Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 247800 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.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#161103 Mar 18, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
I agree with you, Dawkins is arrogant. But see, he earned the right to be arrogant, he studied for decades on matters that frighten people, he voiced out against things that most people were too frightened to voice against before his time. Dawkins has real degrees, not the Ken Hamm phony ones, not the "christian science" degrees you can buy online, but actual degrees he had to spend a lot of time studying and testing just to earn.
Yes, I know... Dick Dawkins is a biologist. Hey...

But no one has a right to an exaggerated sense if their own self importance.

Oh, and he's taken over £100 million from you knuckleheads.
Your religion placates you, by telling you that stupid is a virtue, thus you must deny all those who have earned the right to state things as facts, to make you feel somehow better about being an idiot. The irony being, I could debate Dawkins and pose a legitimate opponent to him, and I don't have degrees, but I have studied things as long as he has, perhaps longer as I don't know how young he was when he chose knowledge over social interaction. But I could stand toe to toe with him and come out as his equal. You cannot, thus you have to attack him in spite of his merits. Learn some real humility for once, not that fake humility your religion teaches.
Ahh.... So you're arrogant, too...
Oh, and the video you posted, the title for that video is more accurate than your descriptive of it. Bill is scared to death of being wrong, because if he was to ever admit to being wrong he'd have to face the reality of his delusions.
Possibly. But Bill wasn't wrong.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#161104 Mar 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet you disagree when those who *are* qualified to answer that question conclude that one has been detected. Isn't that rather arrogant of you?
No, I'm not arrogant.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#161105 Mar 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
We definitely see some effects: the orbits of the stars and their timings.
I know we see effects, supposedly.
Not grandiose conclusions at all: determining the mass is old hat and the size is limited by the fact that the orbiting stars do not collide with whatever is there. The only conclusion that fits that observed facts is that there is a black hole.
What *seems* grandiose is that they base all their conclusions on effects only.

Of you observe poop, does that mean you now understand the animal it came from?
The timing of the orbits allows the determination of the mass. A faster orbit at a given distance is associated with a higher mass. This is pretty standard and well tested. it's how we knew the mass of Jupiter before actually going there (watching the orbits of its moons).
Ok, that makes sense.
Once again, the orbits of the stars close by is what gives us the information we need to say it is a black hole, from its mass to the size of the region is occupies. Like I pointed out, we are even measuring the warping of space in the region by measuring the precession of the orbits of those stars. Sixteen years of data there gives a lot of relevant information.
It's mass has been (or can be) measured? How?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#161106 Mar 18, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I know... Dick Dawkins is a biologist. Hey...
But no one has a right to an exaggerated sense if their own self importance.
Oh, and he's taken over £100 million from you knuckleheads.
<quoted text>
Ahh.... So you're arrogant, too...
<quoted text>
Possibly. But Bill wasn't wrong.
Specify what Bill "wasn't wrong" about.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#161107 Mar 18, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'm not arrogant.
Yes you are, you are arrogant enough to claim you have knowledge of something that is impossible to provide evidence for. That's arrogance.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#161108 Mar 18, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>As I've said, detecting a things supposed effects is not the same as detecting that thing.

I think it's great that we're able to do that kind of stuff, but to jump to grandiose conclusions just seems arrogant & premature to me.

How do they know it's massive? They can't see it or detect it in any way.

They've been looking at it through an telescope, an awesome telescope, for 16 years. Tell me, how much data could you collect from staring at a rock for 16 years? A bird? A human? A car?

Not a whole lot.
In those 16 years, they have been able to see stars making complete orbits.

Do you have any clue how fast that is?

Do you understand that only an extremely massive and compact object can explain that?

No.

Of course you don't.

Your imagination is stuck on Jesus.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#161109 Mar 18, 2013
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>You're busted.
Big time.

Good job.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#161110 Mar 18, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Audience girl: "What if you're wrong?"

Dick Dawkins: "HARRUMPH!!! Wrong? I'm not wrong, you're just a stupid Christian! We're not nit about pink unicorns!"

LMAO!

He's even better at evasion that you.
Didn't watch that one.

Or is oreilly a girl?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#161111 Mar 18, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I know we see effects, supposedly.
We see the paths of the stars. They are moving in orbits. That means there is something massive that is supplying the gravity. The size can be determined because the stars do not collide with it. The only things consistent with all of this information are black holes.
What *seems* grandiose is that they base all their conclusions on effects only.
Show me one conclusion that is NOT based on effects.
Of you observe poop, does that mean you now understand the animal it came from?
You can certainly tell a great deal about the animal it came from: at the very least whether it is a carnivore or a herbivore and a general size. A more detailed observation would tell exactly what species are eaten (at least in that meal). Often you can get information about the general health of the animal. By a bit of comparison with known samples, you might even be able to tell a species. And that is even before you do a detailed micro-biological analysis.
It's mass has been (or can be) measured? How?
The same way almost all astronomical masses are measured: by timing the orbits of objects at known distances. That is a very basic application of Newtonian physics.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#161112 Mar 18, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'm not arrogant.
You have admitted to not being qualified to say how to detect a black hole. Those who *are* qualified say that they can be detected by their effects on the orbits of nearby stars. Yet you claim that they are wrong in spite of your lack of qualifications.

Yes, that is arrogance.

“Input”

Since: Dec 10

Input

#161113 Mar 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
We definitely see some effects: the orbits of the stars and their timings.
<quoted text>
Not grandiose conclusions at all: determining the mass is old hat and the size is limited by the fact that the orbiting stars do not collide with whatever is there. The only conclusion that fits that observed facts is that there is a black hole.
<quoted text>
The timing of the orbits allows the determination of the mass. A faster orbit at a given distance is associated with a higher mass. This is pretty standard and well tested. it's how we knew the mass of Jupiter before actually going there (watching the orbits of its moons).
<quoted text>
Once again, the orbits of the stars close by is what gives us the information we need to say it is a black hole, from its mass to the size of the region is occupies. Like I pointed out, we are even measuring the warping of space in the region by measuring the precession of the orbits of those stars. Sixteen years of data there gives a lot of relevant information.
Again, what *else* do you think is required to say we have detected a black hole?
It's a pretty sure deal that if it emits zero light in any spectrum , and has dozens to hundreds of stars in orbit around it. Of those of them which orbit very close have extraordinary velocities , itself having an accretion disk whose orbital speed is faster than anything except light itself. Then the odds are that it is something that requires extraordinary explanation.
The explanation was defined as a Black hole, the observation of it which confirmed the existence of such a thing. A monster we did not wish to find.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#161115 Mar 18, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>Well done

In a family with 4 siblings, John is older than Mary, Peter is younger than John, Mary is older than Peter, and Sarah is older than John. Who is the second oldest in the family? Who is the youngest?

Easier...
Use four 5s and some of the symbols +,×, &#8722;, and ÷ to give expressions for 0, 1, 2, and 5
Ok what's the trick?

John is the second oldest and
Peter is the youngest.

So am I not reading this right? Are Sarah, John, Mary, and Peter the four sibling?

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#161116 Mar 18, 2013
You're not qualified to answer on most of the subjects you do, hence why you regularly make a jackass out of yourself.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry? I didn't answer your question. I have no idea how to detect a black hole, if they even exist. I'm not qualified to answer that question.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#161117 Mar 18, 2013
We really need a slam dunk icon :)
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>No, I didn't link to the wrong post.

I linked to the one that started this. It came BEFORE the one you linked to.

This was linked to on this thread yesterday...
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE...

And how did you respond?...
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE...

Me, back to you...
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE...

Who's being disingenuous? It certainly isn't me.

And, BTW... I'm not googling. I don't have to use Google to find out >I< said on Topix.

Why do you?

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#161118 Mar 18, 2013
Isn't that kinda like saying you fingered your daughter but never molested her?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Never.

I used to spank them, but I've never beaten them.

You?

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#161119 Mar 18, 2013
Of course it is you guy built a religion around fiction.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Fiction is fun, huh?
Lincoln

United States

#161120 Mar 18, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Of course it is you guy built a religion around fiction.
<quoted text>
Atheism - removing Christian Manger Displays from city land, one at a time .... boring

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#161121 Mar 18, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I think RR is a gnostic theist, which is a logical absurdity.
Yes... RR thinks he's a gnostic theist... and, that is a logical absurdity.

He claims to know there's a god.

Logic said bye-bye to RR a long, loooong time ago.

He chooses absurd certainty over uncomfortable uncertainty.~Voltaire... sort of~

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#161122 Mar 18, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
An agnostic is a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
I am not agnostic, I don't have that belief.
You have ONLY belief.

You don't know there's a god, let alone what its nature is.

You're as agnostic as I am... in reverse.

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#161123 Mar 18, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Love cannot be seen, but we know it exists.
Fear cannot be seen, but we know it exists.
Black holes cannot be seen, but we know they exist.
God cannot be seen, but we know He exists.
Love is demonstrable.

Fear is demonstrable.

Your not is not demonstrable.

Black holes are irrelevant.

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
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 9 min thetruth 2,367
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 14 min thetruth 47,916
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 18 min Mr_SKY 12,955
News As an atheist, how do I maintain my relationshi... 20 min ORIGINAL WILLARD 85
News Atheism, the Bible and sexual orientation 2 hr Eagle 12 37
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 hr Eagle 12 20,901
Proof of God for the Atheist Wed Amused 130
More from around the web