Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

[Hukt on Fonix]

BTW...

I'm not whining... you're whining.

I'm bitching.

Said so yourself.

Google it.

[Aura Mytha]

LargeLanguage wrote:

<quoted text>
If it can't be seen, how do you know it exists?

Much like tomorrow , some things we have come to know.

[Aura Mytha]

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.

Been there did that, you will not understand this.

[Aura Mytha]

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
?

[Richardfs]

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.

[KittenKoder]

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.

[Richardfs]

Hukt on Fonix wrote:

<quoted text>
Okay.

Cool, what flavour?

[polymath257]

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?

[polymath257]

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?

[polymath257]

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.

[RiversideRedneck]

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.

[RiversideRedneck]

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]

Little monkeys.

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
I used to spank them, but I've never beaten them.

[TheBlackSheep]

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.

[RiversideRedneck]

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.

[RiversideRedneck]

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.

[RiversideRedneck]

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?

[KittenKoder]

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.

[KittenKoder]

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.

[Aerobatty]

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.