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
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.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

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.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

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?

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...

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?

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....

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#160912 Mar 17, 2013
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>
Was that so difficult?
Nope.

Your turn.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#160913 Mar 17, 2013
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
RR is more concerned winning an argument than he is with understanding the argument.
Kettle, meet pot.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#160914 Mar 17, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> 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.
To what statement are you referring?

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#160915 Mar 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
He he.

Yes sir... that much I do understand (still working on phase velocity/group velocity).

We don't live in a perfect world and everything's in a state of change, so to speak. Conditions "here" aren't the same as "over there".

If the statement/question is rephrased, so that the material is of uniform density, temperature, and pressure (the three are related; a change in one requires a change in the others)... and consistent throughout... THEN would light's speed be constant through the material?

I think... yes?

I'm fairly comfortable with what happens when light transitions from one material to another, as at a water-air interface.

I work with optical fiber... and a particular piece of equipment called an OTDR (optical time domain reflectometer).

With regard to the machine, I'm an "end user"... but, one that tends to get lost in the intricacies of what's actually going on... more so than other techs.

Thanks for putting up with me.

It's appreciated.

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#160916 Mar 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You can label you.
You can't label me.
What's your point?
You're a theist.

You're an agnostic.

That's my point.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#160917 Mar 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
To what statement are you referring?
You know what you are whining about.

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#160918 Mar 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Talk to Hukt. He's now bitching at me on two threads that the speed of light is constant....
No...

You're whining on two threads.

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#160919 Mar 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
Your turn.
To do what?

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#160920 Mar 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That's awesome, but I have no idea what it means.
I gave up on math when they started putting letters in it :)
I was not ignoring you I was trying to find a way of explaining. I subsequently found this from Yale:-

http://videolectures.net/yalephys200f06_funda...

In particular:-

http://videolectures.net/yalephys200f06_shank...

I have not had time to watch them all but they seem to be pretty good. Hope it helps.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#160921 Mar 17, 2013
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>
He he.
Yes sir... that much I do understand (still working on phase velocity/group velocity).
We don't live in a perfect world and everything's in a state of change, so to speak. Conditions "here" aren't the same as "over there".
If the statement/question is rephrased, so that the material is of uniform density, temperature, and pressure (the three are related; a change in one requires a change in the others)... and consistent throughout... THEN would light's speed be constant through the material?
I think... yes?
I'm fairly comfortable with what happens when light transitions from one material to another, as at a water-air interface.
I work with optical fiber... and a particular piece of equipment called an OTDR (optical time domain reflectometer).
With regard to the machine, I'm an "end user"... but, one that tends to get lost in the intricacies of what's actually going on... more so than other techs.
Thanks for putting up with me.
It's appreciated.
I understand that processors are moving into a laser light carried code, and it is nearly at c that it works in these machines.
That's the cool news , but the bad news is ...our computers are obsolete, gonna have build a pricy shiny new computer, and they gonna rake it in again.

http://articles.cnn.com/2001-05-17/tech/quant...

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#160922 Mar 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Kettle, meet pot.
The difference between us, with respect to the particulars...

One of us understands...

... the other doesn't care to understand.

One of us pays attention to what the other says..

... the other doesn't.

One of us is me...

... the other is you.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#160923 Mar 17, 2013
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>
No...
You're whining on two threads.
RR is whining on three threads.

Sorry to rat on you, RR.

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 to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 7 min Patrick 22,384
Our world came from nothing? 18 min Patrick 485
Can atheists pray? Gretta Vosper on Andrew W.K.... 38 min Richardfs 3
The problem of evil and hate (Oct '13) 1 hr KIND 345
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 7 hr NightSerf 932
Another week, another atheist demands we call h... 10 hr P_Smith 1
Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 13 hr BeHereNow 134
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••