Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258512 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.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233109 Jul 20, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Has nothing to do with it. One more time.
1.
limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate.
"the infinite mercy of God"
synonyms: boundless, unbounded, unlimited, limitless, never-ending, interminable;
1.
a space or quantity that is infinite.
1.
immeasurably great: an infinite capacity for forgiveness.
2.
indefinitely or exceedingly great: infinite sums of money.
3.
unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc.: the infinite nature of outer space.
4.
unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless: God's infinite mercy.
1 : extending indefinitely : endless <infinite space>
2
: immeasurably or inconceivably great or extensive : inexhaustible <infinite patience>
3
: subject to no limitation or external determination
4
a : extending beyond, lying beyond, or being greater than any preassigned finite value however large <infinite number of positive numbers>
Give an example of a physical infinite.

Since: Sep 08

United States

#233110 Jul 20, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Evey post you make to me is derogatory, that much is clear.
But funny, it seems more correctly said that understanding infinity is beyond a few others here, with protest, denial and all.
The concept is quite understandable to me, but beyond the grasp of others who deny the very definitions I have shown them.
Aura, read over your post.

You get upset because others don't believe the "truths" you have revealed to them.

I wouldn't direct derogatory posts toward you if you didn't make fun of others for their certitude in their beliefs. Same goes for others on here.

Be tolerant of the other idiots. Fighting just gets in the way of gathering knowledge to make rational deductions.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233111 Jul 20, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You are arguing angels and pin heads, pinhead.
Almost every human that isn't brain dead grasps infinity before they die. They just resign themselves to serving out a part of it. Being infinite, you can not quantify it it. They realize this.
Then you do have the brain dead that do try to quantify it, and usually require an education of some sort to get them in that groove. The education being a brain substitute.
Infinity is relative. Spend more of your finite time trying to figure what gave you your little slice of it.
If an actual infinite is allowed in physical quantity, there is no longer a discrete computational foundation for any physical reality.

Infinity is "unreachable", "unrealizable", "unquantifiable", and has no finite quality.

Aura says the physical universe has reached the unreachable, realized the unrealizable, and also has no finite quality.

He is saying any distance in the universe is infinite. Like the distance between one's ears.

Polymath used to spew the same absurd bull shit on these pages.

From some of the top theoretical thinkers in the history of man:

"The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite is solely that of an idea."

-David Hilbert

"An infinite number of real parts in succession appears so evident a contradiction that no man whose judgement is not corrupted would ever be able to admit it."

-David Hume

"The notion of a completed infinity doesn't belong in mathematics; infinity is merely a figure of speech which helps us talk about limits"

-German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss

"Actual infinity does not exist. What we call infinite is only the endless possibility of creating new objects no matter how many exist already"

-French mathematician Henri Poincare

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#233112 Jul 20, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Aura, read over your post.
You get upset because others don't believe the "truths" you have revealed to them.
I wouldn't direct derogatory posts toward you if you didn't make fun of others for their certitude in their beliefs. Same goes for others on here.
Be tolerant of the other idiots. Fighting just gets in the way of gathering knowledge to make rational deductions.
If definitions mean nothing , what are they for?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233113 Jul 20, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Evey post you make to me is derogatory, that much is clear.
But funny, it seems more correctly said that understanding infinity is beyond a few others here, with protest, denial and all.
The concept is quite understandable to me, but beyond the grasp of others who deny the very definitions I have shown them.
It is an ironclad certainty that you do not understand infinity.

Finding one finite object in the entire universe proves your understanding wrong.

Your understanding is that if the extent of the universe is unknowable, that makes it infinite.

That's wrong.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#233114 Jul 20, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It is an ironclad certainty that you do not understand infinity.
Finding one finite object in the entire universe proves your understanding wrong.
Your understanding is that if the extent of the universe is unknowable, that makes it infinite.
That's wrong.
That isn't what I've been explaining to you, but the entire content is impossible to measure also.
The event horizon and the recession of galaxies faster than light is something entirely different matter that shows the infinite extent of the universe a mathematical certainty by general relativity.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233115 Jul 20, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> If definitions mean nothing , what are they for?
Your definitions are incomplete.
__________

"Infinity and zero are abstract mathematical constructs which we use to describe what a system is tending towards. The mathematical philosophy behind this is not too difficult to grasp because these abstractions are unrealisable by self-definition.

Unfortunately the fruitloop Cantor failed to realise that zero cannot be contained within the set of real numbers any more than infinity can. The ancient Greeks knew this perfectly well but the more modern geniuses have succeeded in outsmarting themselves. That's what happens when you sack the philosophers. For set theory to have any mathematical meaning then we can have an infinite set but the set cannot contain infinity. Or zero. The members of any set must have a corresponding value in the real world or the set itself becomes an unrealisable abstraction. An infinite set cannot be contained within a finite one.

These are simple propositions which derive from common sense, yet for many decades we've had to put up with the unseemly spectacle of physicists banging on about singularities, as if such entities could exist in a real universe. They seem to be slowly losing this hubristic tendency to believe their own bullshit but the damage has been done. What they fail to see is that this means that their spacetime models must be false.

Sadly, even after a hundred years, the bloody obvious eludes them."

Regards Leo
__________

Keywords:

"unrealisable"

"bullshit"

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#233116 Jul 20, 2014
limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate.

boundless, unbounded, unlimited, limitless, never-ending, interminable

unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of space, duration of time

subject to no limitation or external determination

extending beyond, lying beyond, or being greater than any preassigned finite value however large

Since: Sep 08

United States

#233117 Jul 20, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> If definitions mean nothing , what are they for?
Have you noticed the quibbling over definitions that occurs on here?

There must be a weakness in using words to convey concepts. One more time. The Babel effect. Read the story.

Choose your definer of words carefully, and define in a manner everyone can understand.

Language is cross referencing a lot of data. Only takes one misdefined or misunderstood word in that huge internal database to corrupt it all.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#233118 Jul 20, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Your definitions are incomplete.
__________
"Infinity and zero are abstract mathematical constructs which we use to describe what a system is tending towards. The mathematical philosophy behind this is not too difficult to grasp because these abstractions are unrealisable by self-definition.
Unfortunately the fruitloop Cantor failed to realise that zero cannot be contained within the set of real numbers any more than infinity can. The ancient Greeks knew this perfectly well but the more modern geniuses have succeeded in outsmarting themselves. That's what happens when you sack the philosophers. For set theory to have any mathematical meaning then we can have an infinite set but the set cannot contain infinity. Or zero. The members of any set must have a corresponding value in the real world or the set itself becomes an unrealisable abstraction. An infinite set cannot be contained within a finite one.
These are simple propositions which derive from common sense, yet for many decades we've had to put up with the unseemly spectacle of physicists banging on about singularities, as if such entities could exist in a real universe. They seem to be slowly losing this hubristic tendency to believe their own bullshit but the damage has been done. What they fail to see is that this means that their spacetime models must be false.
Sadly, even after a hundred years, the bloody obvious eludes them."
Regards Leo
__________
Keywords:
"unrealisable"
"bullshit"
This is what they call appeal to authority fallacy. Or Argument from authority.
You are dismissing evidence direct taken from the measurements of the universe by the latest findings.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#233119 Jul 20, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you noticed the quibbling over definitions that occurs on here?
There must be a weakness in using words to convey concepts. One more time. The Babel effect. Read the story.
Choose your definer of words carefully, and define in a manner everyone can understand.
Language is cross referencing a lot of data. Only takes one misdefined or misunderstood word in that huge internal database to corrupt it all.

Yes, your attempts to redefine the defined, sorry i have the Iron Chariots here.:)

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#233120 Jul 20, 2014

"Nothing is an unrealisable abstraction which the mind can conceive of as an absence of something. It can only be defined in terms of its opposite. Infinity is a precisely analagous construct because the infinite can only be described as that which is not finite. It would be tautologous to go on and say that unrealisable abstractions cannot be realised therefore neither nothing nor infinity can exist in a real universe."

Regards Leo

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#233121 Jul 20, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Give an example of a physical infinite.
I cant give you a measurement of the immeasurable, but have shown you the universe is immeasurable and meets the criteria and definitions in several ways.

Since: Sep 08

United States

#233122 Jul 20, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, your attempts to redefine the defined, sorry i have the Iron Chariots here.:)
Iron is nice stuff for a magnet man to have fun with.

:-)

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#233123 Jul 20, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Iron is nice stuff for a magnet man to have fun with.
:-)
LOL

Since: Sep 08

United States

#233124 Jul 20, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I cant give you a measurement of the immeasurable, but have shown you the universe is immeasurable and meets the criteria and definitions in several ways.
Which does what exactly in the pursuit of knowledge.

Sport, scientists have been pursuing knowledge for a long time while acknowledging there is something greater than our little localized corner of God's infinite whatever it is.

Our universe has all the earmarks of a bubble in a vast sea. What blew the bubble?

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#233125 Jul 20, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Which does what exactly in the pursuit of knowledge.
Sport, scientists have been pursuing knowledge for a long time while acknowledging there is something greater than our little localized corner of God's infinite whatever it is.
Our universe has all the earmarks of a bubble in a vast sea. What blew the bubble?

The impossible to know infinite reality, it's just a guess.

Since: Sep 08

United States

#233126 Jul 20, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
The impossible to know infinite reality, it's just a guess.
That is why you don't take another man's guess as a fact. That means don't worship your "scientists". Use as a model or starting point, but don't just accept. You may come up with a better perception.

Since: Sep 08

United States

#233127 Jul 20, 2014
When you study physics, or use a technology derived from it, you get a false perspective. You are looking down at it, so to speak. You are controlling the operation. This is a natural perspective to take in observation and deductions, but it is missing a whole lot. You remove yourself from being a part of it. A quantum observer forgetting what he is doing, and at the same time affecting the overall. And often confusing the issue.

I learned something a long time ago experimenting. I put myself within forces I used to manipulate. I could feel the effects as it passed through other matter and then me. I can make a chunk of concrete block dance hanging on a string with a speaker magnet it didn't respond to until I waved my hand a few times in a particular way. Very simple operation, but I could animate "dead" matter. Very simple common everyday physical phenomenon. Just something I kind of stumbled upon. Controlling to follow my directions requires something more. BTW, making it move on a string also makes it overcome gravity via motion. The string makes it follow an arc where it has to rise.

My body, and yours, are a hell of a lot more reactive to that phenomenon than a piece of concrete. If I can do that to a piece of concrete why in the hell would I believe something unseen isn't doing that to me or you? Why should you believe such? You can do the same things.

We need to keep ourselves in perspective.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#233128 Jul 20, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
When you study physics, or use a technology derived from it, you get a false perspective. You are looking down at it, so to speak. You are controlling the operation. This is a natural perspective to take in observation and deductions, but it is missing a whole lot. You remove yourself from being a part of it. A quantum observer forgetting what he is doing, and at the same time affecting the overall. And often confusing the issue.
I learned something a long time ago experimenting. I put myself within forces I used to manipulate. I could feel the effects as it passed through other matter and then me. I can make a chunk of concrete block dance hanging on a string with a speaker magnet it didn't respond to until I waved my hand a few times in a particular way. Very simple operation, but I could animate "dead" matter. Very simple common everyday physical phenomenon. Just something I kind of stumbled upon. Controlling to follow my directions requires something more. BTW, making it move on a string also makes it overcome gravity via motion. The string makes it follow an arc where it has to rise.
My body, and yours, are a hell of a lot more reactive to that phenomenon than a piece of concrete. If I can do that to a piece of concrete why in the hell would I believe something unseen isn't doing that to me or you? Why should you believe such? You can do the same things.
We need to keep ourselves in perspective.
It's my first ray gun.:)

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Safe And Secure - Herpes Dating Tips Online 5 min johnmichael00091 1
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 10 min Cat 79,787
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 hr candlesmell 701,499
Gay snap eh 3 hr Lopez_nator21 13
News Sarah Palin going on 'Oprah' (Oct '09) 5 hr Joe Fortuna 719
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 5 hr Devil number 666 448,392
Are women from USA scared of marriage? 7 hr thadv14 1
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 13 hr Dang Jersey Piney 995,752