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

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#179786 Oct 12, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
A billion Chinese can't be wrong, that is unless you force them to be. You do know more atheist are atheist, due to government policing than by choice. I proudly and loudly say "Not in my country!" Bring that backwards **** to America and you'll see who the cowards are. We will rock you.
Reality is not a popularity contest, you ignorant baboon.

In China? They believe in ancestor worship, and magical spirits-- hardly an atheist country as you pretend.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#179787 Oct 12, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
A billion Chinese can't be wrong, that is unless you force them to be. You do know more atheist are atheist, due to government policing than by choice. I proudly and loudly say "Not in my country!" Bring that backwards **** to America and you'll see who the cowards are. We will rock you.
You are so unconvincing, you could not convince a Republican to accept bribe money...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#179788 Oct 12, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
A billion Chinese can't be wrong, that is unless you force them to be. You do know more atheist are atheist, due to government policing than by choice. I proudly and loudly say "Not in my country!" Bring that backwards **** to America and you'll see who the cowards are. We will rock you.
You are so unconvincing, you could not convince a shark to go for blood in the water.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#179789 Oct 12, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
A billion Chinese can't be wrong, that is unless you force them to be. You do know more atheist are atheist, due to government policing than by choice. I proudly and loudly say "Not in my country!" Bring that backwards **** to America and you'll see who the cowards are. We will rock you.
You are so unconvincing, you could not convince a squirrel to pick up a fresh pecan-- already shelled.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#179790 Oct 12, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
A billion Chinese can't be wrong, that is unless you force them to be. You do know more atheist are atheist, due to government policing than by choice. I proudly and loudly say "Not in my country!" Bring that backwards **** to America and you'll see who the cowards are. We will rock you.
You are so unconvincing, if you announced you were a Vegetarian?

Every vegan within earshot would immediately order a double-bacon cheezeburger-- with extra bacon.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#179791 Oct 12, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
A billion Chinese can't be wrong, that is unless you force them to be. You do know more atheist are atheist, due to government policing than by choice. I proudly and loudly say "Not in my country!" Bring that backwards **** to America and you'll see who the cowards are. We will rock you.
You are so unconvincing, if you announced you were Catholic?

Every priest within earshot would suddenly try to get married....

... and give up their favorite boy-toys too.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#179792 Oct 12, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it is NOT the vibration of space. It is the motion of the atoms *through* space in a cyclic fashion. There is a difference.
<quoted text>
Simply wrong.
1. Space is not what is vibrating. Instead, the atoms are moving through space.
2. This vibration of individual molecules is NOT the main component of heat. The kinetic energy through space is.
<quoted text>
No, we found the tiny parts and then understand the larger wholes in terms of those tiny parts. No brick wall.
<quoted text>
The expansion is still going on. So the atoms were formed *during* the expansion.
<quoted text>
Do you attempt to be coherent?
<quoted text>
Why do you think the singularity is anything like what happens when we start processes *within* the universe?
<quoted text>
Causality has issues at this level.
<quoted text>
Again, simply wrong. Heat is a large scale description based in statistical mechanics. It isn't a 'quantum carrier', whatever *that* is supposed to mean.
You are amazing. You tell me I am wrong and then say essentially the same thing.

Hey, Einstein, you have these cyclic thingies not vibrating space as they move through it, The space isn't vibrating as they go through. Hokay. Here, try this. Try walking through a corridor 2 foot wide with a 20 ton hanging block vibrating a foot and a half on either side. What space you had is periodically gone. Does the space take a lunch break?

Where do your moving particles get this extra energy, aka heat? Out of their lunchbox? A taco truck?

The motion, and thus disp[acement of space creates heat. It can be transferred via charge between linked molecules, or it produces light. Likewise these particles can be excited by direct ransfer to them, or by being struck by light. Not the particles, actually, but the charges holding together. There is nothing in the particles to produce heat by the particles themselves. It is the stressing of charges which interacts with space, vibrating it and passing that displacement along. That displaced space vibrates those charges like wind through an Aeolian harp. It stresses the charge fields the same as the air puts a load on those strings. That is where your quantum effects come from.

But your holy scriptures of modern physics won't describe it as such.

You "know" physics, but you don't understand it.
Eagle 12

Troy, IL

#179793 Oct 12, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Your hate is showing, god-robot.
You have no counter to my arguments-- so you try to belittle instead.
How very Jesus of you.
Spray the roaches Bob.
Eagle 12

Troy, IL

#179794 Oct 12, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text><quoted text>
I can no more make myself BELIEVE in YOUR delusions than YOU could fly by flapping your arms real fast.
If you have a magic formula that could instill this FAITH you go on about?
Something short of hitting myself in the head to cause severe brain damage?
Then you MIGHT have a valid point.
[hands over ears] Blah, blah. blah, blah blah
Eagle 12

Troy, IL

#179795 Oct 12, 2013
christINSANITY is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
you are an
Internet TROLL Chickenboy12
Why do trolls do it?
I believe that most trolls are sad people, living their lonely lives vicariously through those they see as strong and successful.
Disrupting a stable newsgroup gives the illusion of power, just as for a few, stalking a strong person allows them to think they are strong, too.
For trolls, any response is 'recognition'; they are unable to distinguish between irritation and admiration; their ego grows directly in proportion to the response, regardless of the form or content of that response.
Trolls, rather surprisingly, dispute this, claiming that it's a game or joke; this merely confirms the diagnosis; how sad do you have to be to find such mind-numbingly trivial timewasting to be funny?
Remember that trolls are cowards; they'll usually post just enough to get an argument going, then sit back and count the responses (Yes, that's what they do!).
Trolls don't have friends. On the internet, because they interact with human beings, they can convince themselves that they are important, the centre of the universe - that, to them, is better than any friendship.
Don't forget, the troll thinks he is always right, and therefore better than other folk. In real life, exactly the opposite applies. the troll has no friends and virtually no interaction with other people.
If he's a teen (many are), then he lives in his bedroom, trolling, playing computer games with 'friends'(who he doesn't know at all), and joining roleplay sites, where - of course - he is a hero, or a powerful villain, who is respected in an inverse ratio to the respect he feels for himself.
If he's an adult, then he has serious social issues. He may work, where people think he's a weirdo, and avoid him, he may sponge off his parents or be 'looking for work', which means he blames everyone for his problems. Except himself.
Most people who are out of work are nothing like the stereotype; most want to work, and gain their self respect through work and being part of the world; but the troll IS the stereotype whining scrounger, to whom the world owes a living.
Almost every troll is male; I don't know why this is.
The troll has few social skills, and most have never had a girlfriend, many never will.
There's a clear pattern among trolls; they are much more likely to ignore posts known to be from women. And when they do respond to women, they are much more likely to be brief, abusive, condescending and patronising.
This is almost certainly more due to fear than misogyny - they just don't know any women. Except Mom. But their attitude rather reduces their chances of reproducing, which is probably a good thing.
A very nice gibberish gobbled word salad.

So what shall we do with your gibber gobbled nonsensical salad?

There’s very little need for the annotations of a boneheaded narcissist that thinks he is a genius.

I say it all goes into the sewer from whence it came.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#179796 Oct 12, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You are amazing. You tell me I am wrong and then say essentially the same thing.
Hey, Einstein, you have these cyclic thingies not vibrating space as they move through it, The space isn't vibrating as they go through. Hokay. Here, try this. Try walking through a corridor 2 foot wide with a 20 ton hanging block vibrating a foot and a half on either side. What space you had is periodically gone. Does the space take a lunch break?
Where do your moving particles get this extra energy, aka heat? Out of their lunchbox? A taco truck?
The motion, and thus disp[acement of space creates heat. It can be transferred via charge between linked molecules, or it produces light. Likewise these particles can be excited by direct ransfer to them, or by being struck by light. Not the particles, actually, but the charges holding together. There is nothing in the particles to produce heat by the particles themselves. It is the stressing of charges which interacts with space, vibrating it and passing that displacement along. That displaced space vibrates those charges like wind through an Aeolian harp. It stresses the charge fields the same as the air puts a load on those strings. That is where your quantum effects come from.
But your holy scriptures of modern physics won't describe it as such.
You "know" physics, but you don't understand it.
Friction is what creates the heat.

blacklagoon

Revere, MA

#179797 Oct 12, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
A billion Chinese can't be wrong, that is unless you force them to be. You do know more atheist are atheist, due to government policing than by choice. I proudly and loudly say "Not in my country!" Bring that backwards **** to America and you'll see who the cowards are. We will rock you.
Thats like saying "Eat shit, 20 trillion flies can't be wrong."
You're very good at making unsupported claims, some would actually call them lies. Now lets see if you are a bold faced liar or not. PRODUCE the documentation or any other pertinent evidence that more Atheists are Atheists because of government policing than by choice. I challenge you to prove to all of us that you are not a liar. I do believe you are a cowardly liar with absolutely no proof for your ridiculous claim.
Atheism IS coming to America, it has been here for some time now and is growing among young people.
The rise of atheism in America The number of disbelievers is growing, but they remain America's least trusted minority. Why? By The Week Staff | April 13, 2012
The National Atheist Organization's "Reason Rally" in March: 19 percent of the American public spurns organized religion in favor of skepticism about faith. Allison Shelley/Getty Images H
ow many atheists are there?
It depends on your definition of the term. Only between 1.5 and 4 percent of Americans admit to so-called "hard atheism," the conviction that no higher power exists. But a much larger share of the American public (19 percent) spurns organized religion in favor of a nondefined skepticism about faith. This group, sometimes collectively labeled the "Nones," is growing faster than any religious faith in the U.S. About two thirds of Nones say they are former believers; 24 percent are lapsed Catholics and 29 percent once identified with other Christian denominations. David Silverman, president of American Atheists, claims these Nones as members of his tribe. "If you don't have a belief in God, you're an atheist," he said. "It doesn't matter what you call yourself."
OPPS, here we come, are you ready????????

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#179798 Oct 12, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Friction is what creates the heat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =TNPp83sDBjEXX
It is one method. And the process occurs on an even smaller scale. The charge and load. Right down into the nucleus itself. But that is because of the universe being a pressure, not innate properties of atomic particles or processes. Space is a medium, it therefore has compressive properties.

But be advised there were no electrons and atoms, etc when the BB event occurred. And it was very, very hot.

According to modern physics.

You never got back to me about that.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#179799 Oct 12, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, previously here I posted that I do find it possible that for the purpose of good for The Universe, that it is possible we are evolving into extinction. It is the way of nature.
You have a very interesting way of looking at things. I don't wish to delve into the complexities of what your belief system may hold, but it seems that it may be even more out there than just the christian belief.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#179800 Oct 12, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, previously here I posted that I do find it possible that for the purpose of good for The Universe, that it is possible we are evolving into extinction. It is the way of nature.
However, it is quite bold of you to bash atheists for giving their opinion, and then to label someone sub-human simply based on your opinion. It's name calling, and it's quite insulting. I am a human whether your opinion is different from mine or not.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#179801 Oct 12, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
The answers to your questions will vary in accordance to the ambitious person that gains control. Without the moral reflections religions offer, there will be no controlling the corruption of the wealthy abusing the less fortunate. The power of the populist would go unchallenged, and it won't have a moral code.
The Atheist here slay me with this idea, that there would no longer be positions that adults would not be able to exploit youths. You just won't hear about them because the media would not be permitted to report all. Atheist as anti-religion would have safe guards that would control the media, as it does in China.
To answer your question or statement, no I did not like George Bush, either one, but I would unquestionable vote for either of them over any atheist. Your own mind is not a free society, as I previously posted you only regard two possibilities of thoughts amongst the common masses. I see no need to give your sort a try out.
I have said this before, and I will say it again.... religion does not build a persons moral code, nor did morality come from religion.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#179802 Oct 12, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
The answers to your questions will vary in accordance to the ambitious person that gains control. Without the moral reflections religions offer, there will be no controlling the corruption of the wealthy abusing the less fortunate. The power of the populist would go unchallenged, and it won't have a moral code.
The Atheist here slay me with this idea, that there would no longer be positions that adults would not be able to exploit youths. You just won't hear about them because the media would not be permitted to report all. Atheist as anti-religion would have safe guards that would control the media, as it does in China.
To answer your question or statement, no I did not like George Bush, either one, but I would unquestionable vote for either of them over any atheist. Your own mind is not a free society, as I previously posted you only regard two possibilities of thoughts amongst the common masses. I see no need to give your sort a try out.
Again... you are not showing your "tolerance" for other thought processes any more than you claim that others don't. If two people are in the running for anything and they do not specifically tell you their beliefs or the lack there of in the very beginning then you should base your "vote" on who would be best for the position. A "vote" for anything should not be based on personal beliefs of the afterlife, nor on their beliefs of creation. Your mind does not seem to be looking for a free society.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#179803 Oct 12, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
It is one method. And the process occurs on an even smaller scale. The charge and load. Right down into the nucleus itself. But that is because of the universe being a pressure, not innate properties of atomic particles or processes. Space is a medium, it therefore has compressive properties.
But be advised there were no electrons and atoms, etc when the BB event occurred. And it was very, very hot.
According to modern physics.
You never got back to me about that.
I was too young to remember back then.
Actually most theory is speculative beyond 10-^33 the point where physics turn into superforce. That's something we cannot duplicate and can only guess at. But particles and beyond bosons, fermions etc. is anybody's guess.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#179804 Oct 12, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you, this gives us a teaching opportunity for the unlearned and the ignorant infidel mindset.
To the followers of Christ the word “hate” is another term for setting priorities. Christ comes first in our hearts and everyone else comes latter. Remembering one of the ten commandments,“To honor thy Father and Mother,” supports this thought.
In Jesus own example he never “hated” his mother or his step father.
Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
The subject here is the word for hate, which is the Greek miseo. One Skeptic is typical of critics when he writes:
Most Christians feel obligated to soften the face meaning of the word 'hate' to something like 'love less than me,' even though the Greek word miseo means 'hate.'
In line with this comment, Skeptics will stress the meaning of the word "hate" and insist that the word must be read literally, and that Jesus is truly preaching hate. But in fact, the "softening" is correct to do -- and is perfectly in line with the context of the ancient world, and the Jewish culture in particular.
For a background on the use of extreme and hyperbolic language in the Bible, I direct the reader first to my foundational essay on this subject. Abraham Rihbany (The Syrian Christ, 98f) points to the use of "hate" in the Bible as an example of linguistic extreme in an Eastern culture. There is no word, he notes, for "like" in the Arabic tongue. "...[T]o us Orientals the only word which can express any cordial inclination of approval is 'love'." The word is used even of casual acquaintances. Extreme language is used to express even moderate relationships.
Luke 14:26 falls into a category of "extreme language," the language of absoluteness used to express a preference, and may refer to disattachment, indifference, or nonattachment without any feelings of revulsion involved. To seal this matter completely, let's look at some parallel materials which prove our point. The closest example comes from Genesis 29:30-1:
And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years. And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.
Here, "hated" is clearly used synonymously with one who is loved less. Let it be added that if Jacob hated Leah in a literal way, it is hardly believable that he would consent to take her as his wife at all.(See also Judges 14:16 and Deut. 21:15-17.)
Now here is another example from Jesus, Luke 16:13:
No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.
Such extremes of feeling would be atypical, but the extremes are not meant to be taken literally; the point is that one master will get more dedicated labor than the other.
Now let's move into some secular works with the same sort of hyperbolic language. http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesussayshate.htm...
http://i1246.photobucket.com/albums/gg601/sca...

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#179805 Oct 12, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I was too young to remember back then.
Actually most theory is speculative beyond 10-^33 the point where physics turn into superforce. That's something we cannot duplicate and can only guess at. But particles and beyond bosons, fermions etc. is anybody's guess.
So was everyone.

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang...

That is the Big Bang theory. I didn't read it all the way through, but have read elsewhere that it contracted a bit, which is when matter started forming. The initial heat was spread over the expanse and a condensation occured, then an expansion began again.

One more time. The heat happened before it could be produced with matter in its present form. Seed or activated component.

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... 2 hr Even Steven 903
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 8 hr thetruth 14,438
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 8 hr thetruth 17
Young atheists: The political leaders of tomorrow 8 hr tha Professor 1
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 8 hr tha Professor 2
Siro is writing a new book 19 hr thetruth 5
Why the Internet is slowly strangling religion 21 hr P_Smith 1

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE