Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.

Comments (Page 7,743)

Showing posts 154,841 - 154,860 of223,289
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161062
Mar 18, 2013
 
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>
Who's a liar?
See paragraph 6...
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE...
You're never going to learn, are you, RR?
Don't call me a liar. Thus far, EVERY SINGLE TIME you have, it's bit you in your arse.
Have I ever called you a liar?
m

M'kay there, sweet cheeks.

You've linked the wrong post and you know it. You're being disingenuous and you're still lying.

Here's the post we've been discussing, the 9th one on the page.

http://m.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/TUG...

Your first line is:
"Light's speed is constant."

You ain't the only one that can google Topix....

Liar.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161063
Mar 18, 2013
 
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
Paragraph 8, in the post linked to above, also contains stipulation pertaining to the consistency of light's speed.
Here's your response, RR...
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE...
Notice how you ignored, virtually, the whole post... and latched onto that one little part of it.
I don't expect or even want an apology. The truth is, I'm about done with ya. You're nothing but a waste of time.
Sorry, pal. The goalposts are fixed.

Liar.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161064
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
In Sweden spanking is against the law and is seen as assault
Who gives a f_ck?

It's not illegal or immoral in America.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161065
Mar 18, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>That's awesome. Bless those people, man. 16 years of research...

Now they really think they've located a black hole.

If only there was a way to detect it & prove them right.
Like your god.

Only difference is, the black hole provides evidence.

Unlike your god.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161066
Mar 18, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That's awesome. Bless those people, man. 16 years of research...
Now they really think they've located a black hole.
If only there was a way to detect it & prove them right.
We can see the orbits of the nearby stars around this object (this is how we know it is there). We know it is emitting no light. We know it is incredibly massive (around 4 million solar masses). We know it is in a very small space (within 6.5 light hours). That fits *all* the requirements for a black hole. We are even measuring the distortion of space around it by the precession of the orbits of the stars. There is no alternative theory that explains the observations.

What, in your mind, is required to 'detect' a black hole?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161067
Mar 18, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
<quoted text>Fox News... Why am I not surprised an you claim not to use Fox News lol!

Regardless did you have a point with any of this or were you just as usual humiliating yourself with your reject opinions?
You should watch the oreilly video.

Oreilly makes a total ass of himself.

"The tide goes in. The tide goes out. We don't know how it happens. "

Thanks, RR.

That was a treat.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161068
Mar 18, 2013
 
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Like your god.
Only difference is, the black hole provides evidence.
Unlike your god.
Our scientific technology is pretty damn weak.

Our senses trump science every time.

Try it.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161069
Mar 18, 2013
 
Colorado Chick wrote:
THEY..have to have FAITH in their mindset.of WHY they DON'T believe in GOD..they have to have the strength to PROVE their isn"t a GOD..WHO CREATED ALL..I betcha they get more angry at fightin' for their beliefs..BECAUSE..THEY KNOW..that GOD truly does exist..BUT, they want PROOF!!! They literally want HIM or his SON Jesus to perform a MIRACLE right before their eyes...THEN, and ONLY then..WILL they BELIEVE that GOD exists..
I tried to believe.

Then I pretended to believe.

Then I accepted the truth.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161070
Mar 18, 2013
 
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Understood.
How about changing it to read "in a uniform medium" and "for specific frequencies"?
I.E., light speed does not just vary randomly, which is what RR's statement could be read as, though I understand that that's not what he means.
He doesn't afford the same understanding to any of us.
I think it would highly depend on the medium and it's particular qualities, especially and specially concerning their reflective and absorption as well as the mix of these qualities added with the gravity and in addition to the particulars of the uni-graphical distribution of elements within the xyz axis of the area in question. There are other factors also, but since planets themselves are or seem to be not unlike snowflakes, then regions of space between them should be considered the same , and hardy predictable or even a constant. In short I think space/time regions are as unique as everything else we have found.

Not saying we can't find a system to classify the mapping of interstellar space and the particulars to each one.
But I am saying it may be found to be not unlike the terrain of any planet we have explored, mysterious and strange in every avenue of discovery.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161071
Mar 18, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
We can see the orbits of the nearby stars around this object (this is how we know it is there). We know it is emitting no light. We know it is incredibly massive (around 4 million solar masses). We know it is in a very small space (within 6.5 light hours). That fits *all* the requirements for a black hole. We are even measuring the distortion of space around it by the precession of the orbits of the stars. There is no alternative theory that explains the observations.
What, in your mind, is required to 'detect' a black hole?
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.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161072
Mar 18, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
We can see the orbits of the nearby stars around this object (this is how we know it is there). We know it is emitting no light. We know it is incredibly massive (around 4 million solar masses). We know it is in a very small space (within 6.5 light hours). That fits *all* the requirements for a black hole. We are even measuring the distortion of space around it by the precession of the orbits of the stars. There is no alternative theory that explains the observations.
What, in your mind, is required to 'detect' a black hole?
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.

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161073
Mar 18, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>m
M'kay there, sweet cheeks.
You've linked the wrong post and you know it. You're being disingenuous and you're still lying.
Here's the post we've been discussing, the 9th one on the page.
http://m.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/TUG...
Your first line is:
"Light's speed is constant."
You ain't the only one that can google Topix....
Liar.
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?

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161074
Mar 18, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, pal. The goalposts are fixed.
Liar.
You're busted.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161075
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
You should watch the oreilly video.
Oreilly makes a total ass of himself.
"The tide goes in. The tide goes out. We don't know how it happens. "
Thanks, RR.
That was a treat.
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.

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161076
Mar 18, 2013
 
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
You should watch the oreilly video.
Oreilly makes a total ass of himself.
"The tide goes in. The tide goes out. We don't know how it happens. "
Thanks, RR.
That was a treat.
Here's another O'reilly moment...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161077
Mar 18, 2013
 
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>Who's a liar?

See paragraph 6...
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE...

You're never going to learn, are you, RR?

Don't call me a liar. Thus far, EVERY SINGLE TIME you have, it's bit you in your arse.

Have I ever called you a liar?
Can't wait to see him lie his way out of this one.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161078
Mar 18, 2013
 
LargeLanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Why does it vary with frequency moron?
Because that's what frequency is ? A variation in wavelength or speed, position or oscillation.
Motion or et's or even intensity.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161079
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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?
Right.

In this one, you start off saying "Light's speed is constant."

http://m.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/TUG...

Then I erase the rest of your post & only reply to that first sentence.


Hukt on Fonix wrote:

Light's speed is constant.

RiversideRedneck wrote:
No it isn't.

---

Then you started whining...

RiversideRedneck wrote:
No it isn't.

Hukt on Fonix wrote:
Why don't you address the whole post?

...Instead of trying to dispute that one little piece of it?

---

I replied with:

RiversideRedneck wrote:

Why should I?

When the very first sentence is wrong, logic dictates that the rest of the post will be equally wrong.

http://m.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/TUG...

Stop whining.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161080
Mar 18, 2013
 
LargeLanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Speed is not the cause for mass. Mass and energy causes speed. An objects movement, and its speed it caused by force, idiot! Speed doesn't cause the force!
Shut up polymath257
Actually all these things are related, hey each cause the other. Rock, Paper, Scissors.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161081
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LargeLanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Light slows down the further it travels.
False, in fact it exists its entire trajectory independent of your perception of time.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 154,841 - 154,860 of223,289
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••