Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.
Comments
150,461 - 150,480 of 224,583 Comments Last updated 8 min ago

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156545
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Amen
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.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156551
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156557
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Topix atheists are dumb.

Good night.

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156558
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

Boston, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#156561
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

14 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Our world came from nothing? 47 min Patrick 256
Atheists on the march in America (Aug '09) 48 min CunningLinguist 70,963
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 1 hr CunningLinguist 28
Introducing The Universal Religion 7 hr Patrick 737
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 7 hr Patrick 397
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 7 hr fadu singh 21,406
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 9 hr Electrical Engineer 842
•••
•••