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

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#147239 Jan 5, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
"Holders"="golf ers".
A picture of a Boeing 737 with fuselage blown out:

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

Payne Stewart crash due to decompression:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakot...

Quantas 747 lands safely after explosive decompression:

http://www.euronews.com/2008/07/25/qantas-747...

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#147240 Jan 5, 2013
Good article on explosive decompression on a Southwest Airlines flight:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42434710/ns/trave...

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147241 Jan 5, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you're pretty clueless as to what a bullet will do to a pressurized aircraft, eh?
While its not like what they depict in movies, with everybody getting sucked out the windows, it would entail oxygen masks and emergency descent at best.
I'm pretty sure air Marshalls use a light load and frangible rounds.
I sure as hell don't want some redneck yahoo with the brains of a tick carrying a loaded weapon aboard any plane I'm on.
Then enjoy your time with the terrorists.

You think they'll treat you better than a rednek.....

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147242 Jan 5, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Ossuary-ho...
Disproven. Sad that you that naive! What next you gonna bring up the shroud of Turin?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah a!
You should remain silent and let people ponder your idiocy rater than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
<quoted text>
Are you kidding?

A news article?

no, wait - A news article from San Fransisco?!?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! !!!!!!

<COUGH>

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147243 Jan 5, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
For the dozenth time Josephus and Tacitus among several others. Yes te same two guys Christians love to use as secular historians for Jesus also wrote about Hercules and they wrote much more about Hercules and on greater detail.
Again these are Jewish historians who did not worship the Hellenistic gods and both verify Hercules.
Not opinion. Fact.
Oh and you can't use the argument that people today still worship Jesus because you already totally discounted the temples and statues built for Hercules by worshippers of him as proof that he existed so naturally we will hold Jesus to the same standard.
So all things judged equally we have by far more historical proof for Hercules than we have for Jesus.
That's nice.
I meant present evidence, not your worthless opinion.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147244 Jan 5, 2013
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, you are right, and it is always best to keep your feet on the ground :)
It's hard to play basketball that way.

...or lay in bed :)

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#147245 Jan 5, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Then enjoy your time with the terrorists.
You think they'll treat you better than a rednek.....
I'm not entirely sure about that.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#147246 Jan 5, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
It's hard to play basketball that way.
...or lay in bed :)
Lie, RR, not lay.

Hey, early Saturday shift?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147247 Jan 5, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
A picture of a Boeing 737 with fuselage blown out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_F...
Payne Stewart crash due to decompression:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakot...
Quantas 747 lands safely after explosive decompression:
http://www.euronews.com/2008/07/25/qantas-747...
You should see the movie "Flight". You'd probably like it.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#147248 Jan 5, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You should see the movie "Flight". You'd probably like it.
It's on my list.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147249 Jan 5, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
It's on my list.
Don't watch it with kids, there's boobies & bush 2 minutes into it...

Just a friendly warning.

Good movie - John Goodman was hilarious & Denzel is the man, as usual.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#147250 Jan 5, 2013
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
I get those all the time! Thanks to Spell Check, the wrong word is correctly spelled!
I read that, or tried to read that, several times and I missed it each time.:(
Don't worry about it, it was just hilarious to me how that one small letter can change the entire context of that sentence.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#147251 Jan 5, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you ever seen the video of a 707 doing a barrel roll?
Google it. A properly executed barrel roll doesn't over stress a wing. And the change of weight of air is insignificant compared to the change of weight due to fuel burn.
There was also a case of a jetliner that blew out a whole section of fuselage that landed safely. A couple of people did get sucked out of that one, but the plane did not do what you said it would.
Also, the escaping air, even from an entire window blowing out has nowhere near the thrust of a jet engine. I don't know where you heard that. Even a shotgun blast would not cause that kind of effect. There was a holders plane that suffered an explosive decompression a few years back due to failure of a valve in the pressurization system. It flew on autopilot until it ran out of fuel and crashed.
Your scenario only happens in the movies.
"Properly" executed, I wasn't talking about properly, was I? ;)

The other thing is fuel burn is factored in, but rapid depressurization is factored only as much as possible, there are always miscalculations in that aspect, you can't test for what you do not expect. I also qualified it with "small" jet engine, it's the same concept of the jet engine too, compressed air forced through a smaller opening. My scenario doesn't just happen in movies, because I gave a bunch of factors and possibilities, not a scenario. The only reason planes are as safe as they are now is because the engineers try to work on preventing the worst case scenarios, but even an engineer won't ever say it's perfectly safe. It's still the safest way to travel, but considering that there are way fewer planes in the air than cars on the ground, it's not surprising.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147252 Jan 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
"Properly" executed, I wasn't talking about properly, was I? ;)
The other thing is fuel burn is factored in, but rapid depressurization is factored only as much as possible, there are always miscalculations in that aspect, you can't test for what you do not expect. I also qualified it with "small" jet engine, it's the same concept of the jet engine too, compressed air forced through a smaller opening. My scenario doesn't just happen in movies, because I gave a bunch of factors and possibilities, not a scenario. The only reason planes are as safe as they are now is because the engineers try to work on preventing the worst case scenarios, but even an engineer won't ever say it's perfectly safe. It's still the safest way to travel, but considering that there are way fewer planes in the air than cars on the ground, it's not surprising.
You're less likely to get in an accident in a plane. However, I'd say it's probably a safe bet to state that you're more likely to live through a car crash than a plane crash.

More people die in automobile crashes than airplane crashes, yes. People also drive far more often than they fly.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#147253 Jan 5, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You're less likely to get in an accident in a plane. However, I'd say it's probably a safe bet to state that you're more likely to live through a car crash than a plane crash.
More people die in automobile crashes than airplane crashes, yes. People also drive far more often than they fly.
I included part of that point. ;) It's actually the real reason they don't let helicopters be flown without a ton of regulation, they don't want the airways to become as cluttered, and therefore accident prone, as our roadways.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#147254 Jan 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>"Properly" executed, I wasn't talking about properly, was I? ;)

The other thing is fuel burn is factored in, but rapid depressurization is factored only as much as possible, there are always miscalculations in that aspect, you can't test for what you do not expect. I also qualified it with "small" jet engine, it's the same concept of the jet engine too, compressed air forced through a smaller opening. My scenario doesn't just happen in movies, because I gave a bunch of factors and possibilities, not a scenario. The only reason planes are as safe as they are now is because the engineers try to work on preventing the worst case scenarios, but even an engineer won't ever say it's perfectly safe. It's still the safest way to travel, but considering that there are way fewer planes in the air than cars on the ground, it's not surprising.
Still, if you're talking about a bullet, or even a shotgun blast, through a fuselage, it will not cause the loss of control you suggest.

You can see from the articles that I posted that even with a massive and sudden loss of cabin air, the weight is not a factor, nor is the thrust.

These planes weigh tens or hundred of thousands of pounds. The air inside simply does not have the mass to significantly overcome that inertia.

And if the decompression is explosive, as in those with whole sections of fuselage blown out, whatever thrust there is lasts for mere seconds.

If its Fromm a billet hole, it's minuscule.

Still, gunfire aboard a high flying, pressurized aircraft is not recommended unless absolutely necessary.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147255 Jan 5, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lie, RR, not lay.
Hey, early Saturday shift?
Oh ya, lie... My awful.

Yup, gotsta work one weekend a month.

Doth sucketh.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147256 Jan 5, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Still, if you're talking about a bullet, or even a shotgun blast, through a fuselage, it will not cause the loss of control you suggest.
You can see from the articles that I posted that even with a massive and sudden loss of cabin air, the weight is not a factor, nor is the thrust.
These planes weigh tens or hundred of thousands of pounds. The air inside simply does not have the mass to significantly overcome that inertia.
And if the decompression is explosive, as in those with whole sections of fuselage blown out, whatever thrust there is lasts for mere seconds.
If its Fromm a billet hole, it's minuscule.
Still, gunfire aboard a high flying, pressurized aircraft is not recommended unless absolutely necessary.
Cool!

So rednecks can have their guns as carry ons.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#147257 Jan 5, 2013
A priest, a rabbi and a vicar walk into a bar. The barman says,''Is this some kind of joke?''

=======

A sandwich walks into a bar. The barman says ''Sorry we don't serve food in here''

=======

Dyslexic man walks into a bra.....

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#147258 Jan 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>I included part of that point. ;) It's actually the real reason they don't let helicopters be flown without a ton of regulation, they don't want the airways to become as cluttered, and therefore accident prone, as our roadways.
Helicopters fly under pretty much the same regs as airplanes.

And they actually have much less restrictive requirements concerning where they can land.

You don't see more helicopters because they are much more expensive and extremely maintenance intensive.

They're also harder to fly. Kind of like rubbing you tummy while patting your head.

It's also said that helicopters don't fly. They're just so ugly, the earth repels them.

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
God' existence 52 min polymath257 84
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 1 hr serfs up 2,606
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 2 hr J RULES 23,239
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 3 hr thetruth 165
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 5 hr Mikko 5
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 5 hr Mikko 1,452
Evidence for God! 5 hr Morse 369
More from around the web