing with the actual physical goings on.
Your "randomness" is "magic". POOF!!! Or it is mathematical fudge factors for incorrect observation and interpretation.
No, I am definitely NOT confusing problems of observation with what is actually going on. That is the whole point of Bell's inequalities:*any* deterministic system has to obey those inequalities, but QM does not and neither does the real world. Randomness is an essential aspect of reality.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#139387 Nov 20, 2012
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
SORRY!! I have a habit of talking in generalities and not being very articulate, I'm honestly sorry. I will definitely try to express my view more clearly.
An atheist never actually said that the world just created itself, that was just me being stupid and lazy to write out what he actually said, sorry again.
The problem is that most religious people don't want to understand atheists and vice versa. My belief isn't that different to most atheists. The main difference is that I use the word God where atheists use a question mark, other than that we agree on mostly everything else. If we all tried to understand eachother, I believe there wouldn't be any arguements.
There will always be arguments, and that's okay.

I understand the theistic perspective very well. Many of the other atheists on Topix do too. Understanding and agreeing are very different things though.

I like how you seek to join instead of divide. That's worth a lot to me.

:)

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#139388 Nov 20, 2012
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
You can do anything and everything, you just have to believe!:-)
I'm not a fan of unbridled optimism.

I'm a realist.

I calculate.

I'm not cold though. I'm a warm calculator.
Thinking

Andover, UK

#139389 Nov 20, 2012
Good catch ;)
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> super glue

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#139390 Nov 20, 2012
Dave, did you know that computers never generate random numbers? Not at all, it's impossible for them to. This is because random is mathematically impossible, once an algorithm is developed to map out events it ceases to be random, because we just stop perceiving it as random. Computers simulate the unknown quantities by producing what we call pseudo-random values, based on a stored set of values in the chip set, these values are the response given whenever a "random" number is requested by the program. They are always in the exact same order, what changes is the starting location, often called the "seed." Seed values are typically determined by the clock value, the milliseconds since epoch typically, then the program uses that seed as the starting point in the list of numerical values. The best approach is to change the seed often, based on a specific queue from the program to poll the time value and apply that as the new seed.

However, no matter how well someone codes this, if you're keen on patterns you will see the pattern. I can see the pattern in video games all the time, to me, nothing in a computer game is ever random, because I spot the pattern and the queue becomes autonomic for me. It's one reason people don't like to play against me in any game that depends on the random method calls.

The point of all that, nothing, and I do mean nothing, in the universe is random, however, just because nothing is random doesn't mean everything has to have a "purpose."

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#139391 Nov 20, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
But because they are subject to the laws of physics, they are not.
<quoted text>
This is one things we know about dark matter: it does not interact strongly with light, i.e. E&M. So the answer is no.
<quoted text>
There is no reason particles *have* to interact strongly with E&M: if they are uncharged, for example. I'm not sure how to interpret the rest of your questions: the gravity of dark matter 'originates' in the same way as for ordinary matter: from the energy density (mass included in the energy here). The best bet as of right now is that dark matter is composed of particles that interact primarily through the weak force, not E&M or the strong force. If dark matter is composed of axions, though, there would be a weak interaction with E&M, which could even explain the 511MeV glow around out galaxy. At this point, we need more data.
"In 1968, the electromagnetic force and the weak interaction were unified, when they were shown to be two aspects of a single force, now termed the electro-weak force."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction

Same process it appears. Not different and unique forces. They will find the same with the others once they clean their toy box out of particles, and all of their flavors. They have collected so many in their game they got confused about what they were doing.

Like a water stream, you can't see the basic energy flow when you are in it. But you can see ripples and whirlpools in it when it encounters obstructions. Just slowing down a section will do that. They make what is then called an object, or a particle.

Weren't particles "made" after the Big Bang? Wasn't there a shrinking? That was back and forth motion, was it not?
Thinking

Andover, UK

#139392 Nov 20, 2012
The UK government has run a lottery since 1957 using analogue mechanisms to create the random numbers on behalf of the digital computers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ERNIE#ERNIE
KittenKoder wrote:
Dave, did you know that computers never generate random numbers? Not at all, it's impossible for them to. This is because random is mathematically impossible, once an algorithm is developed to map out events it ceases to be random, because we just stop perceiving it as random. Computers simulate the unknown quantities by producing what we call pseudo-random values, based on a stored set of values in the chip set, these values are the response given whenever a "random" number is requested by the program. They are always in the exact same order, what changes is the starting location, often called the "seed." Seed values are typically determined by the clock value, the milliseconds since epoch typically, then the program uses that seed as the starting point in the list of numerical values. The best approach is to change the seed often, based on a specific queue from the program to poll the time value and apply that as the new seed.
However, no matter how well someone codes this, if you're keen on patterns you will see the pattern. I can see the pattern in video games all the time, to me, nothing in a computer game is ever random, because I spot the pattern and the queue becomes autonomic for me. It's one reason people don't like to play against me in any game that depends on the random method calls.
The point of all that, nothing, and I do mean nothing, in the universe is random, however, just because nothing is random doesn't mean everything has to have a "purpose."

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#139393 Nov 20, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
Dave, did you know that computers never generate random numbers? Not at all, it's impossible for them to. This is because random is mathematically impossible, once an algorithm is developed to map out events it ceases to be random, because we just stop perceiving it as random. Computers simulate the unknown quantities by producing what we call pseudo-random values, based on a stored set of values in the chip set, these values are the response given whenever a "random" number is requested by the program. They are always in the exact same order, what changes is the starting location, often called the "seed." Seed values are typically determined by the clock value, the milliseconds since epoch typically, then the program uses that seed as the starting point in the list of numerical values. The best approach is to change the seed often, based on a specific queue from the program to poll the time value and apply that as the new seed.
However, no matter how well someone codes this, if you're keen on patterns you will see the pattern. I can see the pattern in video games all the time, to me, nothing in a computer game is ever random, because I spot the pattern and the queue becomes autonomic for me. It's one reason people don't like to play against me in any game that depends on the random method calls.
The point of all that, nothing, and I do mean nothing, in the universe is random, however, just because nothing is random doesn't mean everything has to have a "purpose."
I must confess it is a pleasant surprise to see you finally agree with us cause and effect people. You had me worried there.

Now, please explain that to Polymath.

Oh, everything can have a purpose. If it exists, and things are in motion, it will eventually become part of the equations.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#139394 Nov 20, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Idiot.
You ignored my questions.
Let's try again.
Should we get an old science book about star formation? You know, back when they "knew" the Milky Way was the universe?
Or should we get a newer one, where they "know" more about gravity & hydrogen?
Or should we wait for a future science book where they'll "know" even more?
here are some books you might try, The Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing. It was written by Lawrence Krauss, published in 2012

Wolfgang Brandner book Planet Formation is excellent. He's a professor at Cambridge Astrobiology

Philip Armitage's book Astrophysics of Planet Formation is good. Publish date 2010

One of my favorites is John Bally's book The Birth Of Stars and Planets. A little old though published i 2006, probably completes irrelevant by now. LOL

Oh, since you don't believe anything science tells you, why not just make shit up about how planets and stars are formed.....oh wait, your religion already does that, sorry!!!

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#139395 Nov 20, 2012
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, seriously are you that friggin dumb????
Definition of CHRISTIAN (Merriam-Webster)
1
a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ
Last time I checked, Catholics believe in Jesus. In fact, if you were to say study world history you would know that the Catholic church is the "ancestor" of all western Christianity sects. Catholicism was the only Christianity in Medieval Europe until Martin Luther came along
They have the same roots but have diverged into different religions.

Saying Catholics are Christians is like saying Jews are Christians.

Similar, but still different.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#139396 Nov 20, 2012
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
No you are the troll. THis is an Atheism forum last time I checked. You and your fundie friends like to dictate your fundie batshit crazy beliefs onto us, not the other way around.
Yes, the atheism DEBATE forum.

Yes, atheism DOES require faith.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#139397 Nov 20, 2012
Thinking wrote:
The bible: a crazy work of fiction.
<quoted text>
And the best selling & highest produced book of all time.

ahhh.........

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#139398 Nov 20, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not a fan of unbridled optimism.
I'm a realist.
I calculate.
I'm not cold though. I'm a warm calculator.
Did you not understand that I was joking with you?

I know we can't do everything! I wish I could fly but it's never going to happen, I'm scared of heights! lol

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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 forgetting the meaning of freedom 3 hr religionislies 58
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 5 hr Mikko 21,506
The Ultimate Evidence of God 10 hr CunningLinguist 65
The myth of the angry atheist 17 hr _Bad Company 1
I left Creationism! Ask me anything! 18 hr Patrick 7
100% Faith Free 18 hr CunningLinguist 14
Should Uninformed Opinion Be Respected? 19 hr CunningLinguist 39
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••