• Sections
Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

# Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258484 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.

Since: Sep 08

#148302 Jan 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, Saturn ranges in distance from the sun from a bit over 9 AU to a bit over 10 AU. That means the energy intensity there varies from about 1/80 to about 1/100 that on the Earth. Now, direct sunlight has an intensity rating of about 32,000 lux, while daylight (not direct sun) has an intensity of 10-25,000 lux.
If we consider the intensity at Saturn when it is furthest from the sun, we take 1/100 of the intensities here to find about 320 lux for 'direct' sunlight on Saturn and around 100-250 lux for 'daytime' on Saturn.
Now, typical office lighting is about 320-500 lux and 'dark, overcast day' is about 100 lux. Family living room lights are about 50 lux.
The conclusion: the light on Saturn in direct sunlight is about what is found in a typical office (on the dark side of these) and is more than a dark, overcast day on Earth. It is much more than the intensity produced from a typical living room light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lux
In our physical comfort zone.

It should be a little brighter adding the luminescence and tiny bit of incandescent light produced by Saturn. If you were a planet orbiting it.

Kind of like a greenhouse.

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#148303 Jan 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, Saturn ranges in distance from the sun from a bit over 9 AU to a bit over 10 AU. That means the energy intensity there varies from about 1/80 to about 1/100 that on the Earth. Now, direct sunlight has an intensity rating of about 32,000 lux, while daylight (not direct sun) has an intensity of 10-25,000 lux.
If we consider the intensity at Saturn when it is furthest from the sun, we take 1/100 of the intensities here to find about 320 lux for 'direct' sunlight on Saturn and around 100-250 lux for 'daytime' on Saturn.
Now, typical office lighting is about 320-500 lux and 'dark, overcast day' is about 100 lux. Family living room lights are about 50 lux.
The conclusion: the light on Saturn in direct sunlight is about what is found in a typical office (on the dark side of these) and is more than a dark, overcast day on Earth. It is much more than the intensity produced from a typical living room light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lux
120,000 lux for direct sunlight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight
_BobLoblah_

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#148305 Jan 15, 2013
Thinking wrote:
christians also opposed abolishing slavery, racial segregation and the emancipation of women.
<quoted text>
16Jan13.....

.....Christians also went in numbers and fought the muslimes in Jerusalem who were lopping off heads of those who were adverse to forced conversion.

Ps:....It was 'mostly' Christians....
who took on 'ol Hitler and ILK hAtheists in WWII along with the Red commies and da Japs....with hundreds of 'em from da UK.

Forever and Ever
BobLoblah
_BobLoblah_

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#148306 Jan 15, 2013
<quoted text>
You know, talking about yourself in the third person is a generally a sign of excessive self love, megalomania and self-importance.
I consider you to be a crazy person. However by rejecting the old testament and its insane laws there may be a glimmer of hope for you. And btw I am not an Atheist but an exC and Agnostic.
And your talk of love of Jesus is rubbish, because what this really means in love your fellow Jews. Because the christian cult was originally just a sect with Judaism, which your priests all know but will never admit!
Jesus according to them is the same God that gave Moses those insane laws. And in the NT Jesus he does not do away with the OT. Its all very confusing because he also prays to and worships Yahweh the god of the OT. Its nonsense of course, anyone with a brain can see that ;)
16Jan13.....

Its most obvious dat you have some ency and jealousy towards BobLoblah. Most of the eeejits hereIN do as they are ALL tarred vit da same brush.

......BobLoblah dinks dat you are fulla schidt to da eyeballs.

Things about the Old Testament and New Testament are only confusing to schidt-for-brains like you. However, its better that you be an agnostic than one of those hateful, hypocritical, hAtheists that permeate this topic hereIN.

Ps:.....Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Full stop.

Forever and Ever
BobLoblah
blacklagoon
#148307 Jan 15, 2013
DeckardFootKiss wrote:
<quoted text>
Still using that same ol' atheist tactic of being condescending to others? You see, there is a rational case for God and Christianity and indeed, there is a rational case for atheism. To me, evidence really does make more sense that there is a God.
I can never convince you to listen to Kent Hovid or Bob Dubko or to go on an internet search for biblical artifacts. Because if you are not willing to even listen, then why waste your time in an atheist forum when you really don't care? There is not going to be 100% proof of God to you unless you see Christ come down from the sky. And even then, you will say it was a hologram. I have strong faith because I do research and am always amazed at the new discoveries I find. I watch that Atheist Experience on YouTube sometimes and get irritated when so much of the atheist culture is about being condescending to others in hopes of winning them over to your way of thinking. I am not afraid of the thought of macro evolution, if I truly thought it were fact, I would believe it. Here's 100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid:
I thought for a moment this was really a joke, but I can see you are serious. Do you know anything about Kent Hovind? Anything at all besides his insane rants against the facts of evolution? I'm wondering why anyone would consider his position? He is completely uneducated and certainly has no science background. Of course you do realize he is serving a 10 years in a federal prison for a number of tax offensives and money scams. He attended Mid-Western Baptist college and received his degree in RELIGIOUS EDUCATION. The college is a NON_ACCREDITED COLLEGE. The degree is worthless. He went on to receive his maters and doctorate from Patriot University. This is yet another NON-ACCEDITED College. He did this through a correspondence course. The program is no longer valid. Patriot University is a degree mill. You can get a degree in religious education for \$25.00 in about a month. Want a real laugh, google Patriot University and look at the picture. It looks like a house trailer that has been converted into a garage, LOL.

This moonbat calles himself a "DOCTOR" He has no science background, is obviously a charlatan, a snake oil salesmen , yet people like you actually think he has valid points about evolution. Why isn't gullibility one of the 10 commandments? When you grow up try reading some big boy books on what 99% of all scientists consider to be factual, EVOLUTION.

All you have to do is realize that there have been 135,000 articles published in reputable scientific journals and periodical in support of the facts concerning evolution, and not ONE....ZERO articles to refute evolution, why is that? Please don't site articles written by creationists or articles from creation science, that alone is the worlds biggest oxymoron. See if you can find some articles in reputable peer review publications that refute the fact of evolution. Good luck, there aren't any!!!!

Since: Sep 08

#148308 Jan 15, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
120,000 lux for direct sunlight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight
The light strength is about 1/81 of that falling on a square inch of Earth as he said. That is a lot of f stops for a given shutter speed. But if you are an orbiting planet you can add what hits you to what is also reflected, and a tiny bit emitted, by Saturn. Let's not forget geothermal infrared emitted by said planet and Saturn.

Which is more comfortable for a human being, standing in the shade, or an office, or out in the hot sun?

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#148309 Jan 15, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
The light strength is about 1/81 of that falling on a square inch of Earth as he said. That is a lot of f stops for a given shutter speed. But if you are an orbiting planet you can add what hits you to what is also reflected, and a tiny bit emitted, by Saturn. Let's not forget geothermal infrared emitted by said planet and Saturn.
Which is more comfortable for a human being, standing in the shade, or an office, or out in the hot sun?
Stellar magnitude Illuminance
Lux

Full daylight (not direct sun)-24 to -25 10000-25000
Overcast day -21 1000
Very dark overcast day -19 100
Twilight -16 10
Deep twilight -14 1
1 Candela at 1 meter distance -13.9 1.00
Total starlight + airglow -6 2E-3
Total starlight only -5 2E-4
Venus at brightest -4.3 1.4E-4
Total starlight at overcast night -4 1E-4
Sirius -1.4 1E-5
0th-mag star 0 2.7E-6
1st-mag star +1 1.0E-6
6th-mag star +6 1.0E-8

1/100th 130,000 lux

1300 lux

Overcast day 1000

30% Brighter than overcast day, but still you couldn't look directly at the sun I don't think. Pretty sure it would permanently blind you.

Since: Sep 08

#148310 Jan 15, 2013
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php...

Let's talk evolution.

Organic life requires water. It requires water to even form to begin the process of evolution. It requires a fairly stable temperature for it to sustain itself enough to even evolve. This is true down to the lowest level.

Watch the dew evaporate. It does it on cold days. It isn't radiant heat evaporating it, it is energy absorption causing the molecules to separate. Diamagnetism.

Look at the Big Bang theory. Got hot and "exploded".

Earth in its present location is just not conducive for life to spring out of nowhere. Too much variation. However, life that started someplace else could adapt.

EM. THE energetic force that creates everything you can see or touch. It started somewhere.

Since: Sep 08

#148311 Jan 15, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Stellar magnitude Illuminance
Lux
Full daylight (not direct sun)-24 to -25 10000-25000
Overcast day -21 1000
Very dark overcast day -19 100
Twilight -16 10
Deep twilight -14 1
1 Candela at 1 meter distance -13.9 1.00
Total starlight + airglow -6 2E-3
Total starlight only -5 2E-4
Venus at brightest -4.3 1.4E-4
Total starlight at overcast night -4 1E-4
Sirius -1.4 1E-5
0th-mag star 0 2.7E-6
1st-mag star +1 1.0E-6
6th-mag star +6 1.0E-8
1/100th 130,000 lux
1300 lux
Overcast day 1000
30% Brighter than overcast day, but still you couldn't look directly at the sun I don't think. Pretty sure it would permanently blind you.
How bright is your computer monitor in comparison?

Would you go blind staring at the center of the galaxy? Lots of light coming from that direction.

Since: Mar 11

#148312 Jan 15, 2013
The Big Bang was hot so duh duh life could not have come from that!

That's our duh duh Dave the garage magnet man.
Dave Nelson wrote:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.ph p?record_id=11919&page=69
Let's talk evolution.
Organic life requires water. It requires water to even form to begin the process of evolution. It requires a fairly stable temperature for it to sustain itself enough to even evolve. This is true down to the lowest level.
Watch the dew evaporate. It does it on cold days. It isn't radiant heat evaporating it, it is energy absorption causing the molecules to separate. Diamagnetism.
Look at the Big Bang theory. Got hot and "exploded".
Earth in its present location is just not conducive for life to spring out of nowhere. Too much variation. However, life that started someplace else could adapt.
EM. THE energetic force that creates everything you can see or touch. It started somewhere.

Since: Mar 11

#148313 Jan 15, 2013
Dave is the flesh and blood Grampa Simpson.
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
How bright is your computer monitor in comparison?
Would you go blind staring at the center of the galaxy? Lots of light coming from that direction.

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#148314 Jan 15, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
How bright is your computer monitor in comparison?
Would you go blind staring at the center of the galaxy? Lots of light coming from that direction.

There is a vast difference in distance from source Dave .
Also in space the luminescence may be dimmer, but there are no clouds diffusing the light. It comes from a single point still.
That point is the size of a ball point pen tip.
Don't look at the sun Galileo , even when your orbiting Saturn :)

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#148315 Jan 15, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.ph p?record_id=11919&page=69
Let's talk evolution.
Organic life requires water. It requires water to even form to begin the process of evolution. It requires a fairly stable temperature for it to sustain itself enough to even evolve. This is true down to the lowest level.
Watch the dew evaporate. It does it on cold days. It isn't radiant heat evaporating it, it is energy absorption causing the molecules to separate. Diamagnetism.
Look at the Big Bang theory. Got hot and "exploded".
Earth in its present location is just not conducive for life to spring out of nowhere. Too much variation. However, life that started someplace else could adapt.
EM. THE energetic force that creates everything you can see or touch. It started somewhere.

Momma! lol

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#148316 Jan 15, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.ph p?record_id=11919&page=69
Let's talk evolution.
Organic life requires water. It requires water to even form to begin the process of evolution. It requires a fairly stable temperature for it to sustain itself enough to even evolve. This is true down to the lowest level.
Watch the dew evaporate. It does it on cold days. It isn't radiant heat evaporating it, it is energy absorption causing the molecules to separate. Diamagnetism.
Water has a positive vapor pressure even at low temperatures. If the humidity of the air is low, a water drop will evaporate even in the cold. This is not due to radiant energy. It is simply due to the motion of the molecules at the surface of the water. Furthermore, this effect has nothing to do with diamagnetism.
Look at the Big Bang theory. Got hot and "exploded".
Um, no.
Earth in its present location is just not conducive for life to spring out of nowhere. Too much variation. However, life that started someplace else could adapt.
EM. THE energetic force that creates everything you can see or touch. It started somewhere.
Huh?

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#148317 Jan 15, 2013
_BobLoblah_ wrote:
<quoted text>...Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Full stop.
On what do you base that on? The Christian claims are based on four anonymous gospels, which contradict each other throughout, and are strewn with errors and absurdities. So no, not a Son of God, just an ordinary person like you or me.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
Jeff
#148318 Jan 15, 2013
<quoted text>
On what do you base that on? The Christian claims are based on four anonymous gospels, which contradict each other throughout, and are strewn with errors and absurdities. So no, not a Son of God, just an ordinary person like you or me.
Not true.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#148319 Jan 15, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
The light strength is about 1/81 of that falling on a square inch of Earth as he said. That is a lot of f stops for a given shutter speed.

Since: Sep 08

#148320 Jan 15, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Dave is the flesh and blood Grampa Simpson.
<quoted text>
My age is higher than your IQ.

Since: Sep 08

#148321 Jan 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Water has a positive vapor pressure even at low temperatures. If the humidity of the air is low, a water drop will evaporate even in the cold. This is not due to radiant energy. It is simply due to the motion of the molecules at the surface of the water. Furthermore, this effect has nothing to do with diamagnetism.
<quoted text>
Um, no.
<quoted text>
Huh?
Perhaps the motion of the molecules is caused by the absorption of light energy?

I've posted before about watching frost on windshields on frozen mornings evaporate before direct sunlight hits them. The sun was just coming up and still behind the mountains. A mile high and low humidity. Scattering from the atmosphere. Low level intensity. This sets up a current, resulting in that lowest temperature of the day after sunrise phenomenon, caused by the Peltier-Seebeck effect.

EM, son, it's all about the EM. Motion.

Could have sworn the BBT is based upon a superhot and superdense something or other suddenly expanding and then separating, then creating individual forms from condensing.

Boil water. Melt some gold. Melt some platinum. Let the vapor encounter an outside force and see if they condense differently. Or something like that.

Since: Sep 08

#148322 Jan 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be like an F22 here requiring an f2.8 there?

#### Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.