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

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#161092 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.

Three emotional states that are in fact real.
But a physical thing has physical evidence of it's physical existence. Is this so very hard for you to climb up the hill to see with your physical eyes
?

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#161093 Mar 18, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
What is that? Squareroot has nothing to do with it.
I call POE. Nobody can be that stupid and still be able to breath.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#161094 Mar 18, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, the point is that Dick Dawkins is an arrogant prick that spreads his assumptions so that dumb asses like you can help him make his fortune.
And I never said I don't use Fox News, I said I've only posted them once or twice.
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.

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.

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.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#161095 Mar 18, 2013
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay.
Cool, what flavour?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#161096 Mar 18, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
As I've said, detecting a things supposed effects is not the same as detecting that thing.
We definitely see some effects: the orbits of the stars and their timings.
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.
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.
How do they know it's massive? They can't see it or detect it in any way.
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).
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.
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?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#161097 Mar 18, 2013
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.
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?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#161098 Mar 18, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Our scientific technology is pretty damn weak.
Our senses trump science every time.
Try it.
Our science is *based* on the senses.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#161099 Mar 18, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I couldn't find any posts by hukt at that link.
Google better.
You must be blind. Out of the 20 posts on that page, he had eight of them. The post in question is his fifth of eight.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#161100 Mar 18, 2013
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>
Give it up, RR.
You're busted.
Busted?!?

HA HA HA !!!

You're the one trying to backpedal and weasel your way out of this. Your first sentence was "lights speed is constant."

That's not a lie, that's the truth. And you damn well know it.

Liar
Thinking

Mirfield, UK

#161101 Mar 18, 2013
Little monkeys.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I used to spank them, but I've never beaten them.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#161102 Mar 18, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
I call POE. Nobody can be that stupid and still be able to breath.
Even a blind man can see that.

“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.

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
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 15 min Save This Nation 2,265
Islam is the Enemy (Sep '12) 1 hr Thinking 28
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 1 hr Thinking 119
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr Thinking 23,178
God' existence 1 hr Thinking 57
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 2 hr thetruth 1,442
Atheism does not exist at all 3 hr thetruth 4
More from around the web