Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258041 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.

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#160706 Mar 16, 2013
[QUOTE who="*THOR*"]<quo ted text>
Correct!
God is outside of laws (his laws) of the universe. time does not exist where he is so there would be no date.
Jimmy got one right!
[/QUOTE]
But you still can't point to god saying there he is.
Even if the "he" part is correct.
But what makes you think god is a "he" ?

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#160707 Mar 16, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you'd be wrong.
Don't argue with RR's Star Trek.
You WILL lose.
Kinda like you arguing with me about light's speed through a medium.

You DID lose.

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#160708 Mar 16, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The stupid is *strong* in this one.
A complete waste of skin. heheheh

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#160709 Mar 16, 2013
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>
There's something to be said for mass-energy equivalence (E=mc^2) as well.
Being able to grasp the basics first is a must.
But I do not trust to hope, there is a willful ignorance there.
But yep you're right!

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#160710 Mar 16, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Being able to grasp the basics first is a must.
But I do not trust to hope, there is a willful ignorance there.
But yep you're right!
Largeluggage has his bags packed full of it, doesn't he?

Good luck with 'em... you'll need it.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160711 Mar 17, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>Or in LargeLanguage case on the tracks.
I was referring to the 2 tracks the train would be on.

:)

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160712 Mar 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Ok, I understand what you meant about the free oxygen vs the hillbilly pic.

But now you're finally admitting that with our current technology, there's absolutely no way we can know what the universe is doing.
It's expanding.

Unlike your mind.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160713 Mar 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, is that whey?

O_o

Not an English teacher, are ya?
He said physics.

English
E-n-g-l-i-s-h

Physics
P-h-y-s-i-c-s

See?

When you use different little squiggly marks, called letters, to make words, they are different words.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160714 Mar 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>I hope your students don't look up to you.

"This defines the speed of light in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. This provides a very short answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is constant by definition!

However, this is not the end of the matter...."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativ...

Keep reading, professor.
Yes.

Thank you.

"Finally, we come to the conclusion that the speed of light is not only observed to be constant; in the light of well tested theories of physics, it does not even make any sense to say that it varies."

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160715 Mar 17, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>Godbot ploy 999 try and shift the goal posts because you are wrong.

You are trying to bring in relativity which only shows you do not understand relativity.
He apparently didn't "keep reading" himself.

He got to some part that he thought confirmed his view, and stopped.

It's much like the way most christards read the bible.

What's that called.

Confirmation bias?

RR's got it in spades.

Richardfs

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#160716 Mar 17, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
He said physics.
English
E-n-g-l-i-s-h
Physics
P-h-y-s-i-c-s
See?
When you use different little squiggly marks, called letters, to make words, they are different words.
Nobody has ever said he had an over abundance of brains.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160717 Mar 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>1. Yes.

2. So? Any college professor should be smart enough to not misspell anything, ever.

3. I made no mistake. The velocity if light is not a constant.
Read your own link.

Conclusion:
Finally, we come to the conclusion that the speed of light is not only observed to be constant; in the light of well tested theories of physics, it does not even make any sense to say that it varies.

Please also note that speed and velocity are 2 different things.

I'm not going to explain why.

Your assignment, should you decide to accept it, is to learn the difference.

This post will self destruct in 5 seconds.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160718 Mar 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry about your luck, chuck. The goal posts are fixed, unlike the speed of light.

The speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer.

The speed of light does not vary with time or place.
You just contradicted yourself.

Remarkable.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160719 Mar 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, in a vacuum it's fixed.
And underwater it's fixed.
And through paper it's fixed.

But it isn't simply "fixed".

The speed of light has many variables.
Yeah?

So?

And light has been slowed down to 38 mph.
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.1...

It is still constant, c, in a vacuum.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160720 Mar 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>OMG, dude.....

We barely know anything about Mars.

Hell, we still don't know all there is to know about Earth.

But you're gonna sit here and say that we know, within .1% accuracy what the UNIVERSE is doing?????

HA HA HA !!!!

The atheist ego never ceases to amaze me.
Pot, meet kettle.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160722 Mar 17, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Yah, I just read back.

I totally misinterpreted something.

Or effed up. Or something.

Hehehe.
Another one of us soulless atheists who can admit a mistake.

Unlike RR.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160723 Mar 17, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Basic Newton 2nd law...F=ma

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_...
I don't think Newtonian physics accounts for time dilation or mass change with velocity.

Those didn't come up until Einstein.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160724 Mar 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Ya...?

And...?

Shu'up.
I guess you told him.

If you want to gain a quantum of respect, admit you were wrong.

It only hurts for a second and them you'll feel better.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160725 Mar 17, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Well look at it this way. I could throw a 45 bullet at you , striking you in the chest at 60 fps and it would carry 10 foot lbs of force. You will not be happy with the bruise but you will be very happy that.

I didn't fire it from a 45/70 rifle which would propel the bullet to 1600 fps and carry 1700 ft lbs of energy both knocking you down
and blowing a huge hole in your torso. Which incidentally would be nearly the same as the weight of a small car. So yes an increase in velocity is the same as an increase in mass.

Why do you think small rocks make such huge craters on the moon and Earth?
I can't agree with that.

You are confusing mass with inertia.

Do you know how they "weigh" astronauts in space?

They have a chair that moves back and forth. The resistance to the change in direction is measured giving their mass, since weight is meaningless in zero G.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#160726 Mar 17, 2013
I remember star trek calling the creation story in the bible a myth.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you'd be wrong.
Don't argue with RR's Star Trek.
You WILL lose.

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) 17 min SoE 48,824
News Louisiana Christians reclaim safe space by runn... 2 hr Eagle 12 5
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 3 hr Thinking 21,886
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr Aura Mytha 23,562
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 4 hr Into The Night 5,711
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 6 hr Scaritual 78
News In defense of faith 8 hr IB DaMann 7
More from around the web