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

“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

Location hidden

#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

Location hidden

#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.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#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

Location hidden

#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.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176294 Sep 3, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you do-- that's your ego talking once again.
Yes, and I am entitled to my perception as well as you are, yours. There is no question that my perception is far more positive than your is. If we meet on the other side, and I told you "See I told you so.". That should make you very happy. The shoe cold not be on the other foot, and that should now make you sad. You are correct the announcement you don't have a soul is trolling. Without doubt you are a troll by your very own standard.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176295 Sep 3, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
http://scitechdaily.com/physic ists-successfully-simulate-evo lution-early-universe/
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.
They've been double talking since I have log on the internet. It gets worse every year.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176296 Sep 3, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Hate speech duly noted.
That pretty much sums up your entire "argument": you do your best to belittle and name-call.
Because you have no arguments?
Pretty much.
There goes your failed reading comprehension again. I never claimed to have an argument. No one could prove, period. We are all people of faith. Your suggestion there is an argument or debate is funny.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176297 Sep 3, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Your ego is showing.
Along with your deeply rooted hate for all non-theists.
Disgusting.
Your claim, that my claim, Atheism sucks =s hate.

If there was a hot dog, that I thought did not taste good and it made me sick. I would say that brand of hot dogs sucks. I would not hate the brand of hot dogs. I would avid the brand and advise others that it sucks. Such is Atheism.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#176298 Sep 3, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
They've been double talking since I have log on the internet. It gets worse every year.
It's a brain infection passed by memes. A disease called screaming memes. It affects those with insufficient development of their neural network. They can only be "educated" by rote.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176299 Sep 3, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
You are under the false impression that it's UP to ME.
Nope-- the burden of PROOF is all on YOU, hatetheist.
You are the one making the idiotic claim "god".
It is up to YOU to prove this idiotic idea "god" is worth while.
Google Pigeon Chess.
You are playing the part of the pigeon.
I knew you hated The Church Lady. Superior Dance Time. T-Town clown to join in.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176300 Sep 3, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I already said: I have no faith left.
I lost it, mostly from reading the **whole** bible, but also from other examples of god **never** acting ...
... godly.
The fact that there is god-preventable EVIL in the world?
Is sufficient proof all by itself-- that no god who **CARES** exists at all.
If you had no faith you would never post in regards to religion period. You put way too much into this to make such a claim. It is why you may be the funniest blogger I have ever read. Douglas Adams eat your heart out should be your log on.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#176301 Sep 3, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
http://scitechdaily.com/physic ists-successfully-simulate-evo lution-early-universe/
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.
Funny Dave, seriously.

We know the exact figure really , you can chill something to 2.7 degrees above absolute zero, at that temperature you cannot remove the remaining kinetic energy of the atoms or particles.
That is the ground state of energy the lowest reduction possible , because to do so you would have to defeat the uncertainty principle and all known quantum effects.

But when you get to the punchline, "We are designed." you lost a cohesive narrative. I mean it's like giving the directions for cooking rice. And the saying.......

Bring 3 cups water to boil, add 1 cup rice, add butter and salt,
let come to boil, stir rice once, reduce heat and cover.
The sky may turn purple.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176302 Sep 3, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Your beliefs of which you have NOTHING to support them.
NOT EVEN A SINGLE ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THEM.
Sad, really.
Pigeon chess, though.
Ye, of poor reading comprehension, not only have I admitted I could give you no argument. I have pointed out to you the argument can not begin and why. I tell you we can't have the argument because we lack the knowledge for it, and you start bobbing. Little Red Bobbing Hood fits you so good.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176304 Sep 3, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a brain infection passed by memes. A disease called screaming memes. It affects those with insufficient development of their neural network. They can only be "educated" by rote.
I'll come back and respond to others later. I think part of the problem is they knocked The Gnostic Atheist off line. They not only gave a much better game, they did it with much better manners.

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
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 4 min Thinking 22,003
Stump a theist with 2 questions 13 min Thinking 15
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 28 min Thinking 69
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 30 min Thinking 179
The Ultimate Evidence of God 7 hr sriKim 120
An atheist returns to Christ (Jan '09) 14 hr Patrick 4,085
Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 15 hr Patrick 38
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••