Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 256555 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.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#176271 Sep 3, 2013
followerofSatan wrote:
<quoted text>
big bang started universe...NASA won noble prize in physics for it...
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15113168/from/ET#.U...
The universe is currently expanding. That is known. It was once much hotter and denser. That is known. The rate of acceleration is increasing. That is known. It was once hot enough and dense enough for nuclear fusion to be present *everywhere*. That is known.

What is *not* known is whether the beginning of the current expansion phase is the beginning of 'everything'. It is certainly possible. But it is also possible it was a transition of some sort. This gets into a bit of terminology. We tend to say 'our universe' for the current expansion phase. if there is more than this, then the whole is often called the 'multiverse'.

For example, it is possible that there was a previous contraction phase before the current expansion phase. It is also possible that our universe 'budded off' from a larger, eternally expanding, multiverse via a quantum fluctuation.

So the Big Bang is proven: the universe was once in a very hot, dense state where nuclear fusion happened everywhere. It has since expanded and cooled.

Whether the beginning of the expansion is the beginning of 'everything' is NOT known. We'd love to have some data to determine which possibility is correct.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#176272 Sep 3, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry but string is still theory. It is interesting it is a top contender. It does not answer if Theist or atheist are correct. Perhaps when proven it would.
Yes, string theory is *speculation*. But it is a leading condender because it is one of the few proposals that combines quantum mechanics and general relativity in a natural way. There are even results that suggest that *any* proposal that combines these two must have the general outline of string theory (this is controversial, though).

What is true, though, is that the position that there is an all powerful creator for the universe has no evidence in its support. Nothing that we see in this universe points to an intelligent creator. We see laws of physics that operate to produce all the structure we see around us.

Now, is it *possible* there is a multi-dimensional race of creatures that has learned the technology of how to produce universes out of the quantum background? It is *possible* that our universe is one of the universes created by such a multi-dimensional race? The answer to both questions is *yes*. But, I would assert, this has *nothing* to do with your conceptions of deities. These multi-dimensional beings would NOT be 'all powerful', or 'all knowing' and certainly would *not* be 'determiners of morals'. They would be intelligent beings with a certain technology and acting through the laws of physics.

Now, what was *your* speculation again?

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#176273 Sep 3, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Never believed in that 10% stuff.
Hiding, I felt my brain growing back after my concussion. The sensation was like dust collecting and getting fired up with an awareness going with it. Layered increases in awareness. It made me realize how intelligence is exponential, and not linear like commonly thought. It is like going up a ladder and each step up increases your view of the horizon. A one foot rise vertically results in miles that comes into view. IQ tests are measured in rungs.
You read my reference to cores, or levels of consciousness. I related the changes during my death experiences. There is a core to you that can observe and note changes in yourself, buried deep inside your subconscious. It ties the knots in your brain that your higher functions can access later. Such tends to be symbolic, such as dreams, etc, but are records of observations that core experienced. Your existence works outward. Why I don't believe the meat makes the mind. The meat is just useful stuff to create an experience or manifestation. The universe and its components were created for the manifestation of thought. However, that physical layer becomes a filter the inner consciousness has to deal with and interface with the other material around.
In my reduction to my core I very much noticed I had a certain power if you wish to call it that to "create" and manipulate this physical presence. It is difficult to relate that due to the terminology and physical points of reference we use, but it is similar to dreaming. I related how I "woke up" from this existence and very much wanted to go back to sleep and dream more to escape the reality I woke into, which I was familiar with. The dreaming was hiding from something much larger than myself of an intelligent nature.
I have a remarkable ability to heal. I recover quickly from most injuries, and the more I am aware of where they are, the faster I heal. I think most people have this ability. The inner core patching things up more than some vague evolutionary process of action/reaction.
We are more than just meat.
BTW, learned something new the other day. If one does not use a hot glue gun with the objects to be glued secured properly as one knows they should, but one ignores in that neverending human expectation of defying the odds, that hot glue can and will burn flesh and will remove two layers of skin in an uncomfortable manner. And which reinforces a lifetime knowledge that if you play with fire you will get burned, but that still doesn't deter us from being stupid. So much for evolution and the best and brightest products arising from such. Such can apply to the physical world as well as the spiritual world.
Wow, amazing. Thank you, Sir Dave. Very insightful.

Sorry for upsetting you in the past, if I ever did.

I'll think of you. Be well.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#176275 Sep 3, 2013
followerofSatan wrote:
<quoted text>
which is why NASA is measuring the amount of dark matter/energy to determine if the expansion will cease and a collapse will occur and everything will repeat ... which is what preliminary studies show.... but true, it is not 100% proven yet..
Actually, this is NOT what preliminary studies suggest. In fact, the studies we have right now suggest that the expansion will continue to accelerate. Dark matter isn't close to enough to stop the acceleration and cause a collapse.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#176276 Sep 3, 2013
followerofSatan wrote:
<quoted text>
which is why NASA is measuring the amount of dark matter/energy to determine if the expansion will cease and a collapse will occur and everything will repeat ... which is what preliminary studies show.... but true, it is not 100% proven yet..
Actually it was thought if the universe were going to collapse in cyclic repeats AKA: the big crunch and big bangs , it would be found that the expansion rate would be slowing down.
But surprisingly it was found to be speeding up.
That thew the big crunch out the picture, and The Big Rip is presumed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip

But a few have another idea of how it can be cyclic with aeons of time. And repeat bangs of larger and larger scale. Which would explain how the universe is infinite spatially, each hypothesis has it weak points.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#176277 Sep 3, 2013
Or the Big Freeze, which is not a great outcome either.

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#176278 Sep 3, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, this is NOT what preliminary studies suggest. In fact, the studies we have right now suggest that the expansion will continue to accelerate. Dark matter isn't close to enough to stop the acceleration and cause a collapse.
And of you known physical forces, which is the ONLY one that can cause expansion? EM. However, EM is ill defined and understood. It is a larger process of motion that has been incorrectly boxed and looked at. Such also make it more difficult to explain those with the rigid views of it they were trained to see.

You had an expansion that created a tension which gave rise to bipolarity on the local level of this universe. This tension is the stretching or displacement of space. Displacement begats motion. Motion bumps heads.

The continued expansion nullifies the present concept of gravity. The expansion is essentially motion begatting motion. Once it starts, it won't stop. If it can't head off in a direction it will be compressed into a spinning sphere.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#176279 Sep 3, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
And of you known physical forces, which is the ONLY one that can cause expansion? EM. However, EM is ill defined and understood. It is a larger process of motion that has been incorrectly boxed and looked at. Such also make it more difficult to explain those with the rigid views of it they were trained to see.
You had an expansion that created a tension which gave rise to bipolarity on the local level of this universe. This tension is the stretching or displacement of space. Displacement begats motion. Motion bumps heads.
The continued expansion nullifies the present concept of gravity. The expansion is essentially motion begatting motion. Once it starts, it won't stop. If it can't head off in a direction it will be compressed into a spinning sphere.

The problem was that the four forces can not explain the expansion.
But dark energy does and fit's within the framework of GR.
GR is considered pretty accurate, though nothing is perfect.
To explain some things , it takes entirely new concepts, the acceleration of the universe is one of them.

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#176280 Sep 3, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem was that the four forces can not explain the expansion.
But dark energy does and fit's within the framework of GR.
GR is considered pretty accurate, though nothing is perfect.
To explain some things , it takes entirely new concepts, the acceleration of the universe is one of them.
I just told you why. But feel free to com eup with new sub-theories to patch your theory.

Here is something for you and Polymath to consider.

Take a cylinder of oxygen or any other gas. Evacuate it to a partial vacuum. In this gravity well the remaining gas should collect at the bottom. You should have a pressure differential on the insides of the container between the top and bottom. Gravity on the nuclei. Pure and simple. I haven't researched this, but I suspect the gas will diffuse to an even pressure outwards in all directions. There may be a very tiny differential due to that gravity which will be affected by the Casimir effect, which would reduce that gravitational pull on the individual gas atoms, an internal to the cylinder condition and effect. However, this will not effect the total weight or mass of the cylinder barring any influence of that vacuum being transferred through the cylinder material. I believe what you will find is it is the EM repulsion that scatters the gas atoms. There is really nothing else to do such. Those atoms are spinning. That comes under the heading of motion. Balance of charge created by displacement of space. If you can polarize the spin from without you may see differences of internal pressure on the internal walls. And do not forget these relative pressure, or force may be a better word, differences are also affecting the internal structure of the cylinders themselves. Space goes everywhere.

That all goes under the heading of the conservation of mass and energy. No virtual particles needed.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#176282 Sep 3, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
And of you known physical forces, which is the ONLY one that can cause expansion? EM. However, EM is ill defined and understood.
No, it is *very* well defined and *very* well understood. That is how we can be confident that your ravings are wrong.

The cosmological constant is perfectly well able to explain/describe the accelerating expansion. And it isn't like the introduction of a CC is new: it was one of the modifications proposed by Einstein quite early on.
It is a larger process of motion that has been incorrectly boxed and looked at. Such also make it more difficult to explain those with the rigid views of it they were trained to see.
You had an expansion that created a tension which gave rise to bipolarity on the local level of this universe. This tension is the stretching or displacement of space. Displacement begats motion. Motion bumps heads.
The continued expansion nullifies the present concept of gravity. The expansion is essentially motion begatting motion. Once it starts, it won't stop. If it can't head off in a direction it will be compressed into a spinning sphere.
Or nothing at all like that...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#176283 Sep 3, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
I just told you why. But feel free to com eup with new sub-theories to patch your theory.
Here is something for you and Polymath to consider.
Take a cylinder of oxygen or any other gas. Evacuate it to a partial vacuum. In this gravity well the remaining gas should collect at the bottom. You should have a pressure differential on the insides of the container between the top and bottom. Gravity on the nuclei. Pure and simple. I haven't researched this, but I suspect the gas will diffuse to an even pressure outwards in all directions. There may be a very tiny differential due to that gravity which will be affected by the Casimir effect, which would reduce that gravitational pull on the individual gas atoms, an internal to the cylinder condition and effect. However, this will not effect the total weight or mass of the cylinder barring any influence of that vacuum being transferred through the cylinder material. I believe what you will find is it is the EM repulsion that scatters the gas atoms. There is really nothing else to do such. Those atoms are spinning. That comes under the heading of motion. Balance of charge created by displacement of space. If you can polarize the spin from without you may see differences of internal pressure on the internal walls. And do not forget these relative pressure, or force may be a better word, differences are also affecting the internal structure of the cylinders themselves. Space goes everywhere.
That all goes under the heading of the conservation of mass and energy. No virtual particles needed.
The effect is well understood. It is temperature dependent, as well as dependent on the mass of the individual molecules in the air. Essentially, there is a balancing act between the force of gravity and the dispersion based on temperature. The average energy of an individual molecule in the air is directly related to the temperature. But it is also related to the mass of the molecule and the average velocity. For ordinary gasses at standard temperatures, the pressure difference is small unless you consider large differences in height. There are also differences due to the masses, so there is a different characteristic height for oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide.

This is NOT an EM effect. It is a statistical mechanics effect.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#176284 Sep 3, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
That all goes under the heading of the conservation of mass and energy. No virtual particles needed.
The effect you are talking about is *many* orders of magnitude larger than the effects from virtual particles.

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#176285 Sep 3, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it is *very* well defined and *very* well understood. That is how we can be confident that your ravings are wrong.
The cosmological constant is perfectly well able to explain/describe the accelerating expansion. And it isn't like the introduction of a CC is new: it was one of the modifications proposed by Einstein quite early on.
<quoted text>
Or nothing at all like that...
If everything was so well defined and understood as you allege then we should be a lot further along the way, shouldn't we? All of those brains and they can't do a thing with it.

You are stuck in an academic/theoretical loop of thinking that has separated you from the more mechanical aspects of physics, meaning the ones technology works on, the stuff that actually works. It is called left field. If and when you get out of that field and out into the productive end of science you will understand that.

You aren't looking at nature, you are playing with math models and not comparing them to "reality".

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#176286 Sep 3, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The effect is well understood. It is temperature dependent, as well as dependent on the mass of the individual molecules in the air. Essentially, there is a balancing act between the force of gravity and the dispersion based on temperature. The average energy of an individual molecule in the air is directly related to the temperature. But it is also related to the mass of the molecule and the average velocity. For ordinary gasses at standard temperatures, the pressure difference is small unless you consider large differences in height. There are also differences due to the masses, so there is a different characteristic height for oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide.
This is NOT an EM effect. It is a statistical mechanics effect.
Heat is energy that energizes. It is also produced by energy that encounters resistance. You change the ambient temperature and you change the energy acting on the atoms and their EM fields.

You produced a lot of words that didn't say anything.

But what I said was essentially the fact. The repelling EM fields caused the expansion of the molecules, read mass, in the relative vacuum. Nothing else could.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#176287 Sep 3, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The effect is well understood. It is temperature dependent, as well as dependent on the mass of the individual molecules in the air. Essentially, there is a balancing act between the force of gravity and the dispersion based on temperature. The average energy of an individual molecule in the air is directly related to the temperature. But it is also related to the mass of the molecule and the average velocity. For ordinary gasses at standard temperatures, the pressure difference is small unless you consider large differences in height. There are also differences due to the masses, so there is a different characteristic height for oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide.
This is NOT an EM effect. It is a statistical mechanics effect.
Boyle's law I believe.

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#176288 Sep 3, 2013
why do some of you insist that everyone has to believe in Jesus the way you do?? how do you know that we need a deity or another system could be better?? how do you know Jesus is really what you say he is??

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176289 Sep 3, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
In science a theory is something that has been tested and proven.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative.
Definition of theory (n)

Bing Dictionary

the·o·ry

[ th&#63484; &#601;ree ]

1.rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice
2.speculation: abstract thought or contemplation
3.idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture

Speculation. There are those that when they speculate it gets a lot of respect. A proven theory is a fact. If the right person has a theory the wheels of research begins. It is to be respected but it is not prove. In regards to String. There are many different theories, as I mentioned as a whole it is either amongst the most respect or the most respected.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176290 Sep 3, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I am atheist.
There's your proof.
I agree it is your truth. You do know yourself.

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#176291 Sep 3, 2013
http://scitechdaily.com/physicists-successful...

Typical double talk, but essentially they chilled atoms, removing as much ambient heat as possible,leaving the bare energy for the atom to function, meaning an EM field. It doesn't say what the quenching process was, or really why it was needed. But basically, the atoms bounced into each other creating heat and thus elevating the energy levels, read EM, and the atoms repelled each other. Look at the top illustration.

Lots of noise and hype. However, there was an existing space already to expand into. Notice the external influences to effect this action. "Space" is supposed to have been created with the BB. The heat was super high. There were no atoms. They got created later.

We are designed.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176292 Sep 3, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
I have doubts that Atheists or theists, either one, will ever get a final answer for this. Some people are more sure... I try not to dwell on it too much, cause I'm almost certain that if the "answer" ever does come out for sure, I will probably be well dead and gone.
Perhaps the creator or nature has planned it this way. Knowing oneself is one of the oldest philosophies. My case by case theory as I have admitted here, and it didn't take a heat lamp or power tools to get it out of me. With out doubt will never be able to be proven. I stand by it until someone else could prove what they have. That will not happen in this life time I am now enjoying.

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
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 27 min One way or another 43,202
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr It aint necessari... 18,550
News Why I quit atheism 10 hr Eagle 12 708
Good arguments against Christianity 12 hr superwilly 209
A Universe from Nothing? 13 hr Mikko 533
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 18 hr Thinking 5,696
Atheism is a mental illness 18 hr Eagle 12 11
More from around the web