Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 247806 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

#150886 Jan 29, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Prove it.
<quoted text>
I was talking about the initial theories describing the Big Bang. In those, if you run things backward, you get to the place that the 'expansion factor' of the universe is zero.

This has since been modified by the introduction of quantum mechanical corrections in string theory and other proposed quantum theories of gravity.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150887 Jan 29, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
"'dumbing down' so the average person can get *some* idea of what was going on,"
:-)
The high priestliness shows its head.
Poly, there are people squatting in the dirt in various locales of the world that understand physics better than you.
No offense meant, a statistical fact.
That isn't what the physics professors here say. You, on the other hand, get so many things wrong as a matter of course, I am suspecting the Dunning-Kruger effect is operative.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150888 Jan 29, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
"'dumbing down' so the average person can get *some* idea of what was going on,"
:-)
The high priestliness shows its head.
Poly, there are people squatting in the dirt in various locales of the world that understand physics better than you.
No offense meant, a statistical fact.
While I assume you are up for a Nobel prize....right.

“Input”

Since: Dec 10

Input

#150889 Jan 29, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
That was a bit vague.
We all stumble around with our beliefs. Including you.
I've been cut from my body. Still floated around.
C'mon, Orrie, give us something REALLY profound about this existence.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#150890 Jan 29, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
I want to thank everyone for the Mark Twain quotes.
You are very welcome for the Mark Twain quotes.

Do you want some Robert Ingersoll quotes?

They're really great, just let me know and I'll post some.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#150891 Jan 29, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a stupid man. Or even a stupider woman if you are a lesbian.
Thank goodness we're back to having an intellectual discussion.

Props to you for that, Dave.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#150892 Jan 29, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =73wqN41Ns-wXX
Not exactly what I meant. But educational.

If you really want to learn how to shoot, shoot those flintlocks. That time delay is an edjication. Holding that sight picture, along with the required easy trigger pull, is THE definitive thing in shooting. One shot, one kill.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#150893 Jan 29, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank goodness we're back to having an intellectual discussion.
Props to you for that, Dave.
GML is going to make a great second hand co*ksucker. A talent he/she is unlikely to know they possess.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150894 Jan 29, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-ar...
How big is a single point in space?
That link kinda don't jive with what you say.
Here's a follow-up article from NASA on this point:

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_concepts...

"Please keep in mind the following important points to avoid misconceptions about the Big Bang and expansion:

The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from. In the ball analogy, the radius of the ball grows as the universe expands, but all points on the surface of the ball (the universe) recede from each other in an identical fashion. The interior of the ball should not be regarded as part of the universe in this analogy.

By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question.

It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet."

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#150895 Jan 29, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a follow-up article from NASA on this point:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_concepts...
"Please keep in mind the following important points to avoid misconceptions about the Big Bang and expansion:
The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from. In the ball analogy, the radius of the ball grows as the universe expands, but all points on the surface of the ball (the universe) recede from each other in an identical fashion. The interior of the ball should not be regarded as part of the universe in this analogy.
By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question.
It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet."
That is called bullshit and obfuscation.

Space and time as we know it. Which is as far as we think we see.

This space and time, which is as big as what we think we can see came into existence all at the same time, or maybe it originated from a zero volume to fill the present. But believe us when we say we are the experts and know the truth.

Showbiz. Bullshit. Snake oil.

Drop something in the collection plate, please.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#150896 Jan 29, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a follow-up article from NASA on this point:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_concepts...
"Please keep in mind the following important points to avoid misconceptions about the Big Bang and expansion:
The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from. In the ball analogy, the radius of the ball grows as the universe expands, but all points on the surface of the ball (the universe) recede from each other in an identical fashion. The interior of the ball should not be regarded as part of the universe in this analogy.
By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question.
It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet."
"By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question."

I really love that part.

The only discernible "edge", which I guess means boundary, is when we poof into existence, or out of it.

God, how scientific.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150898 Jan 29, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
"By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question."
I really love that part.
The only discernible "edge", which I guess means boundary, is when we poof into existence, or out of it.
God, how scientific.
Your lack of understanding does not make a criticism. Yes, space is without a boundary. So the only boundaries to spacetime are at the beginning, and possibly at the end.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#150899 Jan 29, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
That is called bullshit and obfuscation.
No, it is clarity with precise words. That you can't understand them isn't the problem with the science.
Space and time as we know it. Which is as far as we think we see.
The *observable* universe is, by definition, the limit of what we can see.
This space and time, which is as big as what we think we can see came into existence all at the same time, or maybe it originated from a zero volume to fill the present. But believe us when we say we are the experts and know the truth.
And the observable evidence supports this view.
Showbiz. Bullshit. Snake oil.
Drop something in the collection plate, please.
OK,*you* come up with a testable theory that matches the observations. That includes the specifics of the cosmic background radiation, the density of light elements, etc. The point is that the *science* has to agree with the observations and *no* alternative theory even comes close to being consistent with the data. Your dislike is simply an emotional reaction. too bad.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#150900 Jan 29, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it is clarity with precise words. That you can't understand them isn't the problem with the science.
<quoted text>
The *observable* universe is, by definition, the limit of what we can see.
<quoted text>
And the observable evidence supports this view.
<quoted text>
OK,*you* come up with a testable theory that matches the observations. That includes the specifics of the cosmic background radiation, the density of light elements, etc. The point is that the *science* has to agree with the observations and *no* alternative theory even comes close to being consistent with the data. Your dislike is simply an emotional reaction. too bad.
You don't understand the bill of goods you bought into.

The picture you are making your theoretical "models" from doesn't exist anymore. Your conclusions are nothing but a math puzzle based upon erroneous observations and interpretations.

There is a HUGE^4034 difference between the universe starting off as a zero volume or preexisting and morphing real sudden like, quicker than a poof.

Come back to earth. It's home for the time being.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#150901 Jan 29, 2013
Crazy old Dave always good for a laugh at his bumbling and stupidity. Why did you refer to me as a she? Have I ever stated I was a female?

If so do show the post Gramps.
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
GML is going to make a great second hand co*ksucker. A talent he/she is unlikely to know they possess.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#150902 Jan 29, 2013
EmpAtheist wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said. Did you get to watch the video i posted for you?
I must have missed it. I'll try and dig back through. I'll be out of touch for a few days.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#150903 Jan 29, 2013
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
Then what was Spinoza ?
'God' is the natural forces of the Universe. Thus 'God' is known and observable.
A Jewis/Dutch philosopher.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#150904 Jan 29, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Wikipedia:
agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.
In theory, agnosticism is compatible with all but the most dogmatic of religious faiths, but in practice most agnostics are perceived as godless. Agnostics believe that while there is insufficient evidence to prove that there is a god, believing that there is not a god also requires a leap of faith (similar to any religious conviction) that lacks sufficient evidence. Simply put, agnosticism merely asserts that we lack the knowledge to determine whether or not God exists - in a sense, it differs from more explicit atheism by being a position based on a lack of knowledge, rather than a lack of belief. True agnostics would actually not fit on a hypothetical scale between theism and atheism as they would say the argument is unanswerable and could result in anything, almost like Schrödinger's cat but where the box can never be opened.

Most agnostics, however, can additionally be categorised depending on how their beliefs work out in practice, whether they're more atheistic or theistic. Agnostics may live and act as if there is no God and that no religion is correct, but shy away from the title "atheist" because of the expression of certainty implied. On the other hand, someone may consider themselves spiritual but not religious, or perhaps even nominally follow a religion, but identify as an agnostic in order to convey an honest doubt about the reality of it all.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Agnosticism

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#150905 Jan 29, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Wikipedia:
agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.
Agnostic atheism holds that insufficient evidence exists to disprove a god. Agnostic atheists lean towards atheism as a sound null hypothesis, particularly in practice, but acknowledge that they could be wrong. The difference between atheism and agnostic atheism is subtle and may not be always be discernible, though agnostic atheists are generally more tolerant of the religious than more convinced atheists.

The distinction between agnostic atheism and atheism is further blurred if athiests are pressed for specifics about their beliefs. Okay, fine... lack of beliefs. It's clear that most, if not all, atheists are in fact agnostic atheists — as rational-thinking people would certainly stop being atheists if they encounter evidence of God's existence that was sufficient for them. There is a prevalence of fundamentalist theists, but it is far rarer, if not impossible, to find fundamentalist atheists who would stick to their beliefs in the face of sufficient evidence.[1] Thus, if accepting the belief "there probably is no God; I'll act as if there's no God, but will change my mind if necessary" it's really just a matter of personal preference whether to identify as an "agnostic atheist" or just plain simple "atheist."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Agnosticism

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#150906 Jan 29, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Wikipedia:
agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.
There is also agnostic theism, which maintains a belief in god, but acknowledges uncertainty regarding the characteristics of that god. Some theist agnostics are also Deist, believing that God created the universe but is irrelevant to the workings of it (essentially, they assert that we may or may not know whether God exists but it matters not anyway because of God's role to play, or lack thereof, in universal affairs). Believing agnostics often identify themselves as fideists, a term coined by Martin Gardner (a theist himself) for people who choose to believe in God because it comforts them and not for intellectual reasons.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Agnosticism

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
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 min Rider on the Storm 881,961
The Christian Atheist debate 11 min Critical Eye 4,208
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 11 min phooey 603,858
Habesha 14 min Insta names 1
News The Latest: Husband: Kentucky clerk is 'standin... 25 min GOD loves GAYS mo... 68
Has anyone ever heard of the Coudenhoven-Kalerg... 35 min One Planet One Pe... 11
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 47 min The swamiji 7,718
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 2 hr dollarsbill 8,459
More from around the web