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

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160255 Mar 15, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>IOW - You spend a lot of time talking and arguing about a deity you don't believe in.

I can't understand why.
I try to keep my topics to the damage that religion causes.

As a matter of course, religion involves the belief in some version of god, so it necessarily enters the conversation.

Your argument here is just a common method to attempt to shut us up.

It won't work.
Thinking

Gillingham, UK

#160256 Mar 15, 2013
Yes- you are a Bishop of Madeupology from the Church of Yourtrailer.[sic]
Dave Nelson wrote:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s tories/E/EU_VATICAN_POPE?SITE= FLTAM&SECTION=HOME&TEM PLATE=
My kind of guy, and I'm nowhere near a Catholic. Not close to Protestant, either.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160257 Mar 15, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
Poor atheists,

They have to go through life lonely.

They can never find a soulmate. Never a loved one lost they can only hope to meet in the beyond.

All alone. Any friends or family is nothing more than good time buddies at the local bar.

They can never really bond with another. Just temporary alliances.

A life full of illusions that go poof.
Really?

I'm doing it wrong, then.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160258 Mar 15, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>If you are atheist it has to. No way around it.

No afterlife? No spirit world or spiritual links?

Nothing but you and the illusions a piece of meat can produce.

As an atheist you know that has to be true. Everyone around you, even spouse and children are nothing but pieces of meat that will rot. Those personalities go poof.
Better to live with an uncomfortable truth than a comforting lie.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160259 Mar 15, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't say any burden lies on anyone.

But a person making a claim is usually asked why they have that claim.

Now atheists, all they spout is proof, proof, proof, show me the proof. They tend to think that I'd science can't explain or detect something, it doesn't exist.

Then someone like me asks them to prove love, or dark matter, or was DNA non-existent before it was discovered? Etc, etc.

It stumps them and their belief system in science.

Don't get me wrong, science is fantastic and is a very important part of everyone's daily life, I praise the men & women around the world that contribute to science.

But when an ignorant atheists comes on an anonymous thread spouting off proof that doesn't exist, I just gotsta check 'em.
I do task for proof.

I ask for evidence.

You keep changing that to proof.

Do you know the difference between evidence and proof?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160260 Mar 15, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>HA ! Continue...

[QUOTE] Believing in a specific god without verifiable evidence is akin to believing in the monster under the bed, or the fairies in the garden, or gnomes under the trees. "

True, but if God ever speaks to you, you'll very much know that you're wrong.

[QUOTE] It's a fun fairytale to placate your fears and insecurities, but when you grow up you should not need such things, and if you are sane you would never purport them as fact without the evidence to back up the claim. "

You mistake me for someone else. I have no fears or insecurities.

And I'm all growd up.

[QUOTE] Leaving the possibility of something bigger than the universe is logical, but to state you know what that thing is without evidence is delusion. "

I don't have evidence that God created the universe, no. But I do have personal anecdotal evidence that God exists. That's all I need.
You forgot to stick out your tongue after you said that.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160261 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?

[QUOTE] Yes, in fact, the Big Bang theory, in particular the LCDM version (cosmological constant and cold dark matter)*is* reliable and consistent with all the data we have. Do you want links to the data and the results of analyzing that data? "

"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.

[QUOTE] Is there any theoretical way to detect God that you can offer? "

No, I'm no scientist. I'm neither qualified nor competent enough to demonstrate that. I leave that in the good hands of the world's scientists.

[QUOTE] Yes, we can and do detect emotions, dark matter, and black holes. "

No, actually we can't.

Your beliefs are strong. That's good, but don't get too over your head in delusions.

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.

[QUOTE] Then there is no difference between God and a personal delusion, especially since different people cannot agree about what they experienced. No reliability."

What?!?

Like everyone agrees on the feeling of grief the same? Or the taste of chocolate? Or the feeling of heat?

Gimme another break.....
Since you can't see what chocolate tastes like, it doesn't exist.

You are continually confirming your stupidity as well as your dishonesty.

You continually and intentionally change words in others' arguments in your feeble attempts to discount them.

That kind of dishonesty is your admission of defeat.

Detect=/=see.

Dolt.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160262 Mar 15, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Look folks, he's projecting once again. A worthless life, contributing absolutely nothing, awash is delusions, and longing for a relation with someone other that another who shares his ridiculous delusions. A waisted life, so much time spent in that magical fairyland of mythical beings and magical places, that reality has passed him by. I'll bet he wishes he had it all to do over again. Poor sap!!!!
He's a philophoser.

Or something like that.

“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

Lexington, KY

#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.

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 vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 10 min Patrick 126
Respecting belief: why should you? And why shou... 12 min True Christian wi... 15
Our world came from nothing? 1 hr Patrick 480
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr Igor Trip 22,294
Becoming a parent changed everything. 5 hr Reason Personified 17
The problem of evil and hate (Oct '13) 7 hr Patrick 332
Atheist Babies 7 hr Patrick 39
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••