Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 257153 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.

_BobLoblah_

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#148306 Jan 15, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
You know, talking about yourself in the third person is a generally a sign of excessive self love, megalomania and self-importance.
I consider you to be a crazy person. However by rejecting the old testament and its insane laws there may be a glimmer of hope for you. And btw I am not an Atheist but an exC and Agnostic.
And your talk of love of Jesus is rubbish, because what this really means in love your fellow Jews. Because the christian cult was originally just a sect with Judaism, which your priests all know but will never admit!
Jesus according to them is the same God that gave Moses those insane laws. And in the NT Jesus he does not do away with the OT. Its all very confusing because he also prays to and worships Yahweh the god of the OT. Its nonsense of course, anyone with a brain can see that ;)
16Jan13.....

Its most obvious dat you have some ency and jealousy towards BobLoblah. Most of the eeejits hereIN do as they are ALL tarred vit da same brush.

......BobLoblah dinks dat you are fulla schidt to da eyeballs.

Things about the Old Testament and New Testament are only confusing to schidt-for-brains like you. However, its better that you be an agnostic than one of those hateful, hypocritical, hAtheists that permeate this topic hereIN.

Ps:.....Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Full stop.

Forever and Ever
BobLoblah
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#148307 Jan 15, 2013
DeckardFootKiss wrote:
<quoted text>
Still using that same ol' atheist tactic of being condescending to others? You see, there is a rational case for God and Christianity and indeed, there is a rational case for atheism. To me, evidence really does make more sense that there is a God.
I can never convince you to listen to Kent Hovid or Bob Dubko or to go on an internet search for biblical artifacts. Because if you are not willing to even listen, then why waste your time in an atheist forum when you really don't care? There is not going to be 100% proof of God to you unless you see Christ come down from the sky. And even then, you will say it was a hologram. I have strong faith because I do research and am always amazed at the new discoveries I find. I watch that Atheist Experience on YouTube sometimes and get irritated when so much of the atheist culture is about being condescending to others in hopes of winning them over to your way of thinking. I am not afraid of the thought of macro evolution, if I truly thought it were fact, I would believe it. Here's 100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Q8DDIe_2cHMXX
I thought for a moment this was really a joke, but I can see you are serious. Do you know anything about Kent Hovind? Anything at all besides his insane rants against the facts of evolution? I'm wondering why anyone would consider his position? He is completely uneducated and certainly has no science background. Of course you do realize he is serving a 10 years in a federal prison for a number of tax offensives and money scams. He attended Mid-Western Baptist college and received his degree in RELIGIOUS EDUCATION. The college is a NON_ACCREDITED COLLEGE. The degree is worthless. He went on to receive his maters and doctorate from Patriot University. This is yet another NON-ACCEDITED College. He did this through a correspondence course. The program is no longer valid. Patriot University is a degree mill. You can get a degree in religious education for $25.00 in about a month. Want a real laugh, google Patriot University and look at the picture. It looks like a house trailer that has been converted into a garage, LOL.

This moonbat calles himself a "DOCTOR" He has no science background, is obviously a charlatan, a snake oil salesmen , yet people like you actually think he has valid points about evolution. Why isn't gullibility one of the 10 commandments? When you grow up try reading some big boy books on what 99% of all scientists consider to be factual, EVOLUTION.

All you have to do is realize that there have been 135,000 articles published in reputable scientific journals and periodical in support of the facts concerning evolution, and not ONE....ZERO articles to refute evolution, why is that? Please don't site articles written by creationists or articles from creation science, that alone is the worlds biggest oxymoron. See if you can find some articles in reputable peer review publications that refute the fact of evolution. Good luck, there aren't any!!!!

Since: Sep 08

La Veta, CO

#148308 Jan 15, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
120,000 lux for direct sunlight.
The figures are different in your link?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight
The light strength is about 1/81 of that falling on a square inch of Earth as he said. That is a lot of f stops for a given shutter speed. But if you are an orbiting planet you can add what hits you to what is also reflected, and a tiny bit emitted, by Saturn. Let's not forget geothermal infrared emitted by said planet and Saturn.

Which is more comfortable for a human being, standing in the shade, or an office, or out in the hot sun?

“Proud Member”

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#148309 Jan 15, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
The light strength is about 1/81 of that falling on a square inch of Earth as he said. That is a lot of f stops for a given shutter speed. But if you are an orbiting planet you can add what hits you to what is also reflected, and a tiny bit emitted, by Saturn. Let's not forget geothermal infrared emitted by said planet and Saturn.
Which is more comfortable for a human being, standing in the shade, or an office, or out in the hot sun?
Stellar magnitude Illuminance
Lux

Sun overhead -26.7 130000
Full daylight (not direct sun)-24 to -25 10000-25000
Overcast day -21 1000
Very dark overcast day -19 100
Twilight -16 10
Deep twilight -14 1
1 Candela at 1 meter distance -13.9 1.00
Full Moon overhead -12.5 0.267
Total starlight + airglow -6 2E-3
Total starlight only -5 2E-4
Venus at brightest -4.3 1.4E-4
Total starlight at overcast night -4 1E-4
Sirius -1.4 1E-5
0th-mag star 0 2.7E-6
1st-mag star +1 1.0E-6
6th-mag star +6 1.0E-8

1/100th 130,000 lux

1300 lux

Overcast day 1000

30% Brighter than overcast day, but still you couldn't look directly at the sun I don't think. Pretty sure it would permanently blind you.

http://stjarnhimlen.se/comp/radfaq.html

Since: Sep 08

La Veta, CO

#148310 Jan 15, 2013
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php...

Let's talk evolution.

Organic life requires water. It requires water to even form to begin the process of evolution. It requires a fairly stable temperature for it to sustain itself enough to even evolve. This is true down to the lowest level.

Watch the dew evaporate. It does it on cold days. It isn't radiant heat evaporating it, it is energy absorption causing the molecules to separate. Diamagnetism.

Look at the Big Bang theory. Got hot and "exploded".

Earth in its present location is just not conducive for life to spring out of nowhere. Too much variation. However, life that started someplace else could adapt.

EM. THE energetic force that creates everything you can see or touch. It started somewhere.

Since: Sep 08

La Veta, CO

#148311 Jan 15, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Stellar magnitude Illuminance
Lux
Sun overhead -26.7 130000
Full daylight (not direct sun)-24 to -25 10000-25000
Overcast day -21 1000
Very dark overcast day -19 100
Twilight -16 10
Deep twilight -14 1
1 Candela at 1 meter distance -13.9 1.00
Full Moon overhead -12.5 0.267
Total starlight + airglow -6 2E-3
Total starlight only -5 2E-4
Venus at brightest -4.3 1.4E-4
Total starlight at overcast night -4 1E-4
Sirius -1.4 1E-5
0th-mag star 0 2.7E-6
1st-mag star +1 1.0E-6
6th-mag star +6 1.0E-8
1/100th 130,000 lux
1300 lux
Overcast day 1000
30% Brighter than overcast day, but still you couldn't look directly at the sun I don't think. Pretty sure it would permanently blind you.
http://stjarnhimlen.se/comp/radfaq.html
How bright is your computer monitor in comparison?

Would you go blind staring at the center of the galaxy? Lots of light coming from that direction.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#148312 Jan 15, 2013
The Big Bang was hot so duh duh life could not have come from that!

That's our duh duh Dave the garage magnet man.
Dave Nelson wrote:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.ph p?record_id=11919&page=69
Let's talk evolution.
Organic life requires water. It requires water to even form to begin the process of evolution. It requires a fairly stable temperature for it to sustain itself enough to even evolve. This is true down to the lowest level.
Watch the dew evaporate. It does it on cold days. It isn't radiant heat evaporating it, it is energy absorption causing the molecules to separate. Diamagnetism.
Look at the Big Bang theory. Got hot and "exploded".
Earth in its present location is just not conducive for life to spring out of nowhere. Too much variation. However, life that started someplace else could adapt.
EM. THE energetic force that creates everything you can see or touch. It started somewhere.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#148313 Jan 15, 2013
Dave is the flesh and blood Grampa Simpson.
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
How bright is your computer monitor in comparison?
Would you go blind staring at the center of the galaxy? Lots of light coming from that direction.

“Proud Member”

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#148314 Jan 15, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
How bright is your computer monitor in comparison?
Would you go blind staring at the center of the galaxy? Lots of light coming from that direction.

There is a vast difference in distance from source Dave .
Also in space the luminescence may be dimmer, but there are no clouds diffusing the light. It comes from a single point still.
That point is the size of a ball point pen tip.
Your Iris is wide open and your optic nerve getting fried.
Don't look at the sun Galileo , even when your orbiting Saturn :)

“Proud Member”

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#148315 Jan 15, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.ph p?record_id=11919&page=69
Let's talk evolution.
Organic life requires water. It requires water to even form to begin the process of evolution. It requires a fairly stable temperature for it to sustain itself enough to even evolve. This is true down to the lowest level.
Watch the dew evaporate. It does it on cold days. It isn't radiant heat evaporating it, it is energy absorption causing the molecules to separate. Diamagnetism.
Look at the Big Bang theory. Got hot and "exploded".
Earth in its present location is just not conducive for life to spring out of nowhere. Too much variation. However, life that started someplace else could adapt.
EM. THE energetic force that creates everything you can see or touch. It started somewhere.

Momma! lol

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#148316 Jan 15, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.ph p?record_id=11919&page=69
Let's talk evolution.
Organic life requires water. It requires water to even form to begin the process of evolution. It requires a fairly stable temperature for it to sustain itself enough to even evolve. This is true down to the lowest level.
Watch the dew evaporate. It does it on cold days. It isn't radiant heat evaporating it, it is energy absorption causing the molecules to separate. Diamagnetism.
Water has a positive vapor pressure even at low temperatures. If the humidity of the air is low, a water drop will evaporate even in the cold. This is not due to radiant energy. It is simply due to the motion of the molecules at the surface of the water. Furthermore, this effect has nothing to do with diamagnetism.
Look at the Big Bang theory. Got hot and "exploded".
Um, no.
Earth in its present location is just not conducive for life to spring out of nowhere. Too much variation. However, life that started someplace else could adapt.
EM. THE energetic force that creates everything you can see or touch. It started somewhere.
Huh?
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#148317 Jan 15, 2013
_BobLoblah_ wrote:
<quoted text>...Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Full stop.
On what do you base that on? The Christian claims are based on four anonymous gospels, which contradict each other throughout, and are strewn with errors and absurdities. So no, not a Son of God, just an ordinary person like you or me.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#148318 Jan 15, 2013
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
On what do you base that on? The Christian claims are based on four anonymous gospels, which contradict each other throughout, and are strewn with errors and absurdities. So no, not a Son of God, just an ordinary person like you or me.
Not true.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#148319 Jan 15, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
The light strength is about 1/81 of that falling on a square inch of Earth as he said. That is a lot of f stops for a given shutter speed.
About 6-7, actually.

Since: Sep 08

La Veta, CO

#148320 Jan 15, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Dave is the flesh and blood Grampa Simpson.
<quoted text>
My age is higher than your IQ.

Since: Sep 08

La Veta, CO

#148321 Jan 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Water has a positive vapor pressure even at low temperatures. If the humidity of the air is low, a water drop will evaporate even in the cold. This is not due to radiant energy. It is simply due to the motion of the molecules at the surface of the water. Furthermore, this effect has nothing to do with diamagnetism.
<quoted text>
Um, no.
<quoted text>
Huh?
Perhaps the motion of the molecules is caused by the absorption of light energy?

I've posted before about watching frost on windshields on frozen mornings evaporate before direct sunlight hits them. The sun was just coming up and still behind the mountains. A mile high and low humidity. Scattering from the atmosphere. Low level intensity. This sets up a current, resulting in that lowest temperature of the day after sunrise phenomenon, caused by the Peltier-Seebeck effect.

EM, son, it's all about the EM. Motion.

Could have sworn the BBT is based upon a superhot and superdense something or other suddenly expanding and then separating, then creating individual forms from condensing.

Boil water. Melt some gold. Melt some platinum. Let the vapor encounter an outside force and see if they condense differently. Or something like that.

Since: Sep 08

La Veta, CO

#148322 Jan 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
About 6-7, actually.
That would be like an F22 here requiring an f2.8 there?

Since: Sep 08

La Veta, CO

#148323 Jan 15, 2013
Hmmm..

Let's see, to accomplish a certain amount of work or something or other, you have a energy and time thingy to consider. Like those f stops and shutter speed thingies.

So, on Saturn, to transfer a certain amount of energy, which turns into mass in some instances, it is going to take a lot longer to collect said energy and process it into the desired product. Or something like that.

Of course, modern physics sees it as accretions of pre-formed products being impacted by external energies. But the sustainability of these products is still dependent upon the energy being absorbed versus distance traveled, time, Or something like that. Something of a relativistic nature.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#148324 Jan 15, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps the motion of the molecules is caused by the absorption of light energy?
Some is, but not the main part. The main part of the motion is simply due to temperature.
I've posted before about watching frost on windshields on frozen mornings evaporate before direct sunlight hits them. The sun was just coming up and still behind the mountains. A mile high and low humidity. Scattering from the atmosphere. Low level intensity. This sets up a current, resulting in that lowest temperature of the day after sunrise phenomenon, caused by the Peltier-Seebeck effect.
Yes, even the solid ice has a vapor pressure due to the temperature.
EM, son, it's all about the EM. Motion.
Some things are due to EM and others are not. Motion is generally not.
Could have sworn the BBT is based upon a superhot and superdense something or other suddenly expanding and then separating, then creating individual forms from condensing.
Not quite. The *whole universe* was hot and expanding just *after* the BB. it is not the case of something *previous* heating up and then expanding.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#148325 Jan 15, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be like an F22 here requiring an f2.8 there?
Yes, that's about right. For the same shutter speeds.

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
What is of greater value for humanity: Chrisita... 17 min par five 451
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 29 min Bob of Quantum-Faith 390
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 52 min River Tam 20,327
News A Strong Muslim Identity Is the Best Defense Ag... 2 hr Romantic Romeo 17
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 3 hr Patrick 21,420
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 3 hr Patrick 10,372
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 4 hr ChristineM 557
More from around the web