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

# Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255511 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

#160765 Mar 17, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Excellent!
This demonstrates that even at non relativistic speeds, there is a tiny increase in mass.
As the speed approaches the speed of light, the increase in mass skyrockets.
Not just the perception of mass, but the ACTUAL mass.
One of the things most people don't realize is just how much energy it takes to get something moving at relativistic speeds. For example, to get a *gram* of mass to move at 87% of the speed of light requires as much energy as the atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. If you wanted to get a kilogram to move that speed, it would take the energy of 1000 such atomic bombs.

If, on the other hand, you want to get that gram to move at 99.99% of the speed of light, it would take about 70 such bombs. Multiply that by 1000 for each kilogram.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#160766 Mar 17, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
Fun with numbers and something to entertain our math wizards! ;)
It takes 1629 digits to number the pages of a book. How many pages does the book have?
Well, let's see. The first 9 pages each require 1 digit, so that leaves 1620 digits left. The next 90 pages (pages 10 to 99) each require 2 digits, so that makes 180 digits, leaving 1440 digits to go. Starting at page 100, each page requires 3 digits, and 1440/3=480. So we add 480 to 99 to get the total number of pages is 579.
Would you rather work for 30 days and get paid 5 millions dollars, or be paid 1 cent the first day, 2 cents the second day, 4 cents the third day, and so on?
The second method gives a total of \$10,737,418.23. Just make sure you are paid those last two days!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#160767 Mar 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
One of the things most people don't realize is just how much energy it takes to get something moving at relativistic speeds. For example, to get a *gram* of mass to move at 87% of the speed of light requires as much energy as the atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. If you wanted to get a kilogram to move that speed, it would take the energy of 1000 such atomic bombs.
If, on the other hand, you want to get that gram to move at 99.99% of the speed of light, it would take about 70 such bombs. Multiply that by 1000 for each kilogram.
How much energy does it take to lift an infinite-length donut and eat it?

Bwahahahahahahahahah....

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Sep 08

#160769 Mar 17, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm just so butt hurt that I don't impress you.
Sure that isn't from your date last night?

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#160770 Mar 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Many things wrong here. Four distinct concepts are involved and they are getting completely messed up.
1) mass
2) momentum
3) force
4) Energy
In *Newtonian* physics, mass does not depend on speed. The mass of the two bullets you described would be the same. Even in relativity, the mass would be almost identical.
Momentum, in Newtonian physics, is the product of the mass with the velocity. So, for the same object (same mass), if you double the speed, you also double the momentum.
Energy, in this case kinetic energy, is given by (1/2)mv^2. So, if you double the velocity, you quadruple the kinetic energy. When you talk about foot pounds, this is a measure of the *energy* of the bullet.
Force, in Newtonian physics, is the product of mass with the acceleration, i.e, F=ma. The bullets you described have two main forces on them: gravity and the resistance given by the body. In this case, you can approximate the *force* on the body by dividing the *momentum* by the amount of time it takes for the bullet to stop. Alternatively, you can divide twice the energy by the stopping distance. Force is measured (in the English system) by *pounds*.
Weight is a force. In particular, it is the force of gravity on the object. it is the product of the mass of the object and the acceleration due to gravity. That is why you weigh less on the moon even though you have the same mass.

No duh...
I suppose you took the comparison literally too when it was figuratively in describing effect. In fact impact energy and
speed is proportional in F=ma and a fast object can carry the same force of a slower heavier object. This is the point I was trying to make. Which is a comparison of velocity and mass.
The whole g force thing at 10 Gs 10 lbs weighs 100 lbs.
It actually hasn't gained weight though.
So you see there is a comparison that can be made in this context.
The bullet under acceleration is comparable to a heavier or more massive object.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160771 Mar 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
One of the things most people don't realize is just how much energy it takes to get something moving at relativistic speeds. For example, to get a *gram* of mass to move at 87% of the speed of light requires as much energy as the atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. If you wanted to get a kilogram to move that speed, it would take the energy of 1000 such atomic bombs.
If, on the other hand, you want to get that gram to move at 99.99% of the speed of light, it would take about 70 such bombs. Multiply that by 1000 for each kilogram.
Which is one of the reasons the LHC takes so much energy to get things as tiny as protons moving at 99.99999999%( I don't know how many "9"s, but I know it's a lot) of the speed of light.

Plus there's all those supercooled magnets and vacuum pumps.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#160772 Mar 17, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is one of the reasons the LHC takes so much energy to get things as tiny as protons moving at 99.99999999%( I don't know how many "9"s, but I know it's a lot) of the speed of light.
Plus there's all those supercooled magnets and vacuum pumps.
It's easier and more informative to use the 'gamma' factor for velocities like these. As an example, the energy of a proton in the LHC is about 7 TeV=7000 GeV, while the mass of the proton (written in energy units) is .938 GeV. The gamma factor is the ratio of these two: gamma=7000/.938=7460. For velocities like these (very close to the speed of light), the velocity is one part in 2*(gamma)^2 away from the speed of light. In this case, 2*(7460)^2~110,000,000.

In other words, the velocity is 99.999999% of C.

Since: Sep 08

#160773 Mar 17, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is one of the reasons the LHC takes so much energy to get things as tiny as protons moving at 99.99999999%( I don't know how many "9"s, but I know it's a lot) of the speed of light.
Plus there's all those supercooled magnets and vacuum pumps.
Did you notice it is magnetic fields guiding those beams of protons?

You need the strong fields because you are working in a small area. You have to apply some heavy pressure to make those turns. A much, much weaker field spread out over a much larger area will do the same.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#160774 Mar 17, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
How much energy does it take to lift an infinite-length donut and eat it?
Bwahahahahahahahahah....
10 Bucks ought to do it. ha ha ha

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160775 Mar 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>It's easier and more informative to use the 'gamma' factor for velocities like these. As an example, the energy of a proton in the LHC is about 7 TeV=7000 GeV, while the mass of the proton (written in energy units) is .938 GeV. The gamma factor is the ratio of these two: gamma=7000/.938=7460. For velocities like these (very close to the speed of light), the velocity is one part in 2*(gamma)^2 away from the speed of light. In this case, 2*(7460)^2~110,000,000.

In other words, the velocity is 99.999999% of C.
Lol.

I think I'll stick with 99.9999999%.

:)

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160776 Mar 17, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>Sure that isn't from your date last night?
Yup.

Went out with my ex wife and kids to see The Most Fabulous Story Ever Told.

It's a gay oriented version of the bible.

I'm going back today to video the protesters.

The seats were hard, but not that bad.
Imhotep

United States

#160777 Mar 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, let's see. The first 9 pages each require 1 digit, so that leaves 1620 digits left. The next 90 pages (pages 10 to 99) each require 2 digits, so that makes 180 digits, leaving 1440 digits to go. Starting at page 100, each page requires 3 digits, and 1440/3=480. So we add 480 to 99 to get the total number of pages is 579.
<quoted text>
The second method gives a total of \$10,737,418.23. Just make sure you are paid those last two days!
Well done

In a family with 4 siblings, John is older than Mary, Peter is younger than John, Mary is older than Peter, and Sarah is older than John. Who is the second oldest in the family? Who is the youngest?

Easier...
Use four 5s and some of the symbols +,Ã—, &#8722;, and Ã· to give expressions for 0, 1, 2, and 5

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160778 Mar 17, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>No duh...
I suppose you took the comparison literally too when it was figuratively in describing effect. In fact impact energy and
speed is proportional in F=ma and a fast object can carry the same force of a slower heavier object. This is the point I was trying to make. Which is a comparison of velocity and mass.
The whole g force thing at 10 Gs 10 lbs weighs 100 lbs.
It actually hasn't gained weight though.
So you see there is a comparison that can be made in this context.
The bullet under acceleration is comparable to a heavier or more massive object.
No argument.

But mass also increases with speed.
Imhotep

United States

#160779 Mar 17, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
No errors
Look at the source "CIA" , PEW, Encyclopedia Britannica !!
Where did you get your number? Off a bubble gum card?
Langoliers wrote:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religi...
Main category: Religious demographics
Sources outside of Wikipedia give differing estimates:
The CIA's World Factbook gives the world population as 7,021,836,029 (July 2012 est.) and the distribution of religions as Christian 33.39%(of which Roman Catholic 16.85%, Protestant 6.15%, Orthodox 3.96%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 22.74%, Hindu 13.8%, Buddhist 6.77%, Sikh 0.35%, Jewish 0.22%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions 10.95%, atheists 2.01%
persecution. A 2006 study by researchers at the University of Minnesotainvolving a poll of 2,000 households in theUnited States found atheists to be the most distrusted of minorities,
In 2012, an article entitled Atheism in decline by Nigel Tomes declared:
In 1970 atheists (those avowing there is no God) numbered 166 million worldwide; that was almost one-in-twentyÃƒÂ¢Ã‚Â€Ã‚Â”4.5% of the globeÃƒÂ¢Ã‚Â€Ã‚Â™s population. By 2012 atheistsÃƒÂ¢Ã‚Â€Ã‚Â™ number is estimated at 137 million. ThatÃƒÂ¢Ã‚Â€Ã‚Â™s a decline of almost 30 million. Since world population is growing, atheistsÃƒÂ¢Ã‚Â€Ã‚Â™ share declined to less than one-in-fiftyÃƒÂ¢Ã‚Â€Ã‚Â”under 2% in 2012. Put differently, every 24 hours there are 800 fewer atheists in the world! Atheism is in decline.
A survey published in the 2005 Encyclopedia Britannica stated that 2.3% of the world's population consists of individuals who profess "atheism, skepticism, disbelief, or irreligion, including the militantly antireligious." In regards to the 2.3% figure just mentioned, the 2005 survey cited by Encyclopedia Britannica survey did not include Buddhist in regards to the 2.3% figure and Buddhism can be theistic or atheistic."
Wikipedia:
"Another survey attributed to Britannica shows the population of atheists at around 2.4% of the world's population.[citation needed] It is difficult to determine whether atheism is growing or not"
Wikipedia :
"2005 poll by AP/Ipsos surveyed ten countries. Of the developed nations, people in the United States were most sure of the existence of God or a higher power (2% atheist, 4% agnostic)"
Wikipedia :
"According to one estimate, atheists make up about 2.3% of the world's population"
"In 2007, a Pew Forum survey found that the atheist population in the United States was 1.6% of the American population."
"Global atheism is shrinking and demographic changes in the United States and the world are expected to shrink the influence of American secularism.
In 2012, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary reported that globally every day there are 800 less atheists per day, 1,100 less non-religious (agnostic) people per day and 83,000 more people professing to be Christians per day.
In 2011, the American Spectator declared concerning research published in the International Bulletin of
Missionary Research:
The report estimates about 80,000 new Christians every day, 79,000 new Muslims every day, and 300 fewer atheists every day. These atheists are presumably disproportionately represented in the West, while religion is thriving in the Global South, where charismatic Christianity is exploding."
Note: 2012 atheist 2.04%
2005 atheist 2.3%
Atheist is clearly on the decline.
Try harder - think non-religious ;)

A 2005 survey published in the EncyclopÃ¦dia Britannica found that the non-religious made up about 11.9 percent of the worldÂ’s population, and atheists about 2.3 percent. ItÂ’s reasonable to suppose that there is a gray area between these two groups with some non-religious people claiming to be atheists and vice versa.

http://www.forerunner.com/blog/what-percentag...

The number of atheists is on the rise across the world, while religiosity is declining.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_o...

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#160780 Mar 17, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
No argument.
But mass also increases with speed.
Measured from different inertial frames because of "mass/energy equivalence"
But mass doesn't really increase the energy does.
Because it you match frames it's mass is exactly the same.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#160782 Mar 17, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Measured from different inertial frames because of "mass/energy equivalence"
But mass doesn't really increase the energy does.
Because it you match frames it's mass is exactly the same.
Terminology in this area has changed over time. When special relativity first came out, it was common to speak of an increase of mass, with m=m_0 /sqrt(1-(v/c)^2). In this, the m_0 was called the rest mass.

Now, it is more common to simply call the rest mass the mass and have the increase in the amount of force required for an acceleration pushed over to the definition of momentum. So, the mass of an electron is always 511KeV, but the momentum is more than mv by the factor that mass increased in the other description. the point is that the two models are completely equivalent.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#160783 Mar 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Yes.
2. So? Any college professor should be smart enough to not misspell anything, ever.
3. I made no mistake. The velocity if light is not a constant.
2. Then there would be no need for editors ... at all.

3. Yes, it is. The speed at which light travels is constant, that is why when there are variations we know that gravity has to be involved.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#160784 Mar 17, 2013
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>
Kinda like you arguing with me about light's speed through a medium.
You DID lose.
I did??

huh

I didn't get the memo.
LargeLanguage

Chester, UK

#160785 Mar 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You got a boy in your room again?
LL!
Lol. I'm not a paedophile.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#160786 Mar 17, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Conclusion:
Finally, we come to the conclusion that the speed of light is not only observed to be constant; in the light of well tested theories of physics, it does not even make any sense to say that it varies.
Please also note that speed and velocity are 2 different things.
I'm not going to explain why.
Your assignment, should you decide to accept it, is to learn the difference.
This post will self destruct in 5 seconds.

You cherry picked the paragraph you wanted.

Apparently you didn't pay much attention.

"Does the speed of light change in air or water?

Yes. Light is slowed down in transparent media such as air, water and glass. The ratio by which it is slowed is called the refractive index of the medium and is always greater than one.* This was discovered by Jean Foucault in 1850.

When people talk about "the speed of light" in a general context, they usually mean the speed of light in a vacuum. This quantity is also referred to as c."

#### 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.