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

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#174901 Aug 18, 2013
Thinking wrote:
BS. Few Atheists rule out the possibility of some form of god.
That said, I know 100% that no all powerful compassionate god can exist because we have evidence of avoidable suffering.
<quoted text>
And the majority of Topix self professed atheists don't know WTF they believe. But the name sounds cool, and it gives them a license to be obnoxious, they believe.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#174902 Aug 18, 2013
Thinking wrote:
BS. Few Atheists rule out the possibility of some form of god.
That said, I know 100% that no all powerful compassionate god can exist because we have evidence of avoidable suffering.
<quoted text>
BTW, your "know" is a belief, a personal conviction, and quite the evidence it is emotion based, which clouds rational thinking.
Thinking

UK

#174903 Aug 18, 2013
Calling you a wanker doesn't make you any less incorrect.
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
And the majority of Topix self professed atheists don't know WTF they believe. But the name sounds cool, and it gives them a license to be obnoxious, they believe.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174904 Aug 18, 2013
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
Veiled accusations? Threats?? Lol, I'll bypass the drivel and focus on the one point. One can only explain things so many times to you without making a dent that one realizes the depths of your cluelessness.
Never underestimate the power of willful ignorance--

-- it is one of the few things humans can achieve an infinite capacity for...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174905 Aug 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you qualified? Do you have doctorates in physics, astrophysics, or quantum physics?
Much more than the creationist could ever hope to be.

She dismisses **all** scientific fact without a second glance.

This alone disqualifies here from the discussion.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174906 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> So nobody can question Hawkins conclusions without advanced knowledge in Physics? Is that what you are saying?
Wrong.

We **are** saying that you must have a LEAST a RUDIMENTARY education in BASIC physics.

A subject of which you have demonstrated you are 100% unfamiliar with.

**THAT****IS** the distinction.

You?

You dismiss ALL scientific fact without a second's hesitation.

AND WITHOUT BOTHERING TO STUDY IT, EITHER.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#174907 Aug 18, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
And the majority of Topix self professed atheists don't know WTF they believe. But the name sounds cool, and it gives them a license to be obnoxious, they believe.
Face up to reality and admit you're a liar with no proof of god - like all creationists.

Its idiots like you who cannot answer basic questions about your faith based mental illness and you try to criticise science instead.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174908 Aug 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
At a deep level, the universe is acausal.
And this is the fundamental beef that **all** religions have with the present universe.

They *want* to be "special".

They **demand** that the Universe **notices** them in their tiny existence.

So gods were fabricated to "answer" this elementary drive of the human psyche.

Sadly, the price society has to pay for this "answer" is much too steep-- in human suffering and in the perpetuation of ignorance.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#174909 Aug 18, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Calling you a wanker doesn't make you any less incorrect.
<quoted text>
That was quite a deviation from the subject.

Is that an offer to lend me a hand in an effort to get me pointed in the right direction? To get me to rise up to your expectations?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174910 Aug 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The stress-energy tensor is essentially a description of the distribution of mass, energy, momentum, and 'stress' in a region. On the other hand, the Einstein tensor describes, essentially, the curvature of spacetime. General relativity proposes that the Einstein tensor and the stress energy tensor are equal (up to a constant proportion factor). So, essentially, mass, energy, momentum, and stress produce curvature of spacetime. Curvature means that close by paths will either converge or diverge (depending on the type of curvature). This is gravity.
So, basically, you are saying that gravity is ...

...**geometry**?

:D

I **knew** there was a use for all that High School math I took back-when...

;)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174911 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it is an expression of Hawkings core argument in deductive form. Unlike you, i don't know everything.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.asp...
<quoted text>
Quote Minding from a Lying For Jewsus website is not honest.

It is **lying**.

But lying is your forte, isn't it?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174912 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> 1+1=2 is abstract and is not time dependent. 1+1=2 would remain true even if there was nothing and not something. It transcends physical reality.
But it is not a statement that directly applies to the real world. It follows from certain *assumptions* and definitions concerning 1,+,= and 2 and their properties. These assumptions are invented by humans as a language to help us understand. Because they are abstract, that language can potentially be used in a large number of situations. But it is an experimental question whether the assumptions hold in any given physical situation. Pure logic cannot say when such assumptions do and do not hold.

For example, the equation 1+1=2 doe not hold in the following:

1. Take 1 marble and smash it into another 1 marble at high energy. You will get 0 pebbles and a variety of fragments.

2. Take 1 quart of water and 1 quart of alcohol and mix them. You will not get 2 quarts of mixture, but slightly less.

3. Take 1 proton and smash it into another 1 proton. You will often get out 3 protons and one anti-proton. Sometimes you will get more.

The point is that the assumptions of the abstract statement 1+1=2 do not apply in these physical cases, so the conclusion may fail (and actually does in these examples).

What happens in abstract mathematics and logic is that we *assume* certain basic propositions and rules of deduction and derive new propositions. As long as the assumptions and rules of deduction are correct, the conclusions are valid. But in no physical situation can you absolutely know that the assumptions are, in fact, correct. So what happens is that we *test* the assumptions to the best of our ability and then use the conclusions, testing them also as a further test of our assumptions. In this way, we learn which assumptions hold for the real world and which do not. Even more, we learn when various assumptions can and cannot be used to help us understand what happens in reality.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174913 Aug 18, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
So, basically, you are saying that gravity is ...
...**geometry**?
:D
I **knew** there was a use for all that High School math I took back-when...
;)
Yes, in general relativity, gravity is geometry, although in curved spacetime.

“The King of R&R”

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#174914 Aug 18, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
You're still assuming. Let me now introduce you to what I find to be most possible. The creator of The Universe may set off so much energy. Nothing could get close to it. I find this to be the greatest possibility . No creator it has way to much that can't be explain, and really it just does not go that direction. In the possibilities of creation I don't see how Atheism could even make the top 10. You need to battle it out with Fundamentalist Christians. It's like fox hunting rabbits, but some times the rabbits win.
hey dudeo, just show me on piece of evidence of supernatural power. oh, you say you can't right now. well, that's to be expected of a born again faker!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174915 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> 1+1=2 is abstract and is not time dependent. 1+1=2 would remain true even if there was nothing and not something. It transcends physical reality.
It transcends physical reality only in the same way that a game of chess transcends physical reality.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#174916 Aug 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, in general relativity, gravity is geometry, although in curved spacetime.
If the universe expanded from a singularity, outward in all directions, yes, gravity could be considered as curved spacetime. Would certainly take on that appearance to an observer in the midst. Might not be, but would certainly look that way. One could even think that space would be curved according to the mass distributions it is in line with. It could be more curvy in some places more than others. Could even create, oops, there's that word, forms and shapes.

Gravity has one pretty well defined characteristic. It works in straight lines. Always has.

Your curved spacetime is illusory. Caused by staring at papers too much.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#174917 Aug 18, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh-huh. So what equations do you use to determine the unlikeliness of no-creator?
Every morning I awake. I don't see why I should be persuading you towards my religious beliefs. This is a tread for you to prove yours. In an era of many people giving their beliefs, I don't rank Atheist in the top 10 of likelihood.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#174918 Aug 18, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
If the universe expanded from a singularity, outward in all directions, yes, gravity could be considered as curved spacetime. Would certainly take on that appearance to an observer in the midst. Might not be, but would certainly look that way. One could even think that space would be curved according to the mass distributions it is in line with. It could be more curvy in some places more than others. Could even create, oops, there's that word, forms and shapes.
Gravity has one pretty well defined characteristic. It works in straight lines. Always has.
Your curved spacetime is illusory. Caused by staring at papers too much.
About time. When defining the age of the universe time is defined linear. 16 bil yrs ago or whatever. Now time is defined as a point on a globe?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174919 Aug 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, in general relativity, gravity is geometry, although in curved spacetime.
And those kids who made fun of me for taking elective math classes said I wouldn't have any real-world uses for it.

They were so wrong...

;D

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#174920 Aug 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
It transcends physical reality only in the same way that a game of chess transcends physical reality.
BS, Why do you make these idiot comparisons? What are you attempting to accomplish? 1+1=2 is true within its own context which is elemental math. You pull it out of context for what purpose other than obfuscation? You introduce a chess game for what? 1+1=2 exists in the same manner as E=MC2 as abstract concepts not time dependent. Because they are abstract they lack causal power. Truth is not time dependent. These constructs point to a source which is also not time dependent. We call that source God.

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
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 14 min Yiago 148
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 59 min woodtick57 2,263
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 5 hr _Bad Company 141
Islam is the Enemy (Sep '12) 6 hr thetruth 34
God' existence 6 hr thetruth 67
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 22 hr _Bad Company 23,198
Yes, atheists can be fundamentalists Fri Crazy Mess 1
More from around the web