Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

[Dave Nelson]

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
It's better for you to sh*t up and let the atheists educate your sorry creationist a$$.

You really don't want to lick it. Trust me.

That is the closest you could get to doing so.

[Aura Mytha]

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
What imaginary god would that be, Orrie?
You seem to be stuck on this anti-Jehovah kick, equating any belief in a supernatural with a belief in Bible God as you perceive it. Then your knees start jerking.
I was "your" definition of an atheist for over 50 years. I, too, was against the ritual and blind following of the words of men claiming to be shepherds. The religious ones and the progressive liberal secular humanist ones. I even had a death experience and didn't see a god.
But I have been a technician all of my life, and a very good one. Instead of focusing my skills on small parts of this existence, I started to looking at it as a system, with reliance on modern physics stating it is a closed system. I see the transfers of energy and interactions from a detached view. I, including my consciousness, is a part of the schematic I am watching unfold.
That is why I have been suggesting we are glorified light bulbs, so to speak, constructed devices, to accomplish the ends of something larger than us. What it is I don't know.
You and most people are stuck staring out. You don't know how to detach yourself from your function to realize what you really are. You are too busy processing the energy flowing through you.

Belief was a thing you stumbled about with.
Make no mistake, you if have legs you will be cut from them.
Then you will have no legs to stand on.

[Aura Mytha]

Givemeliberty wrote:

I could use your granddaughter's mouth as gift wrapping for my boner who is a god, providing she is over 18 and attractive. He is demanding some worship today and hey she could be the lucky believer to receive my holy sperm-it!
Now stay away from sharp objects Gramps, your fingers can't take much more.
You are very welcome :)
<quoted text>

You Sir are vile and disrespectful , do you have any honor? or Are you in fact devoid of reason?

[Aura Mytha]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
If you are an agnostic, how can you then deny the possibility of God?
That is contradictory.

I do not deny possibility of god, but have found no better candidate than myself.

Does this mean you will worship me?

Or will I have to make you?

I refuse to to make you so...Here we are.

My will against yours..and.

I will win.

[Dave Nelson]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text> Belief was a thing you stumbled about with.
Make no mistake, you if have legs you will be cut from them.
Then you will have no legs to stand on.

That was a bit vague.

We all stumble around with our beliefs. Including you.

I've been cut from my body. Still floated around.

C'mon, Orrie, give us something REALLY profound about this existence.

[polymath257]

Thinking wrote:

Prove it.
<quoted text>

I was talking about the initial theories describing the Big Bang. In those, if you run things backward, you get to the place that the 'expansion factor' of the universe is zero.

This has since been modified by the introduction of quantum mechanical corrections in string theory and other proposed quantum theories of gravity.

[polymath257]

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
"'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.

That isn't what the physics professors here say. You, on the other hand, get so many things wrong as a matter of course, I am suspecting the Dunning-Kruger effect is operative.

[polymath257]

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
"'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.

While I assume you are up for a Nobel prize....right.

[Aura Mytha]

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
That was a bit vague.
We all stumble around with our beliefs. Including you.
I've been cut from my body. Still floated around.
C'mon, Orrie, give us something REALLY profound about this existence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[Catcher1]

Eagle12 wrote:

I want to thank everyone for the Mark Twain quotes.

You are very welcome for the Mark Twain quotes.

Do you want some Robert Ingersoll quotes?

They're really great, just let me know and I'll post some.

[Catcher1]

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
You are a stupid man. Or even a stupider woman if you are a lesbian.

Thank goodness we're back to having an intellectual discussion.

Props to you for that, Dave.

[Dave Nelson]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text>
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Not exactly what I meant. But educational.

If you really want to learn how to shoot, shoot those flintlocks. That time delay is an edjication. Holding that sight picture, along with the required easy trigger pull, is THE definitive thing in shooting. One shot, one kill.

[Dave Nelson]

Catcher1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank goodness we're back to having an intellectual discussion.
Props to you for that, Dave.

GML is going to make a great second hand co*ksucker. A talent he/she is unlikely to know they possess.

[polymath257]

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.

Here's a follow-up article from NASA on this point:

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_concepts...

"Please keep in mind the following important points to avoid misconceptions about the Big Bang and expansion:

The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from. In the ball analogy, the radius of the ball grows as the universe expands, but all points on the surface of the ball (the universe) recede from each other in an identical fashion. The interior of the ball should not be regarded as part of the universe in this analogy.

By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question.

It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet."

[Dave Nelson]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
Here's a follow-up article from NASA on this point:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_concepts...
"Please keep in mind the following important points to avoid misconceptions about the Big Bang and expansion:
The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from. In the ball analogy, the radius of the ball grows as the universe expands, but all points on the surface of the ball (the universe) recede from each other in an identical fashion. The interior of the ball should not be regarded as part of the universe in this analogy.
By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question.
It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet."

That is called bullshit and obfuscation.

Space and time as we know it. Which is as far as we think we see.

This space and time, which is as big as what we think we can see came into existence all at the same time, or maybe it originated from a zero volume to fill the present. But believe us when we say we are the experts and know the truth.

Showbiz. Bullshit. Snake oil.

Drop something in the collection plate, please.

[Dave Nelson]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
Here's a follow-up article from NASA on this point:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_concepts...
"Please keep in mind the following important points to avoid misconceptions about the Big Bang and expansion:
The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from. In the ball analogy, the radius of the ball grows as the universe expands, but all points on the surface of the ball (the universe) recede from each other in an identical fashion. The interior of the ball should not be regarded as part of the universe in this analogy.
By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question.
It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet."

"By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question."

I really love that part.

The only discernible "edge", which I guess means boundary, is when we poof into existence, or out of it.

God, how scientific.

[polymath257]

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
"By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question."
I really love that part.
The only discernible "edge", which I guess means boundary, is when we poof into existence, or out of it.
God, how scientific.

Your lack of understanding does not make a criticism. Yes, space is without a boundary. So the only boundaries to spacetime are at the beginning, and possibly at the end.

[polymath257]

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
That is called bullshit and obfuscation.

No, it is clarity with precise words. That you can't understand them isn't the problem with the science.

Space and time as we know it. Which is as far as we think we see.

The *observable* universe is, by definition, the limit of what we can see.

This space and time, which is as big as what we think we can see came into existence all at the same time, or maybe it originated from a zero volume to fill the present. But believe us when we say we are the experts and know the truth.

And the observable evidence supports this view.

Showbiz. Bullshit. Snake oil.
Drop something in the collection plate, please.

OK,*you* come up with a testable theory that matches the observations. That includes the specifics of the cosmic background radiation, the density of light elements, etc. The point is that the *science* has to agree with the observations and *no* alternative theory even comes close to being consistent with the data. Your dislike is simply an emotional reaction. too bad.

[Dave Nelson]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
No, it is clarity with precise words. That you can't understand them isn't the problem with the science.
<quoted text>
The *observable* universe is, by definition, the limit of what we can see.
<quoted text>
And the observable evidence supports this view.
<quoted text>
OK,*you* come up with a testable theory that matches the observations. That includes the specifics of the cosmic background radiation, the density of light elements, etc. The point is that the *science* has to agree with the observations and *no* alternative theory even comes close to being consistent with the data. Your dislike is simply an emotional reaction. too bad.

You don't understand the bill of goods you bought into.

The picture you are making your theoretical "models" from doesn't exist anymore. Your conclusions are nothing but a math puzzle based upon erroneous observations and interpretations.

There is a HUGE^4034 difference between the universe starting off as a zero volume or preexisting and morphing real sudden like, quicker than a poof.

Come back to earth. It's home for the time being.

[Givemeliberty]

Crazy old Dave always good for a laugh at his bumbling and stupidity. Why did you refer to me as a she? Have I ever stated I was a female?

If so do show the post Gramps.

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
GML is going to make a great second hand co*ksucker. A talent he/she is unlikely to know they possess.