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

#156529 Feb 25, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Reason
<quoted text>
Puppy, there is something you are going to learn at the very last moment. That is a life lived that you didn't learn something was no life at all.

You really need to start studying. You may done some things, but learning from those is something else.

Being lonely or awestruck may be something that occurs for you first. You would be amazed how fast they can happen, and out of the blue. You don't have the capacity to reason your way through those.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#156530 Feb 25, 2013

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#156531 Feb 25, 2013
Your finest moment.



You may done some things? Maybe try that in english next time ok? Humanity invented all the gods as a comfort measure in it's youth. As your life nears it's end you feel you need that delusional comfort so you throw reason to the side. Humanity is growing up and many of us have decided it's time to put away childish things.

In short, you are the past, while we are the future and the future is bright. When I face death I will look back on my good times with loved ones and the people I have helped. Not one second will be spent on regret or pleading to some delusion. This is reason Dave, give it a shot.
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Puppy, there is something you are going to learn at the very last moment. That is a life lived that you didn't learn something was no life at all.
You really need to start studying. You may done some things, but learning from those is something else.
Being lonely or awestruck may be something that occurs for you first. You would be amazed how fast they can happen, and out of the blue. You don't have the capacity to reason your way through those.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#156532 Feb 25, 2013
Faith is obviously doing just great on it's own.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/group-aims...

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#156533 Feb 25, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/2 5/smallbusiness/marijuana-tax/ index.html?hpt=hp_t3
Who profits from sin?
The government.
They have no use for getting rid of religion. Give it up, Topix atheists.
Getting rid of religion is unconstitutional,
that is so long as somebody wants a religion.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#156534 Feb 25, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Gramps must have seen a drive in picture online and is rambling nonstop about them.
Them young uns have those iPhones these days and can instantly watch a movie instead of sitting in the rain and getting bitten by insects! What's the world coming to?!!
Brain damaged elderly people can be funny.:)
<quoted text>
They actually were fun and there are still a few in operation. No restraints like in a theater, and if you had a van well.....if the van is rocking.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#156535 Feb 25, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Your finest moment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =F3c-WBn5cCgXX
You may done some things? Maybe try that in english next time ok? Humanity invented all the gods as a comfort measure in it's youth. As your life nears it's end you feel you need that delusional comfort so you throw reason to the side. Humanity is growing up and many of us have decided it's time to put away childish things.
In short, you are the past, while we are the future and the future is bright. When I face death I will look back on my good times with loved ones and the people I have helped. Not one second will be spent on regret or pleading to some delusion. This is reason Dave, give it a shot.
<quoted text>
That is ignorance of reality, young one.

You like to use that term "we". You need to get on the stick, because your peers are going to mature and leave you behind.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#156536 Feb 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>In the beginning God..
Amen

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#156537 Feb 25, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>You do understand that you are making absolutely no sense, right?
Only to babbling dolts like you.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#156538 Feb 25, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> They actually were fun and there are still a few in operation. No restraints like in a theater, and if you had a van well.....if the van is rocking.
The pickup trucks and the vans had to go to the back. They were fun to go to but by the time I was an adult they phased out. My kids never had the chance to go to one.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#156539 Feb 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
Let us consider:

In the beginning a rockdidit...

Interesting claim that requires absolute knowledge, which clearly you do not have...

:-)
Love it!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#156540 Feb 25, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh huh. And IF BBT is ever discounted because of anew theory, all you atheist will be screaming "THAT'S JUST SCIENCE LEARNING ITSELF MORE.........."
Both the BB and the SS had red-shifts due to expansion of the universe. Those have been verified and are a requirement of any new thoery. The cosmic background radiation shows the condition of the universe at a particular time: it was very hot and dense and expanding. Any new thoery will have to take that into consideration. The observed abundances of the light elements show that the universe was once hot and dense enough for fusion reactions *and* that those reactions were cut off before completion by the expansion. Any new thoery will have to deal with that.

So, the essential aspects of the BB thoery are established: that the universe is expanding from a very hot, dense state. Furthermore, the details are incredibly well described by general relativity and statistical mechanics. Any new thoery will have to deal with that.

You seem to think that it is a bad thing that science is able to adapt to new information by coming up with new thoeries that fit both the old evidence and the newer evidence. To the contrary, it is one of the shining advances the human race made when we realized that a sequence of increasingly good approximations is better than a single bad worldview. Religion is still stuck in the philosophy and superstitions of 2000 years ago, while science has progressed because it can learn and change.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#156541 Feb 25, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>Wait...your entire argument is that in the beginning god existed because god told you that in the beginning god existed?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Sorry.

Next?
Well he was the only one there at the time so I'll take his word for it.
Besides God doesn't lie why would he?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#156542 Feb 25, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Of course we do, well maybe not you.
"The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question: "Where did everything come from?" Can nothing explode? This contradicts to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Conservation of Matter). Where did Space, Time, Matter, and Energy come from? Next, how did this explosion / "expansion" cause order while every explosion ever observed and documented in history caused only disorder and chaos? Consequently, the Big Bang seemingly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Increased Entropy). What organized the universe after the singularity?

Besides conflicting with the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, the Big Bang Theory contradicts the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. For example, how does the Big Bang Theory explain "Retrograde Motion" (the backward spin of some planets and the backward orbits of some moons) without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?

Everything in the universe is spinning - planets, stars, galaxies, etc. It would take an enormous amount of energy to start a planet spinning. To solve this, advocates of the Big Bang Theory claim that the singularity that blew up in a sudden big bang was spinning before it exploded, thus everything within it was spinning as it flung out. The problem is Venus, Uranus, and Pluto are spinning backwards (Retrograde Motion). If something spinning clockwise blows up, all of the pieces will be spinning clockwise (the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum). The Big Bang explains Retrograde Motion as cosmic impacts on planets that have stopped and then reversed the spin. This is not acceptable, since many small impacts would be largely self-defeating, and the force of impact necessary to stop and reverse the spin of a planet all at once is incredible, so much so it would certainly leave a mark -- probably take a huge chunk out of the planet! At the very least, it would upset the orbit. Yet Venus has a retrograde spin and is nearly flawless in both its shape and orbit. "

http://www.odec.ca/projects/2004/khak4a0/publ...

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#156543 Feb 25, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Except, of course, E=mc^2 is NOT absolutely true. It is only true for massive particles at rest. The general version is E^2=m^2c^4 +p^2 c^2. where p is the momentum. This version even applies to light (photons), which your version does not.
Wow a science nut admitting that GR is not a 100% working scientific theory.

Wikipedia:
If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.

A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science.

From Nova:

"For decades, every attempt to describe the force of gravity in the same language as the other forces—the language of quantum mechanics—has met with disaster

S. JAMES GATES, JR.: You try to put those two pieces of mathematics together, they do not coexist peacefully.

S. JAMES GATES, JR.: The laws of nature are supposed to apply everywhere. So if Einstein's laws are supposed to apply everywhere, and the laws of quantum mechanics are supposed to apply everywhere, well you can't have two separate everywheres.

RIGHT SIDE BRIAN GREENE: In the years since, physics split into two separate camps: one that uses general relativity to study big and heavy objects, things like stars, galaxies and the universe as a whole...

LEFT SIDE BRIAN GREENE:...and another that uses quantum mechanics to study the tiniest of objects, like atoms and particles. This has been kind of like having two families that just cannot get along and never talk to each other...

LEFT SIDE BRIAN GREENE: There just seemed to be no way to combine quantum mechanics...

RIGHT SIDE BRIAN GREENE:...and general relativity in a single theory that could describe the universe on all scales.

So here's the question: if you're trying to figure out what happens in the depths of a black hole, where an entire star is crushed to a tiny speck, do you use general relativity because the star is incredibly heavy or quantum mechanics because it's incredibly tiny?

Well, that's the problem. Since the center of a black hole is both tiny and heavy, you can't avoid using both theories at the same time. And when we try to put the two theories together in the realm of black holes, they conflict. It breaks down. They give nonsensical predictions. And the universe is not nonsensical; it's got to make sense.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#156544 Feb 25, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
The pickup trucks and the vans had to go to the back. They were fun to go to but by the time I was an adult they phased out. My kids never had the chance to go to one.
As early as 1971 some of them were showing porn movies to make money. There was one in Homestead, FL that did that. All the neighborhood teenage boys would be hanging by the outside fence watching them.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#156545 Feb 25, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Amen
Its weird, Atheist dont believe in God. Yet they believe all life just magically self created from sterile material and made this crazy run on the earth. We know thats impossible because scientist have not been able replicate it in this modern era of science.

Then they point at us believing in a myth. But its acceptable for them to believe in a myth. Even though science does not support their position. They say science will one day will come up with an answer for how it all started.

Science will come up with a time machine way before they figure out the genesis of life.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#156546 Feb 25, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question: "Where did everything come from?" Can nothing explode? This contradicts to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Conservation of Matter). Where did Space, Time, Matter, and Energy come from? Next, how did this explosion / "expansion" cause order while every explosion ever observed and documented in history caused only disorder and chaos? Consequently, the Big Bang seemingly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Increased Entropy). What organized the universe after the singularity?
Besides conflicting with the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, the Big Bang Theory contradicts the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. For example, how does the Big Bang Theory explain "Retrograde Motion" (the backward spin of some planets and the backward orbits of some moons) without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?
Everything in the universe is spinning - planets, stars, galaxies, etc. It would take an enormous amount of energy to start a planet spinning. To solve this, advocates of the Big Bang Theory claim that the singularity that blew up in a sudden big bang was spinning before it exploded, thus everything within it was spinning as it flung out. The problem is Venus, Uranus, and Pluto are spinning backwards (Retrograde Motion). If something spinning clockwise blows up, all of the pieces will be spinning clockwise (the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum). The Big Bang explains Retrograde Motion as cosmic impacts on planets that have stopped and then reversed the spin. This is not acceptable, since many small impacts would be largely self-defeating, and the force of impact necessary to stop and reverse the spin of a planet all at once is incredible, so much so it would certainly leave a mark -- probably take a huge chunk out of the planet! At the very least, it would upset the orbit. Yet Venus has a retrograde spin and is nearly flawless in both its shape and orbit. "
http://www.odec.ca/projects/2004/khak4a0/publ...
You are so lacking understanding, and reading into the wrong material. I dunno if it's possible to educate you on the evidence for the BBT and how the four forces came to be.
Maybe poly will explain it yet again. I'm sorta tired of rampart denial and stupidity.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#156547 Feb 25, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Both the BB and the SS had red-shifts due to expansion of the universe. Those have been verified and are a requirement of any new thoery. The cosmic background radiation shows the condition of the universe at a particular time: it was very hot and dense and expanding. Any new thoery will have to take that into consideration. The observed abundances of the light elements show that the universe was once hot and dense enough for fusion reactions *and* that those reactions were cut off before completion by the expansion. Any new thoery will have to deal with that.
So, the essential aspects of the BB thoery are established: that the universe is expanding from a very hot, dense state. Furthermore, the details are incredibly well described by general relativity and statistical mechanics. Any new thoery will have to deal with that.
You seem to think that it is a bad thing that science is able to adapt to new information by coming up with new thoeries that fit both the old evidence and the newer evidence. To the contrary, it is one of the shining advances the human race made when we realized that a sequence of increasingly good approximations is better than a single bad worldview. Religion is still stuck in the philosophy and superstitions of 2000 years ago, while science has progressed because it can learn and change.
Science has always been part of religions.

You didn't spend fortunes and bust balls of the populace building megalithic temples for thousands of years unless they did something.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#156548 Feb 25, 2013
But your article did say it all in the *last line.

"Finally, there are contradictions between the Big Bang Theory, and thoughts of various religions."

That my friend.....is the whole truth of it.

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 to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 11 min Eman 22,922
Our world came from nothing? 1 hr Thinking 708
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 1 hr Jaimie 154
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 1 hr ChristineM 1,013
Another week, another atheist demands we call h... 1 hr Thinking 8
Heaven 2 hr Richardfs 4
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 14 hr Dally Mama 5,587

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE