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

#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.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#156549 Feb 25, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
He doesn't lie because he doesn't exist.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#156550 Feb 25, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Like pouring liquid hydrogen on a gasoline fire. Comical in one sense. Iceland has the right idea.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#156551 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...
Actually, starting spin is not hard. It is just inertia.

Take two perfectly spherical balls in space a distance apart. Overall gravity will attract them. But if you add a mountain to one, then that becomes a lever for gravity to work on, and the planet starts spinning. That initial motion is all it takes. Momentum of the planet that started to spin about its axis, and the changing barycenter as they approach.

If one is spinning, it doesn't stop and turn around. It does a rolling flip. Nothing to really hold it. Keeps its momentum mostly, which actually helps the flip.

But both theories are off the mark. They misidentified the real forces, so their calculations are off.
christianity is EVIL

Halifax, Canada

#156552 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...
stay away from Cretinist sites,bud,they make you stupid
read the Truth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
christianity is EVIL

Halifax, Canada

#156553 Feb 25, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Itís weird, Atheist donít 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 thatís impossible because scientist have not been able replicate it in this modern era of science.
strawman FALLACY

look it up
Imhotep

United States

#156554 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>
His Dad was atheist and Mom agnostic.
He heard this...
"There are no gods"
"There may be gods"

Oh the horror... a circular argument. ;)

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#156555 Feb 25, 2013
christianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
stay away from Cretinist sites,bud,they make you stupid
read the Truth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
"According to the theory, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.77 billion years ago,[2] which is thus considered the age of the universe.[3][4][5][6] After this time, the Universe was in an extremely hot and dense state and began expanding rapidly."

What happens when a seed starts to come to life? Should be the same for plants or animals. You need an energy surge to begin the process.

You and a rutabaga have a lot in common.

Become a product of a seed and look back at your very beginning. You would see much the same process.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#156556 Feb 25, 2013
" After the initial expansion, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

All the energy is within the seed. When the growth process starts all of the heat is within it. When it expands it cools, and the process of matter forming and linking programmed in the DNA begins. The above is part of that process.

Modern science describes that. It is also described as the tree of life from long ago. And mustard seeds.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#156557 Feb 25, 2013
Topix atheists are dumb.

Good night.

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#156558 Feb 25, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
http://driveintheater.com/
The mosquitoes were free.
Can't remember the name of it, but there was a slot machine I played I loved that was based on the old drive-in concessions stands when you hit winning combos or bonus points. Really camped up woman of the times at the register. Ah, I think it was The Creature From the Black Lagoon.
November 3rd 1973, Louisville KY

Deep Throat

plus

Cousin Pauline

plus.....wait for it.....

Cartoon

I'm lovin it

:-)
blacklagoon

Revere, MA

#156559 Feb 25, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Itís weird, Atheist donít 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 thatís 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 itís 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.
Why do you limit everything to just TWO possibilities? Why do you automatically rule out panspermia as being valid? It would appear that ANYTHING that doesn't include your God thing is automatically ruled out, why is that? Is it because like all Christians you start with a preconceived idea and then simply fill in around it? Not a very intelligent way to explore the origins of man now is it? Since no one really knows for certain, why limit the choices to a God? Are you incapable of forming other possibilities because you have been so brainwashed into one line of thinking?

Lets explore one such possibility. At some point Mars not only had abundance liquid water but an atmosphere as well. All the ingredient for life. Something bad happened on Mars, but could life or remnants of life have found its way to our planet? We know for a fact that collisions from meteors cast materials far out into space. We also know for a fact that microscopic life can survive in extremely hostile conditions. Could life have been seeded on Earth from Mars? Yeah I know, ridiculous because it casts your God thing completely out of the equation. Could Earth have been seeded by an advanced race, a mere experiment, yeah I know, No God in the equation, lets immediately discard it. As long as any other possibility excluded your God thing, you discard it. That is what is called CLOSE MINDED, and its an affliction that infects all Theists.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#156560 Feb 25, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Truth: Sometimes a head is really an ass.
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/featured...
That particular caterpillar has really painful sting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddleback_cater...

I've been stung buy all sorts of creatures and at least in my experience, it feels like someone smacked you with a red hot framing hammer.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#156561 Feb 25, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
That particular caterpillar has really painful sting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddleback_cater...
I've been stung buy all sorts of creatures and at least in my experience, it feels like someone smacked you with a red hot framing hammer.
Yeah but was he coming or going?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#156562 Feb 25, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
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‚ÄĒthe language of quantum mechanics‚ÄĒhas 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.
You know like you...the Taliban rejects science too.
You fundies hate science, because it shows you how wrong you are.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#156563 Feb 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
I am making perfect sense.
Account for absolute truth.
Can you account for absolute truth?
Provide one "absolute" truth.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#156564 Feb 25, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
But, you are not taking any god's word for it, you are taking the word of the people who first wrote it down, then those who translated it, then those who edited it, then those who proof-read it, and finally those who print it.

You are taking the word of a lot of humans who could have, for any reason, said whatever they wanted.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#156565 Feb 25, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Itís weird, Atheist donít 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 thatís 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 itís 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.
You are projecting. Natural explanations are not magic, magic is a non-answer such as saying "god done it."

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#156566 Feb 25, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
They contain absurdities and are written in a legendary manner.
<quoted text>
He did have witnesses. Do you propose Islam was formed out of thin air?
<quoted text>
Apostles are not peer-reviewed evidence. They are biased cult members.
<quoted text>
In that most of the events of the OT can't even be documented by outside sources? That no contemporary historian of the time, like Philo, bothered to mention it? That no one noticed a bunch of Saints rising from graves? I'd think zombies would be a noteworthy occurrence.
<quoted text>
What's the difference? They had two possible arguments to use: "no, he didn't", or "yeah, he did, but it was sorcery". Given the superstitious era, it's no surprise they chose the latter.
<quoted text>
How would they go about noting that they were lying?
<quoted text>
That's just plain false. Joseph Smith had numerous eyewitnesses who all wrote firsthand about their experiences with him. They're called "The 8 Witnesses".
<quoted text>
The beliefs were not all intact, there was variation among groups. It's the entire reason that Christians had to get together to form creeds and determine canon.
<quoted text>
Of course it flies. Documents full of absurdities should be rejected without greater evidence.
Were you to be on a jury and the defense told you that the defendant could fly, you wouldn't believe that. You wouldn't believe it even if a couple friends of his testified to it.
What we know now in science would be deemed absurd by ancients. Legendary manner? There is no such thing.

No, I propose that Islam came from one man with no witnesses to his claims.

You don't get to accuse the dead of anything. You have the burden to prove they were lying, or even biased.

Almost all of the OT has been confirmed by outside sources and archaeology.

Philo does mention it.

What is a superstitious era? Prove it.

Exactly. Who would you go about proving the dead were liars?

Joseph Smith also has no witnesses. You now clearly show a lack of historical knowledge and the fundamental differences of the major religious claims.

Variations among the groups is evidence of the overall truth. Had they all been exact, that would have been suspicious.

Should be rejected without greater evidence? By what authority? By whose standards?

If your very dead great grandfather was accused of pedophilia, is the matter open for discussion? No, the dead are immune from accusations of falsehood, as they cannot defend themselves. The evidence must be overwhelming that any new accusations later in history are valid.

You are accusing the ancients of lying. Only you have the burden of proof, otherwise you are a fraud and liar yourself.

Nor does the truth of something depend upon us believing it. Your analogy of flying is absurd, of course I PERSONALLY would not believe in something that did not sound truthful. But if hundreds of witnesses testified to it, and a major social reform followed? Then my opinion has no weight ... and neither does yours now.

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) 5 min Mikko 22,190
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 1 hr Patrick 925
Stump a theist with 2 questions 4 hr Patrick 26
An atheist returns to Christ (Jan '09) 6 hr True Christian wi... 4,086
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 16 hr Patrick 189
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 19 hr Jaimie 71
Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 22 hr Patrick 42
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••