Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Jul 18, 2009 Read more: Webbunny tumblelog 237,766
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. Read more

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#160891 Mar 17, 2013
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>
The very first sentence is correct.
What follows it is an explanation of why it's correct.
Which is why you won't address it.
Wrong.

Your very first sentence was "The speed of light is constant".

Which is wrong.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#160892 Mar 17, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
when it was a state church everyone was forced to be a member of the state church so you can stop laughing
Norwegians have had freedom of religion since 1964, dude.

Nobody's forced into religion there, no more than in America.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#160893 Mar 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
You were wrong when you said that the speed of light in water is a constant. In fact, it varies with frequency. You made the same mistake about the speed of light in paper.
I'm not sure about those, so I'll take your word for it and concede.

I was also wrong when I wrote "c is not constant". What I meant to write is "the speed of light is not constant".

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#160894 Mar 17, 2013
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
Which is faster through water... light toward the red end, or toward the blue end?
---
Yeah... I already know.
Just setting a stage for ya.
Generally speaking, refractive index increases with frequency, so the speed will decrease with frequency: blue light is slower in water than red.

That said, it is possible to have the reverse effect near absorption lines in the spectrum. Because of a resonance phenomenon, the index of refraction can decrease with frequency in that situation. This is called anomalous dispersion.

It is also possible for the *phase* velocity to be greater than the speed of light in a vacuum. This happens in some cases of anomalous dispersion. It actually also happens with matter waves in QM. The *signal* velocity will be below the speed of light, though.

The wikipedia article on phase velocities has a nice animation that might help understanding.

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

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#160895 Mar 17, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
Tis not my fault thou art challenged by numbers.
1+1+1=1 has you befuddled.
I am not a atheist but a humanist.
I see zero evidence for any gods or rituals that support these deities.
Religion is in decline. The Internet will eventually become religions death rattle. Too much knowledge is available.
Get over it.
Rephrase your statements to include any term that relates to non belief. Atheist is too narrow a term for non believers. This is much like saying that Billy Graham represents the pinnacle of holiness and Christianity.
Put the wheels back on the trailer and travel to the big city. Book a tour of Scandinavia, then thou shalt learn of thy logic errors. ;)
They are quite irreligious!
And very vocal about it.
Show them your bible for a extra chuckle ;)
Sorry, ole chap, but Christianity is currently rising faster than the world's population.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_popu...

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#160896 Mar 17, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
M = m/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
That's awesome, but I have no idea what it means.

I gave up on math when they started putting letters in it :)

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#160897 Mar 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ugh....
You people can be very obtuse.
This has turned in to a three day conversation...
The point is simple; the speed of light varies.
Yes, but the speed of light *in a vacuum* does not. By convention, unless otherwise stated, the speed of light *means* the speed of light in a vacuum.

It is the speed of light in a vacuum that is c. So c is a constant. It is even an exact constant: 299,792,458 meters per second. This is contrary to your previous claims (post 160521).

Furthermore, the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers. So, if you were moving at half the speed of light past me and I turned on a flashlight, you would see the beam from that flashlight catch up to you with a speed of c (assuming all is in a vacuum).

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#160898 Mar 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure about those, so I'll take your word for it and concede.
I was also wrong when I wrote "c is not constant". What I meant to write is "the speed of light is not constant".
Thank you. Nobody claimed otherwise.

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#160899 Mar 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
An atheist and an agnostic are quite different, son.
I'm an atheist and an agnostic.

You're a theist and an agnostic.

What's your point.

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#160900 Mar 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
Your very first sentence was "The speed of light is constant".
Which is wrong.
Read the whole post.

Address the whole post.

What are ya scared of?

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#160901 Mar 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure about those, so I'll take your word for it and concede.
I was also wrong when I wrote "c is not constant". What I meant to write is "the speed of light is not constant".
Was that so difficult?

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#160902 Mar 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Generally speaking, refractive index increases with frequency, so the speed will decrease with frequency: blue light is slower in water than red.
That said, it is possible to have the reverse effect near absorption lines in the spectrum. Because of a resonance phenomenon, the index of refraction can decrease with frequency in that situation. This is called anomalous dispersion.
It is also possible for the *phase* velocity to be greater than the speed of light in a vacuum. This happens in some cases of anomalous dispersion. It actually also happens with matter waves in QM. The *signal* velocity will be below the speed of light, though.
The wikipedia article on phase velocities has a nice animation that might help understanding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_velocity
Thank you.

Processing.
Thinking

Mirfield, UK

#160903 Mar 17, 2013
I already covered that I know this is the modern defn.

To the nearest doesn't exclude the case that is exact, btw.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, actually. That is exact because it is the current *definition* of the meter.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#160904 Mar 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never been to a creation institute school.
I know that all science isn't right...
The speed of light is not constant, science is right about that.
Well you seem to be amongst the creotard crowd when you make such a blatantly wrong statement such as that.
Especially since is was reaffirmed very recently , that it actually hold true to the mark. Being a universal constant and standard and all. Those guys at NIST all seem to think it is too , by all weights and measure. But you're seemingly convinced , so I'm thinking you must have some pretty strong evidence, I mean other than a feeling all by your oneseys that all the geniuses of the world are so wrong.
So don't be shy present your evidence that the clocks that are accurate to 1 second in 3 billion years are wrong and you are right.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#160906 Mar 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ugh....
You people can be very obtuse.
This has turned in to a three day conversation...
The point is simple; the speed of light varies.

The speed limit is posted on the highway , but the cars move at different rates. The only difference is light can't exceed the limit.
But the limit is posted and never changes.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#160907 Mar 17, 2013
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>
Monochromatic light (light of a given frequency) has a constant speed, through water... right?
Even that isn't quite correct. There is a variation in speed due to density, specifically the electron density. That would be affected by temperature and pressure, for example. Generally speaking, a higher density gives a higher index of refraction and so a smaller phase velocity.

So, for 'ordinary' materials, the index of refraction depends on the frequency, the electron density of the material, and the location of absorption lines in the spectrum of the material.

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#160908 Mar 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but the speed of light *in a vacuum* does not. By convention, unless otherwise stated, the speed of light *means* the speed of light in a vacuum.
It is the speed of light in a vacuum that is c. So c is a constant. It is even an exact constant: 299,792,458 meters per second. This is contrary to your previous claims (post 160521).
Furthermore, the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers. So, if you were moving at half the speed of light past me and I turned on a flashlight, you would see the beam from that flashlight catch up to you with a speed of c (assuming all is in a vacuum).
I'll say it again, differently than how I said it before...

RR is more concerned winning an argument than he is with understanding the argument.

Your patience seems virtually limitless!

How do ya manage that?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#160909 Mar 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but the speed of light *in a vacuum* does not. By convention, unless otherwise stated, the speed of light *means* the speed of light in a vacuum.
It is the speed of light in a vacuum that is c. So c is a constant. It is even an exact constant: 299,792,458 meters per second. This is contrary to your previous claims (post 160521).
Furthermore, the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers. So, if you were moving at half the speed of light past me and I turned on a flashlight, you would see the beam from that flashlight catch up to you with a speed of c (assuming all is in a vacuum).
I know...

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#160910 Mar 17, 2013
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm an atheist and an agnostic.
You're a theist and an agnostic.
What's your point.
You can label you.

You can't label me.

What's your point?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#160911 Mar 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you. Nobody claimed otherwise.
Talk to Hukt. He's now bitching at me on two threads that the speed of light is constant....

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) 38 min Zog Has-fallen 18,497
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 1 hr DebraE 14,566
News Confessions of a black atheist 5 hr Savant 340
The Ultimate Evidence of God (Mar '14) 5 hr James 153
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 11 hr thetruth 1,996
News Atheists open up: What they want you to know 11 hr thetruth 23
News The Consequences of Atheism 13 hr Thinking 1,268
More from around the web