Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

[TheBlackSheep]

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
yawn
Want a cigarette?

Great retort! Bloody brilliant!

[TheBlackSheep]

Dave Nelson wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02 /18/science/project-seeks-to-b uild-map-of-human-brain.html?h p&_r=0
Cool. Let's start with Topix atheist brains. After that first couple of days this ought to really take off.

I say, stop the studies and pray to god for understanding!

[Oh dear]

Creationism is a fact.

How could evolution produce such stupidity?

[Dave Nelson]

TheBlackSheep wrote:

<quoted text>
I say, stop the studies and pray to god for understanding!

A map of your brain would be like driving across Montana. Lots of space between points of interest. Good place for wind farms or billboards.

[polymath257]

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
"Quantum mechanics" is a mathematics attempt to interpret a process. It didn't create the universe.
What I have said about it is physics has started to worship the interpretation instead of the process or cause of such process. Your little fairy particles that drift in and out, and other magical thingies are a result of the worship of the math, and not true understanding of the process.
Such is evinced in your kneejerk quantummechaniscdidit.

No, quantum mechanics is a physical theory that uses math as its language. It hypothesizes about the processes and describes those processes mathematically. Furthermore, the use of mathematics means that the predictions can be tested and, if need be, the theory modified if it doesn't agree with reality. And *that* is how science is and should be done.

The math helps to understand the process. But, of course, you need to understand the math (and the physics) in order for it to be helpful.

No, quantum mechanics did not create the universe, but the universe *is* described by quantum mechanics, and the processes of the early universe require the mathematics to fully understand them. Without the precision of the math, the understanding is lessened, not increased.

[mtimber]

Aura Mytha wrote:

The universe always was, and it did not need a god to create us.

You seem to be very sure of this.

Are you omniscient?

[mtimber]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text> We have no other evidence, to rely on.
We can see nearly from the creation of the first stars till now.
There is nothing circular in this empirical observational and
recorded data. We can calculate using the Hubble constant and all other supportive data , nearly the precise moment of this universes creation. Plot its progression , to the creation of our own star and our solar system. We know how Earth formed and how( not exactly how life started) but how life started and progressed for the entire history of Earth.
What we do not see is an intervening skydaddy you so would love to present as the reason. There is nothing in our history that shows that to be so. Only your fanatical belief that the mythological and superstitious minds that deceived you are right in the book of historical fiction.
In short , you have been led around by your short sword.

What does hubble show, as far back as it can?

Fully formed Galaxies?

Are you claiming something earlier than that has been seen, I cannot see how you could, as there is no documented evidence of such that I am aware of.

[TheBlackSheep]

BibleGateway.com : A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions ...

Pick the one that suits your sect!

Over 100 versions of god's word? Shouldn't that give some of you a clue that something just isn't right?

[mtimber]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text> The physical laws of the universe did not exist until the universe cooled enough to allow them to exist.
The scale of temperature and pressures is not reproducible in any model, or does not make sense to the physical laws we are bound to.
It is like the extreme edges of quantum physics and what we know of
gasses at near absolute zero. They defy all reason, so at energy levels we cannot reproduce , we know very little.
There maybe another set of physical laws we are yet to understand at scales we cannot yet imagine.

So how did it form, if the physical laws were not there to form it with?

Your beliefs make no sense.

[Dave Nelson]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
No, quantum mechanics is a physical theory that uses math as its language. It hypothesizes about the processes and describes those processes mathematically. Furthermore, the use of mathematics means that the predictions can be tested and, if need be, the theory modified if it doesn't agree with reality. And *that* is how science is and should be done.
The math helps to understand the process. But, of course, you need to understand the math (and the physics) in order for it to be helpful.
No, quantum mechanics did not create the universe, but the universe *is* described by quantum mechanics, and the processes of the early universe require the mathematics to fully understand them. Without the precision of the math, the understanding is lessened, not increased.

Did you read my post about the gallon of gas?

Why would you not make it to the station?

That is the difference between your empirical math formulas and reality. You are applying values to the overall universe you have no way of knowing the value of, and doing your calculations based upon those erroneous values. Then you work other formulas in to account for the mistakes, then more to correct those, and on and on. The next thing is you are in an infinite loop of incorrect logic.

[Eagle12]

TheBlackSheep wrote:

<quoted text>
Good boy, WAG1! Stay in the gaps where your god can stand a chance!

Your humor is like a square bowling ball, it's not getting the job done.

[Dave Nelson]

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you read my post about the gallon of gas?
Why would you not make it to the station?
That is the difference between your empirical math formulas and reality. You are applying values to the overall universe you have no way of knowing the value of, and doing your calculations based upon those erroneous values. Then you work other formulas in to account for the mistakes, then more to correct those, and on and on. The next thing is you are in an infinite loop of incorrect logic.

I have to confess I get a little peeved about your elitist "understanding math" routine.

I understand math very well. I do billions of calculations every second. As does 7 billion other people. Why we can drive to the gas station. It is built into us.

What is not built into us is the formalized training and indoctrination in a particular form dictated by someone long ago that you suffer from.

Have you noticed my tendency to couch physics in terms relating to motion and polarity? That is because they are the underpinnings of our physical existence. Not numbers. Numbers can be used to quantify some of their aspects, but they don't guide them, and even less so created them.

SMACK!!!!

Good God, man!! Snap out of it, you have been hypnotized!!

[Aura Mytha]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
What does hubble show, as far back as it can?
Fully formed Galaxies?
Are you claiming something earlier than that has been seen, I cannot see how you could, as there is no documented evidence of such that I am aware of.

Peering far back in distance, is seeing far back in time.

[RiversideRedneck]

Imhotep wrote:

I think you missed the point
Which religion or belief will the USA not tolerate?
We pander to many pseudo beliefs.
And... all religions are false.

That's because the USA is a tolerant country with tolerant people....

Your point?

[Aura Mytha]

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>
So how did it form, if the physical laws were not there to form it with?
Your beliefs make no sense.

We are talking about the very early universe, before 500,000 years.
But the physical laws existed since minutes after the fact.

[RiversideRedneck]

TheBlackSheep wrote:

BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions ...
Pick the one that suits your sect!
Over 100 versions of god's word? Shouldn't that give some of you a clue that something just isn't right?

Silly atheist....

It's in different versions for different languages....

[TheBlackSheep]

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
I have to confess I get a little peeved about your elitist "understanding math" routine.
I understand math very well. I do billions of calculations every second. As does 7 billion other people. Why we can drive to the gas station. It is built into us.
What is not built into us is the formalized training and indoctrination in a particular form dictated by someone long ago that you suffer from.
Have you noticed my tendency to couch physics in terms relating to motion and polarity? That is because they are the underpinnings of our physical existence. Not numbers. Numbers can be used to quantify some of their aspects, but they don't guide them, and even less so created them.
SMACK!!!!
Good God, man!! Snap out of it, you have been hypnotized!!

Shhh! dave is talking to himself!

[TheBlackSheep]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
Silly atheist....
It's in different versions for different languages....

LOL! 44 of them are in English!

[Dave Nelson]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text> Peering far back in distance, is seeing far back in time.

That is assumed distance, and thus assumed time.

Your measurements of them are based upon assumptions made here.

[Dave Nelson]

There is no difference between the divination systems of the Kabbalah, I Ching, astrology, various and sundry other systems based upon math, and modern physics.

They are all sects of the same core belief system. Numbers don't lie and determine your fate.

Modern physics just says it is the true one. The rest are infidels and pagans. They are old and archaic, not bright, shiny, and new like theirs. BTW, there are some Islamists that say the same newness makes theirs the correct one.