Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 256560 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.

#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.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#160727 Mar 17, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think Newtonian physics accounts for time dilation or mass change with velocity.
Those didn't come up until Einstein.

Of course Newton worked out how mass changes with velocity.
We still use this formula today , since his day we have refined
the exact calculation in what defines a kilogram of mass to determine gravitational mass in his gravitational constant
, but this formula is unchanged.

Force= mass x acceleration or F=ma
and
g = 9.80665 m/s2
Trivia ...

"Since 1889, the kilogram has been defined as the mass of the international prototype kilogram, and as such is independent of the meter, or the properties of water. In October 2011, the 24th General Conference on Weights and Measures resolved to "take note of the intention" to redefine the kilogram in terms of the Planck constant, scheduled for 2014."

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

Time dilation is realization of special relativity and GR which deals in velocity far past Newtons thoughts as well as the concept of space/time that newton viewed as separate dimensions.
Where Einstein wove them together.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#160728 Mar 17, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
No Areo you are confused with the meaning of what I said which is,
"the change in force due to velocity is identical in effect to an increasing mass."

Mass is determined by how many atoms are in a given space.
I did say weight, and should have written "mass" but weight and mass are akin in the scenario stated. Which the 45/70 bullet traveling at 1600 fps has the same effect of a bullet that has the weight of a small car in force.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160729 Mar 17, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Of course Newton worked out how mass changes with velocity.
We still use this formula today , since his day we have refined
the exact calculation in what defines a kilogram of mass to determine gravitational mass in his gravitational constant
, but this formula is unchanged.

Force= mass x acceleration or F=ma
and
g = 9.80665 m/s2
Trivia ...

"Since 1889, the kilogram has been defined as the mass of the international prototype kilogram, and as such is independent of the meter, or the properties of water. In October 2011, the 24th General Conference on Weights and Measures resolved to "take note of the intention" to redefine the kilogram in terms of the Planck constant, scheduled for 2014."

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

Time dilation is realization of special relativity and GR which deals in velocity far past Newtons thoughts as well as the concept of space/time that newton viewed as separate dimensions.
Where Einstein wove them together.

I still disagree.

F=ma simply states that an increase in mass and/or acceleration results in a higher force. But at classical speeds, the mass involved is, by definition, constant.

Relativity states that the actual mass of an object increases as its speed increases.

At classical speeds, the everyday speeds that we deal with in normal everyday life, the increase in mass is so small as to be insignificant.

At significant percentages of the speed of light, the mass of an object actually increases.

The length of an object also decreases in the direction of travel.

Again, these effects are insignificant and can be ignored at classical speeds and only become relevant at greater percentages of the speed of light.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160730 Mar 17, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>No Areo you are confused with the meaning of what I said which is,
"the change in force due to velocity is identical in effect to an increasing mass."

Mass is determined by how many atoms are in a given space.
I did say weight, and should have written "mass" but weight and mass are akin in the scenario stated. Which the 45/70 bullet traveling at 1600 fps has the same effect of a bullet that has the weight of a small car in force.
Yes.

That is correct.

But if you got that 100 grain bullet moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light, its actual mass would increase.

Its mass would actually become greater than 100 grains.

In your example, the force is increased by increasing the bullet's speed, but the mass if the bullet remains essentially the same.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#160731 Mar 17, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
That is correct.
But if you got that 100 grain bullet moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light, its actual mass would increase.
Its mass would actually become greater than 100 grains.
In your example, the force is increased by increasing the bullet's speed, but the mass if the bullet remains essentially the same.
No that isn't what I said, I said in EFFECT it is the same as increasing the mass.

Now I feel like I'm talking to humble bro. lol You just misunderstood me. Though it could be me , at times like now I have a hard time explaining things.:)

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#160732 Mar 17, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
That is correct.
But if you got that 100 grain bullet moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light, its actual mass would increase.
Its mass would actually become greater than 100 grains.
In your example, the force is increased by increasing the bullet's speed, but the mass if the bullet remains essentially the same.
Besides where is 1600 fps anywhere close to C?
We weren't discussing relativistic mass or hyper velocities but rather comparing the increasing force with velocity in effect.
Like Gs in acceleration makes it seem you weigh more where force is perceived as weight.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160733 Mar 17, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>No that isn't what I said, I said in EFFECT it is the same as increasing the mass.

Now I feel like I'm talking to humble bro. lol You just misunderstood me. Though it could be me , at times like now I have a hard time explaining things.:)
I know what you're talking about.

That's NOT what I'm talking about.

At relativistic speeds, the ACTUAL MASS of an object increases.

http://www.weburbia.com/physics/mass.html

Richardfs

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#160734 Mar 17, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
That is correct.
But if you got that 100 grain bullet moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light, its actual mass would increase.
Its mass would actually become greater than 100 grains.
In your example, the force is increased by increasing the bullet's speed, but the mass if the bullet remains essentially the same.
M = m/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Where:-
M = Relativist Mass
m = Rest Mass
v = Velocity of body
c = Velocity of Light

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160735 Mar 17, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Besides where is 1600 fps anywhere close to C?
We weren't discussing relativistic mass or hyper velocities but rather comparing the increasing force with velocity in effect.
Like Gs in acceleration makes it seem you weigh more where force is perceived as weight.
And I'm trying to talk about speeds a significant fraction of the speed of light-relativistic speeds. Where the actual mass of the object increases-not just its effects.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160736 Mar 17, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>M = m/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Where:-
M = Relativist Mass
m = Rest Mass
v = Velocity of body
c = Velocity of Light
There ya go.

Thank you.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160737 Mar 17, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>M = m/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Where:-
M = Relativist Mass
m = Rest Mass
v = Velocity of body
c = Velocity of Light
And this is what Aura is talking about:

The mass of a body determines the momentum of the body at given velocity ; it is a proportionality factor in the formula:

p=mv

The factor m is referred to as inertial mass.

But mass, as related to the 'inertia' of a body, can also be defined by the formula:

F=ma

Here, F is force, m is mass, and a is acceleration.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#160738 Mar 17, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I know what you're talking about.
That's NOT what I'm talking about.
At relativistic speeds, the ACTUAL MASS of an object increases.
http://www.weburbia.com/physics/mass.html
Here was the original statement.

Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the object simply can't go faster with more speed, idiot!
Mass = speed. More mass, more speed.
Speed does not equal mass. Speed does not create the mass.
But you are confused also , where rest mass and relativistic mass are different is the energy from its motion is counted as mass. From your link.

"Because of the equivalence of energy and mass, the energy which an object has due to its motion will add to its mass." and Richard Feynman in "The Character of Physical Law" wrote "the energy associated with motion appears as an extra mass, so things get heavier when they move."

The actual mass doesn't change the perception of mass changes from one inertial frame to another.

Richardfs

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#160739 Mar 17, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
There ya go.
Thank you.
if:-
m = 100 kg
v = 100 m/s
then
M = 100.000000000006 kg

if:-
m = 100 kg
v = 10000 m/s
then
M = 100.000000055633 kg

if:-
m = 100 kg
v = 1000000 m/s
then
M = 100.000556329671 kg

if:-
m = 100 kg
v = 299792457 m/s
then
M = 1224321.1587721200000 kg

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#160740 Mar 17, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Another one of us soulless atheists who can admit a mistake.
Unlike RR.
Strange, innit?
Imhotep

United States

#160741 Mar 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, that would be about 34% of the world population.
And atheists are 2%.
LOL
Thou art very poor with arithmetic.

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zucke...

According to a major study there’s a very strong correlation between atheism and societal health. Here are the most non-religious countries in the world, according to the findings:

Sweden
Vietnam
Denmark
Norway
Japan
Czech Republic
Finland
France
South Korea
Estonia

High levels of organic atheism are strongly correlated with high levels of societal health, such as low homicide rates, low poverty rates, low infant mortality rates, and low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of educational attainment, per capita income, and gender equality.

Most nations characterized by high degrees of individual and societal security have the highest rates of organic atheism, and conversely, nations characterized by low degrees of individual and societal security have the lowest rates of organic atheism.

In some societies, particularly Europe, atheism is growing. However, throughout much of the world – particularly nations with high birth rates – atheism is barely discernible.

No surprise here. I wish the world would pull out of the downward spiral of building jails and churches to house the millions we’re producing but can’t take care of.

Quite simply, religion leads to suffering because it encourages the intellectual weakness and dependence of its followers.

Educated and independent people are 1) less likely to be religious, and 2) less likely to be taken advantage of by their governments. Both lead to happiness — hence the findings.:

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#160742 Mar 17, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
if:-
m = 100 kg
v = 100 m/s
then
M = 100.000000000006 kg
if:-
m = 100 kg
v = 10000 m/s
then
M = 100.000000055633 kg
if:-
m = 100 kg
v = 1000000 m/s
then
M = 100.000556329671 kg
if:-
m = 100 kg
v = 299792457 m/s
then
M = 1224321.1587721200000 kg

Which is actually pointing to an increase in kinetic energy.
As velocity increases it's kinetic energy increases and this is expressed by increasing mass. Where in special relativity
mass/energy are equivalent.
Where E=MC2
Means and object with mass in velocity would have to carry infinite kinetic energy to obtain the speed of light.

Just a little different explanation between Einstein and Newton.
Mainly explaining mass and the speed of light.

Since: Sep 08

La Veta, CO

#160743 Mar 17, 2013
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
Hi, Dave.
Fingers all healed up and working now?
Thanks for asking Hukt.

No. I won't be doing brain surgery for a while yet. Know someone whose husband did the same thing, and she said it takes years to adapt and retrain. Will be a year next month and just a few days ago I managed to snap those fingers. Swinging a hammer is still not a sure thing.

Funny how that knocks off my balance, meaning it affects the other hand's sensitivity, too. The whole body, actually. Those accommodations you make to get things done spreads stress around that needs to be balanced.

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 Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 13 min Eagle 12 21,172
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 17 min Nohweh 18,565
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 36 min Aura Mytha 43,217
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 2 hr Eagle 12 10,051
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 2 hr Eagle 12 753
A Universe from Nothing? 3 hr Into The Night 538
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 3 hr Patrick 465
More from around the web