Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258484 comments on the Webbunny tumblelog story from Jul 18, 2009, titled Atheism requires as much faith as religion?. In it, Webbunny tumblelog reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Webbunny tumblelog.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160263 Mar 15, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>You're such a moronbafoonidiotretard.

That's saying we can talk about one or the other.

How about this, for that superior intellect of yours:

"If we're talking about food, we can talk about apple pies and we can talk about ham sandwiches."

Does that mean they're the same to you?
Meltdown #....

Oh, I don't know.

25?

30?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160264 Mar 15, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>And you can't demonstrate your god thing either, yet you make grandiose claims. At some point you'll just have to admit that what you believe in is only imagined. It's ok, really, people believe in all sorts of crazy shit, you'll just be another crazy shit believing person. No big deal. Unless you really care about whats true. You apparently don't!!!
He prefers the comforting lie.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160265 Mar 15, 2013
PURE gENUIS wrote:
<quoted text>You are a doorknob! First let me slap you around for trying to be cleaver (using someone else's words. Here is why you are stupid,

You first start by using a self-refuting statement, "invisible pink". Public school, huh?

I hope there are not many stupid people out there that would breed with you, just saying!
How about "all powerful undetectable god"?

I like that one.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160266 Mar 15, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>I do task for proof.

I ask for evidence.

You keep changing that to proof.

Do you know the difference between evidence and proof?
Should be "don't ask for proof".

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#160267 Mar 15, 2013
How much you wanna bet that even though you fixed it he will pounce all over the slight error all the while loading up his posts with dozens of errors?
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Should be "don't ask for proof".

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#160268 Mar 15, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
NASA says black holes & dark matter are still invisible to us and have never been directly seen in any way.
Polymath thinks otherwise.
I'll go with NASA on this one.
Yes, invisible. As in not interacting with light. We do not expect to *ever* see dark matter with light. But, we can and do *detect* dark matter through its gravitational interactions.

Neutrinos also are invisible and have never been seen directly in any way. But we do detect them and understand their properties.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#160269 Mar 15, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup. And you but it hook, line & sinker. Funny that you've chosen one particular version of BBT. Why is that?
Because that is what the data is showing. The data is the ultimate test of any scientific viewpoint.
"with the data we have".... Huh.
Suppose the data we have is incorrect.
Suppose the data we have is only 5% of the needed data to reach an absolute conclusion.
That is why scientific results have error bars on them: to quantify a degree of confidence that the real answer is in a range we know about.

Data is never incorrect. It may be biased because of instruments, or because of the types of things we can actually detect, or even by incompetence. But the data isn't wrong. If severe bias is found (and verified by future data), then we can discount it after we understand the source of the bias. Unless you are suggesting outright dishonesty among those collecting and analyzing the data from several different branches of cosmology, the universe is expanding and has been expanding for the last 13.7 billion years (to withing a hundred million). The data fits a model based on general relativity having a cosmological constant(dark energy) and non-baryonic matter (dark matter). We do not understand many of the properties of dark energy or of dark matter, but hose issues are being actively studied and more data is being collected. But that is how science works: move from the known into the unknown and make the unknown known. Even if we have only collected 5%, we know a lot more than if we had only collected 1%.
Largelanguage

Chester, UK

#160270 Mar 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because that is what the data is showing. The data is the ultimate test of any scientific viewpoint.
<quoted text>
That is why scientific results have error bars on them: to quantify a degree of confidence that the real answer is in a range we know about.
Data is never incorrect. It may be biased because of instruments, or because of the types of things we can actually detect, or even by incompetence. But the data isn't wrong. If severe bias is found (and verified by future data), then we can discount it after we understand the source of the bias. Unless you are suggesting outright dishonesty among those collecting and analyzing the data from several different branches of cosmology, the universe is expanding and has been expanding for the last 13.7 billion years (to withing a hundred million). The data fits a model based on general relativity having a cosmological constant(dark energy) and non-baryonic matter (dark matter). We do not understand many of the properties of dark energy or of dark matter, but hose issues are being actively studied and more data is being collected. But that is how science works: move from the known into the unknown and make the unknown known. Even if we have only collected 5%, we know a lot more than if we had only collected 1%.
Look here idiot! Are you able to explain how the dark energy and dark matter was found?
Largelanguage

Chester, UK

#160271 Mar 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because that is what the data is showing. The data is the ultimate test of any scientific viewpoint.
<quoted text>
That is why scientific results have error bars on them: to quantify a degree of confidence that the real answer is in a range we know about.
Data is never incorrect. It may be biased because of instruments, or because of the types of things we can actually detect, or even by incompetence. But the data isn't wrong. If severe bias is found (and verified by future data), then we can discount it after we understand the source of the bias. Unless you are suggesting outright dishonesty among those collecting and analyzing the data from several different branches of cosmology, the universe is expanding and has been expanding for the last 13.7 billion years (to withing a hundred million). The data fits a model based on general relativity having a cosmological constant(dark energy) and non-baryonic matter (dark matter). We do not understand many of the properties of dark energy or of dark matter, but hose issues are being actively studied and more data is being collected. But that is how science works: move from the known into the unknown and make the unknown known. Even if we have only collected 5%, we know a lot more than if we had only collected 1%.
What about none existent properties, like saying some bond of gagshgjdjdjd existed, some unexistent chemical, to prove that dark matter and energy existed?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#160272 Mar 15, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Look here idiot! Are you able to explain how the dark energy and dark matter was found?
Yes. Dark matter was first found by looking at the velocities of stars orbiting in other galaxies. The velocities did not agree with the amount of matter seen in the galaxies directly. So one proposal was that there was extra matter there that could not be seen. Of course, another proposal was that our theory of gravity is wrong. Well, other situations came up that showed the existence of extra matter in clusters of galaxies, and the amount of extra matter was about 4 times what we could see directly. This was also seen in gravitational lensing situations such as Einstein rings. Up to this point it was possible that we merely had the wrong theory of gravity and there were alternatives proposed: MOND and TeVeS were the main alternatives.

Then we started doing microlensing surveys and found that the distribution of the gravitational anomalies did not agree with the distribution of ordinary matter. In fact, in some colliding clusters of galaxies, the anomalies were quite separated from the matter. This destroyed the alternative gravity theories, which would always have such effects closely associated with matter.

Now, we use this lensing effect to map out the three dimensional locations of dark matter. It turns out that the data in the cosmic background radiation also reveals the *total* amount of matter and of the baryonic (ordinary) part. Once again, this fraction agrees with the studies from individual galaxies, from galaxy clusters, and from microlensing studies.

Dark energy is a different thing and much less is known about it. However, it was detected first by studies of how fast distant galaxies are moving away from us. These studies showed that there is an acceleration of the rate of expansion of the universe, not the expected deceleration due to gravity. This actually fit an older theory due to Einstein involving a cosmological constant, but that theory was proposed to explain away expansion of the universe so was discarded when the actual expansion was discovered. Well, it turns out that the value of the CC is not what is required to stop expansion, but *is* required to make space 'flat'. Again, this is also supported by data from the cosmic background radiation.

The status of dark energy is much less certain that the status of dark energy. Once again, we are considering the possibility that our understanding of gravity is wrong. The main problem is that dark energy has some very unusual properties: in particular it stays the same density under expansion. This is why it is sometimes called the energy density of a vacuum.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#160273 Mar 15, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
What about none existent properties, like saying some bond of gagshgjdjdjd existed, some unexistent chemical, to prove that dark matter and energy existed?
you might attempt to be coherent some time.
Largelanguage

Chester, UK

#160274 Mar 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. Dark matter was first found by looking at the velocities of stars orbiting in other galaxies. The velocities did not agree with the amount of matter seen in the galaxies directly. So one proposal was that there was extra matter there that could not be seen. Of course, another proposal was that our theory of gravity is wrong. Well, other situations came up that showed the existence of extra matter in clusters of galaxies, and the amount of extra matter was about 4 times what we could see directly. This was also seen in gravitational lensing situations such as Einstein rings. Up to this point it was possible that we merely had the wrong theory of gravity and there were alternatives proposed: MOND and TeVeS were the main alternatives.
Then we started doing microlensing surveys and found that the distribution of the gravitational anomalies did not agree with the distribution of ordinary matter. In fact, in some colliding clusters of galaxies, the anomalies were quite separated from the matter. This destroyed the alternative gravity theories, which would always have such effects closely associated with matter.
Now, we use this lensing effect to map out the three dimensional locations of dark matter. It turns out that the data in the cosmic background radiation also reveals the *total* amount of matter and of the baryonic (ordinary) part. Once again, this fraction agrees with the studies from individual galaxies, from galaxy clusters, and from microlensing studies.
Dark energy is a different thing and much less is known about it. However, it was detected first by studies of how fast distant galaxies are moving away from us. These studies showed that there is an acceleration of the rate of expansion of the universe, not the expected deceleration due to gravity. This actually fit an older theory due to Einstein involving a cosmological constant, but that theory was proposed to explain away expansion of the universe so was discarded when the actual expansion was discovered. Well, it turns out that the value of the CC is not what is required to stop expansion, but *is* required to make space 'flat'. Again, this is also supported by data from the cosmic background radiation.
The status of dark energy is much less certain that the status of dark energy. Once again, we are considering the possibility that our understanding of gravity is wrong. The main problem is that dark energy has some very unusual properties: in particular it stays the same density under expansion. This is why it is sometimes called the energy density of a vacuum.
But when the forces combine, they might merge and reacte to make more force than normal, a reaction would increase their power.

2 + 2 = 4, yes, but lets say 2 and 2 are different energies, if they reacte, they could form and make a force of 6.
Largelanguage

Chester, UK

#160275 Mar 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
you might attempt to be coherent some time.
Red shift doesn't mean the universe is expanding. It is only the red radiation that is moving away. And that doesn't mean it will continue. As far as you know, it might just be moving back and forth.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160276 Mar 15, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Red shift doesn't mean the universe is expanding. It is only the red radiation that is moving away. And that doesn't mean it will continue. As far as you know, it might just be moving back and forth.
You don't really understand redshift, do you.

Since: Sep 08

La Veta, CO

#160277 Mar 15, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Better to live with an uncomfortable truth than a comforting lie.
Write that down and keep it in your pocket so you can read it and reassure yourself as you take your last breath of how you were so in the know during your time here.

The movie will be over. You won't even remember it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#160278 Mar 15, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
But when the forces combine, they might merge and reacte to make more force than normal, a reaction would increase their power.
2 + 2 = 4, yes, but lets say 2 and 2 are different energies, if they reacte, they could form and make a force of 6.
Such feedback effects are exactly what was considered in the MOND and TeVeS ideas. They didn't pan out because the locations where the 'force' is felt are not associated with matter. Even if these theories were correct as modifications of the theory of gravity, they *still* require dark matter to be consistent with the observations.
DrFill

North Augusta, SC

#160279 Mar 15, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Write that down and keep it in your pocket so you can read it and reassure yourself as you take your last breath of how you were so in the know during your time here.
The movie will be over. You won't even remember it.
You are certainly a dreamer!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#160280 Mar 15, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Red shift doesn't mean the universe is expanding. It is only the red radiation that is moving away. And that doesn't mean it will continue. As far as you know, it might just be moving back and forth.
I would suggest you go and learn a bit about how the red-shift works before you embarrass yourself further. It happens all along the spectrum, not just for 'red radiation'. It is a *shift* of all frequencies towards longer wavelengths. Furthermore, the amount of shift increases as you look at galaxies farther away (and hence back in time).
Jimmy

London, UK

#160281 Mar 15, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Write that down and keep it in your pocket so you can read it and reassure yourself as you take your last breath of how you were so in the know during your time here.
The movie will be over. You won't even remember it.
at least you concede on the last breath part

Since: Sep 08

La Veta, CO

#160283 Mar 15, 2013
Jimmy wrote:
<quoted text>
at least you concede on the last breath part
Concede?

Your physical consciousness is made of meat. It is the RAM you have in your computer. That is everything you have learned here and work with, including memories. In the conscious state. That is where you are at and doing things. What you call the "existence" level.

Your subconscious is aware of other existences. It switches this consciousness off and on, including gravity and the sense of touch. It leaves impressions and intuitions in the physical consciousness. The physical evaporates real quick, and leaves nothing.

Take a trip there sometimes.

The physical consciousness is just another muscle for expression of a hidden consciousness, which is not so concerned with what is or what could be. It just wants to exist.

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
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 min Ragmar 58,052
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) 4 min Hedonist Heretic 139
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 12 min Hedonist Heretic 1,863
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) 35 min Hedonist Heretic 1,932
News Uyboco: An atheist who believes In God (Aug '16) 42 min Amused 11
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 10 hr Subduction Zone 27,261
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 14 hr Eagle 12 5,960
More from around the web