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

“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\ˈā-thē-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.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#150865 Jan 29, 2013
I know you made this up KJV because Wikipedia doesn't sound so dyslexic like you do. Again agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive terms.

As usual you lied.
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Wikipedia:
agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#150866 Jan 29, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
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.
<quoted text>
By this time your wife must be craving some intellectual stimulus.

Have you thought of bringing some outside talent in to save your marriage?

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#150867 Jan 29, 2013
Your last sentence wraps it up nicely :)
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I am very well aware of the distinction between the two ideas. I am claiming a *lack* of cause as shown by explicit experiments (like Arrow's demonstration) to test general causality.
<quoted text>
No, it most certainly does not. Logical derivation has nothing to do with causality. Logic is an abstract collection of methods of deriving truths from previous truths. Causality has to do with how the laws of physics allow one to deduce a later state from an initial state.
<quoted text>
Your lack of understanding of logic is not my problem.
Thinking

Saffron Walden, UK

#150868 Jan 29, 2013
None of this is news to me. I say as much back in post 150785

www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/TUGI0DVL...

"Unexpected" order is not a problem. It's an opportunity.:)
polymath257 wrote:
<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: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#150869 Jan 29, 2013
Leaving aside your inability to answer questions...
My claim is factually based, welcome to reality. Unlike your so called bible absolute moral god, we modern secular humanists realize it is wrong to have slaves, instead of commanding it as your god did. We know it's wrong to storm a city kill all the men and boys, take a sword to every infant, rob every house and lastly round up and rape every woman before putting her to death saving only the young begin girls to be sex slaves as commanded by your absolute lol moral god. Even Paul and Jesus condoned and approved of slavery.

Now I know Hovind has taught you when people bring up the hideous morality of your so called absolute moral god that you are to say... No no that has no bearing on the conversation or we'll discuss that later right? Right?

Except it does. You can't in one minute say your god is this creator of absolute morality and then refuse to discuss his morals! Lmfao!

I can make my factual claim because it is reality and observably correct. You being a delusional victim of the church have been programmed to disagree and think the world is going to hell in a hand basket.

I enjoy reality and think the future is bright as more people leave your deluded way of thinking.

Secular humanist morality is by far superior to the so called godly morality of the bible.

Indisputable fact.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
...How can you make such a universal claim about society?
Many would disagree with your assertion...

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#150870 Jan 29, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
The existence of absolute moral standards, as evidenced by everyone appealing to them, even if they deny them when it suits, requires an explanation.
That God has revealed them to us, personally, in time, is the evidence required...
Of course you will deny both these facts, but that does not stop them being true...
there are no absolute moral standards! all moral is relative

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#150871 Jan 29, 2013
All the while refusing to answer one.
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL...you know mtimber is running blind when he resorts to "Let's play 20,000 questions!"

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#150872 Jan 29, 2013
She is actually taking a well deserved nap after 3 romps of uh stimulation :))
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
By this time your wife must be craving some intellectual stimulus.
Have you thought of bringing some outside talent in to save your marriage?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#150873 Jan 29, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
This is highly amusing.
"Informed" individuals reinterpreting the Big Bang theory. Then throwing in fancy words and concepts that sound good.
The Big Bang theory is a region of what we call space, or a small particle, got very hot and agitated and went flying to pieces. It was assumedly a monolithic substance or collection of energy. After going to pieces and expanding the energy, which they refer to as heat, got dissipated and condensed into droplets, which became matter. Gravity caused motion, bringing them together, which set the stage for the other forces to be created.
A drop of water getting zapped and exploding, then cooling down, but without the pre-existing granularity of its molecular composition. This condensation of the original material or energy created the granularity we have now, and which developed into our present physical world. Such is assumed, anyhow.
A well known process in physics, but dressed up in fancy and obscure words to make the wannabe priests look smart.
That simple. All wrapped up in a mustard seed.
Allll righty, then.

Turn the temp down in your hot tub.

Do you use oil in it?

Because it appears you're fried.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150874 Jan 29, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
It's more accurate to say the universe *was* a single point. Once again, we see the problem of 'dumbing down' so the average person can get *some* idea of what was going on, even if not completely correct.
Thinking

Saffron Walden, UK

#150876 Jan 29, 2013
Prove it.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's more accurate to say the universe *was* a single point.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#150877 Jan 29, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You're a proven creationist with no proof of god, who lies about science. Why do you think your opinion even matters in this forum?

What do you hope to achieve here with such outright stupidity. I mean you deny fossil evidence for f*cks sake.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#150878 Jan 29, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
By this time your wife must be craving some intellectual stimulus.
Have you thought of bringing some outside talent in to save your marriage?
It's better for you to sh*t up and let the atheists educate your sorry creationist a$$.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#150879 Jan 29, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's more accurate to say the universe *was* a single point. Once again, we see the problem of 'dumbing down' so the average person can get *some* idea of what was going on, even if not completely correct.
"'dumbing down' so the average person can get *some* idea of what was going on,"

:-)

The high priestliness shows its head.

Poly, there are people squatting in the dirt in various locales of the world that understand physics better than you.

No offense meant, a statistical fact.

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
Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 14 min CunningLinguist 51
Bill Maher's "dirty secret": He's deeply religi... 20 min Thinking 3
Stump a theist with 2 questions 21 min Thinking 37
Our world came from nothing? 44 min Thinking 459
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr Dak-Original 22,211
Why I have rejected ATHEISM because of the JEWS 1 hr Thinking 3
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 15 hr Patrick 925
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••