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: Sep 08

Location hidden

#150840 Jan 29, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, this is not *at all* what the Big Bang theory says. Every sentence in your 'explanation' is factually incorrect.
<quoted text>
And wrong.
Horseshit. That is what it boils down to after the hocus pocus and sophistry is removed.

Now, you explain it to us in plain understandable English. No esoterica.

BTW, your "curved spacetime" is because of gravity. All motion will travel in a straight line unless something acts upon it.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#150841 Jan 29, 2013
I want to thank everyone for the Mark Twain quotes.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#150842 Jan 29, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
How does discussing the bible and its perceived, on your part, errors, give you a reason to argue you have purpose?
I didn't mention any errors in your bible, I did, however, point out that your deity in the mythic story did not do what was said it did do. I suppose that could be perceived as an error in the myth on your part.

I stated my purpose, that comment is separate from the error of your deity in the myth.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150843 Jan 29, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Please explain why you started with "all physicists" and now have devolved to: "most quantum physicists"?
Also, please supply your source for this amended claim.
Because all I am seeing is a false claim to imagined authority...
Most physicists study quantum mechanics as a requirement for their degree. But the indeterminate nature of the universe comes out specifically in quantum mechanics, so those who study it for a living will be in the best situation to make the judgment about causality in quantum mechanics.

And, in fact, most physicists who think about quantum physics accept that it is an acausal theory and that some events are not caused.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#150844 Jan 29, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
http://www.experienceproject.c om/stories/Crave-Depth-Of-Soul -And-Intensity-Of-Experience/1 197749

Interesting site I just found looking up depth of soul. There are more stories.

Depth of soul is the ability to experience, put in perspective, and keeping on keeping on.

Any higher being will collect those with that depth, leaving the shallow in the mill.

You shine brightly, or you reflect well, and you are taken home.
Thanks for sharing.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150845 Jan 29, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Horseshit. That is what it boils down to after the hocus pocus and sophistry is removed.
No, it most certainly is NOT what it boils down to. That you don't see the difference is due to your lack of understanding of what the theory actually says. In particular, there was *not* a particle that 'ignited and exploded' and from which matter 'condensed'.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150846 Jan 29, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, if the parts are based in facts that are incontrovertible, you can use them to establish the universal...
Not true. This is part of the general question of inductive inference. But such inference is *always* in doubt to some extent. No number of observations are enough to *require* the next observation to agree.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#150847 Jan 29, 2013
Iím not sure why this site is a magnet to personality disorders but there is plenty to go around. Itís important we understand the caliber of people we are dealing with and understand this is something we as individuals canít help them fix.

These people heavily represent the ranks of the Atheist on this site. Itís pretty easy to spot them. Theyíre the ones who are spiteful and chronically disrespectful. Why are there so many Atheist with this disorder?

Iím well aware there are some very well adjusted Atheist who are not anti-social but just the opposite. I think Mary Madeline Murray O'Hare had this disorder but other famous Atheist not so much.

{Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. Those with narcissistic personality disorder believe that they're superior to others and have little regard for other people's feelings. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

Narcissistic personality disorder is one of several types of personality disorders. Personality disorders are conditions in which people have traits that cause them to feel and behave in socially distressing ways, limiting their ability to function in relationships and in other areas of their life, such as work or school}.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic...
Thinking

Saffron Walden, UK

#150849 Jan 29, 2013
I think you're being unduly picky as that's what our models use and you can't say there isn't a correlation.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Only in the very first approximation. It is actually a description of the available quantum states. That is its *statistical mechanics* definition.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#150850 Jan 29, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it most certainly is NOT what it boils down to. That you don't see the difference is due to your lack of understanding of what the theory actually says. In particular, there was *not* a particle that 'ignited and exploded' and from which matter 'condensed'.
Yes, there is the theory of the particle that exploded. That was the first presentation of that theory. Now they have gone to a hot dense region. Still originating from a singular source.

Now explain the mechanics in English. Where your Aunt Susie could understand it.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#150851 Jan 29, 2013

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#150853 Jan 29, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So your argument is that all there is is infinite egress?
You deny that cause and effect point to a first cause?
You deny basic scientific and logical observations, based on what reasoning?
LOL...you know mtimber is running blind when he resorts to "Let's play 20,000 questions!"

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#150854 Jan 29, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
God predates humanity...
You seem to assumed that is not the case.
Humanity predates god - all of the gods, actually.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#150856 Jan 29, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, there is the theory of the particle that exploded. That was the first presentation of that theory. Now they have gone to a hot dense region. Still originating from a singular source.
Now explain the mechanics in English. Where your Aunt Susie could understand it.
I'm guessing that the real quibble is over the word "particle," which has a very specific meaning in physics but a more general one in common usage. Perhaps Polymath will comment and elaborate, but I think that Dave may be saying the same thing as Polymath only with incorrect terminology.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150857 Jan 29, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, there is the theory of the particle that exploded. That was the first presentation of that theory.
No, that is your misunderstanding of the first presentation of the theory. The first presentation also had an expansion of space because it, also, was based on general relativity. That, again, is NOT an explosion in any conventional usage of the term. Nothing was 'ignited'.
Now they have gone to a hot dense region. Still originating from a singular source.
You seem to have the idea (which I admit is common among the public) that the Big Bang envisions a little nugget that exploded sending matter and energy out away from it. That is not and has never been what the Big Bang theory says. The universe was once much hotter and denser and the *observable* universe was much reduced in size. But, the entire universe (not just the part we can see today) has always encompassed *all* of the space at any given moment of time. But the individual parts of the universe were (and are) all moving away from each other. There is no 'center' to the expansion: all points will see the universe as expanding away from them, just like we do.
Now explain the mechanics in English. Where your Aunt Susie could understand it.
Why would I expect to be able to do that? There are a great many things that my Aunt Susie will never understand that are still quite basic concepts. I don't expect Aunt Suzie to understand the concept of curved spacetime, but that concept is crucial for a valid understanding of the Big Bang theory.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150859 Jan 29, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I think you're being unduly picky as that's what our models use and you can't say there isn't a correlation.
<quoted text>
No, I am not being unduly picky. The problem is that there are many situations where entropy drives things from *less* order to *more* order even though the entropy increases throughout. The case of the separation of oil and water is one very clean example, but there are many others.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#150860 Jan 29, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that is your misunderstanding of the first presentation of the theory. The first presentation also had an expansion of space because it, also, was based on general relativity. That, again, is NOT an explosion in any conventional usage of the term. Nothing was 'ignited'.
<quoted text>
You seem to have the idea (which I admit is common among the public) that the Big Bang envisions a little nugget that exploded sending matter and energy out away from it. That is not and has never been what the Big Bang theory says. The universe was once much hotter and denser and the *observable* universe was much reduced in size. But, the entire universe (not just the part we can see today) has always encompassed *all* of the space at any given moment of time. But the individual parts of the universe were (and are) all moving away from each other. There is no 'center' to the expansion: all points will see the universe as expanding away from them, just like we do.
<quoted text>
Why would I expect to be able to do that? There are a great many things that my Aunt Susie will never understand that are still quite basic concepts. I don't expect Aunt Suzie to understand the concept of curved spacetime, but that concept is crucial for a valid understanding of the Big Bang theory.
http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-ar...

How big is a single point in space?

That link kinda don't jive with what you say.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#150861 Jan 29, 2013
Because agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive terms so a person can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist for example.

You Christholes sure do need this explained again and again and again.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are an agnostic, how can you then deny the possibility of God?
That is contradictory.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#150863 Jan 29, 2013
The word is beliefs, ok half wit? Your desperate Anne Coulter failed logic doesn't make something true. Atheists have no reason to disprove something that is completely unproven to start.

Where has your belief in god gotten you? You have the grammar of a reject who would make an ESL student say wtf and you clearly sate you want to shoot non believers in the head executioner style.

This is the happiness you speak of? Whatever jut don't go opening fire inside an elementary school ok?
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
I might add this.
Atheist sure have a hard time keeping your believes straight.
Yet alone just the definition of the word atheist.
Merriam - Webster
athe¬∑ist\ňąńĀ-thńď-ist\
noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
"who believes".]

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#150864 Jan 29, 2013
Since and belief. Good grief KJV.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/3...
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Sense there is no proof to your "view" it's a believe.

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... 1 hr Even Steven 1,049
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 2 hr Ooogah Boogah 14,456
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 13 hr thetruth 29
Young atheists: The political leaders of tomorrow 13 hr thetruth 6
Why Christians should stick up for atheists 13 hr thetruth 8
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... Thu QUITTNER Nov 27 2014 31
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Wed Richardfs 1,423

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE