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

# Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258473 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

#160945 Mar 18, 2013
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
If the statement/question is rephrased, so that the material is of uniform density, temperature, and pressure (the three are related; a change in one requires a change in the others)... and consistent throughout... THEN would light's speed be constant through the material?
I should also point out that there are materials where the index of refraction depends on *direction* through the material. Or where the index of refraction is different for different polarities of light. Calcite is an example of the latter. That is why it can be used to separate polarities.

In other words, in addition to uniformity (properties are the same at all locations), you also need isotropy (conditions are the same in all directions). Water at constant density satisfies these properties, though.

Finally, E&M fields can affect the index of refraction, so you would also need a uniform E&M field in the material (before the light comes through). Although that could also be put into the uniformity and isotropy conditions.
Thanks for putting up with me.
It's appreciated.
No problem. It's nice to have someone who actually wants to learn.

Did those animations at the wiki site help at all? I particularly liked the one where the phase and group velocities were in opposite directions.

Another way to look at the difference is that phase velocity is how fast the peaks move in a 'carrier' of constant frequency and amplitude. Group (more specifically, signal) velocity is how fast *changes* in frequency or amplitude can move. Since we need to change the carrier wave to form a signal, it is the latter that is relevant for communication (and also the one limited by c).

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#160946 Mar 18, 2013
polarizations, not polarities. Aaack. It's way too early in the morning.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160947 Mar 18, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That's awesome, but I have no idea what it means.
I gave up on math when they started putting letters in it :)
It is the formula for the increase in mass as it relates to velocity.

At very small percentages of c, the increase in mass is negligible and can be discounted.

At larger percentages of c, the increase is significant and AT c, the mass becomes infinite, which is impossible. That is why nothing with mass can travel faster than, or even equal to, c.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160948 Mar 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but the speed of light *in a vacuum* does not. By convention, unless otherwise stated, the speed of light *means* the speed of light in a vacuum.
It is the speed of light in a vacuum that is c. So c is a constant. It is even an exact constant: 299,792,458 meters per second. This is contrary to your previous claims (post 160521).
Furthermore, the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers. So, if you were moving at half the speed of light past me and I turned on a flashlight, you would see the beam from that flashlight catch up to you with a speed of c (assuming all is in a vacuum).
Can we try that by putting RR in a vacuum?

And I don't mean a Hoover.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160949 Mar 18, 2013
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm an atheist and an agnostic.
You're a theist and an agnostic.
I think RR is a gnostic theist, which is a logical absurdity.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#160950 Mar 18, 2013
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll say it again, differently than how I said it before...
RR is more concerned winning an argument than he is with understanding the argument.
How do ya manage that?
I've been teaching at universities for over 30 years (and 27 as a professor). Patience comes with the job.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#160951 Mar 18, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
When light is travelling in a single medium, its speed does not vary. It is only "c" in a vacuum, but its speed will be constant for each medium it travels in.
There are some *strong* qualifications here. For light traveling through a medium, the speed will depend on the frequency of the light, the density of the medium, and for some materials the direction or the polarization of the light.

The dependence of the speed on frequency is part of why rainbows form.
Imhotep

United States

#160952 Mar 18, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, ole chap, but Christianity is currently rising faster than the world's population.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_popu...
That dog won't hunt... Son <snicker>

Irreligion (adjective form: nonreligious or irreligious) is the absence of religion, an indifference towards religion, a rejection of religion, or hostility towards religion.

When characterized as the rejection of religious belief, it includes atheism and secular humanism. When characterized as hostility towards religion, it includes antitheism, anticlericalism and antireligion. When characterized as indifference to religion, it includes apatheism. When characterized as the absence of religious belief, it may also include agnosticism, ignosticism, nontheism, religious skepticism and freethought. Irreligion may even include forms of theism depending on the religious context it is defined against, as in 18th century Europe where the epitome of irreligion was deism.

It has been estimated that 16% of the world population (1.1 billion people) are "non-religious", including agnostics, atheists, secular humanists, and people who answer "none" or "no religious preference" when asked an open-ended question about their religious preference.

The Pew report also noted that many of the religiously unaffiliated have some religious beliefs and the majority of religiously unaffiliated come from Asia and the Pacific.

A 2012 survey found that 36% of the world population is not religious (including atheists) and that between 2005 and 2012 world religiosity decreased by 9%.

According to one source, it has been estimated that 40Â–50% of non-religious people hold belief in at least one deity, or in some higher power.

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

Try harder ;)

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160953 Mar 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
There are some *strong* qualifications here. For light traveling through a medium, the speed will depend on the frequency of the light, the density of the medium, and for some materials the direction or the polarization of the light.
The dependence of the speed on frequency is part of why rainbows form.
Understood.

How about changing it to read "in a uniform medium" and "for specific frequencies"?

I.E., light speed does not just vary randomly, which is what RR's statement could be read as, though I understand that that's not what he means.

He doesn't afford the same understanding to any of us.

Since: Sep 08

#160954 Mar 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I should also point out that there are materials where the index of refraction depends on *direction* through the material. Or where the index of refraction is different for different polarities of light. Calcite is an example of the latter. That is why it can be used to separate polarities.
In other words, in addition to uniformity (properties are the same at all locations), you also need isotropy (conditions are the same in all directions). Water at constant density satisfies these properties, though.
Finally, E&M fields can affect the index of refraction, so you would also need a uniform E&M field in the material (before the light comes through). Although that could also be put into the uniformity and isotropy conditions.
<quoted text>
No problem. It's nice to have someone who actually wants to learn.
Did those animations at the wiki site help at all? I particularly liked the one where the phase and group velocities were in opposite directions.
Another way to look at the difference is that phase velocity is how fast the peaks move in a 'carrier' of constant frequency and amplitude. Group (more specifically, signal) velocity is how fast *changes* in frequency or amplitude can move. Since we need to change the carrier wave to form a signal, it is the latter that is relevant for communication (and also the one limited by c).
"Finally, E&M fields can affect the index of refraction, so you would also need a uniform E&M field in the material (before the light comes through). Although that could also be put into the uniformity and isotropy conditions."

Why thank you.

Yon distant galaxy's light we see, 13.2 billion light years away, started out as a whole bunch of different light sources bouncing around within the galaxy. Much like ours does? So you have a lot of light sources modifying that pinpoint we see. That pinpoint started out galaxy sized, but we get a very tiny perspective of it. It becomes a very narrow beam towards us comprised of a lot of action. This beam has been getting modified for 13.2 billion years by your calculations by beams from other galaxies, plasma clouds, and various other cosmic bric a brac. EM fields like you referred to, but spread out. There is no empty pure vacuum between here and there. A thin sea of particles and fields, coupled with the mixing at the source. Each field that warps the path, or particles that absorb and emit slows down that light. That beam is the same as a flashlight beam at a distance. So, your spectrography and distance estimates can be considerably off.

I posted this yesterday. One would think, judging by the definition of these photos that simple old triangulation should be able to be employed and compared to the assumptions based on light speed and spectrography. Are you aware of such being done?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/49168911/ns/technol...

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#160955 Mar 18, 2013
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a theist.
You're an agnostic.
That's my point.
An agnostic is a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

I am not agnostic, I don't have that belief.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#160956 Mar 18, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
An agnostic is a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
I am not agnostic, I don't have that belief.
Right.

You are a gnostic theist.

You KNOW god exists.

Which is a logical absurdity.

Since: Sep 10

#160957 Mar 18, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
An agnostic is a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
I am not agnostic, I don't have that belief.
OK then, get to work.

I believe I'm off to the gym.

Since: Sep 08

#160958 Mar 18, 2013
http://ww2.valdosta.edu/~cbarnbau/astro_demos...

A video showing relative light distances from the sun.

Doesn't show Mercury, but I think that is about 2.5 minutes.

Einstein knew there was a correlation between EM and gravity, but he couldn't come up with the math. It could be because he didn't get into the details enough.

You don't emit light unless you have mass. For that mass to emit, it has to have its relative equilibrium disturbed. Mass also has another property. Gravity. Gravity is a return path of energy flow in the form of motion, however, it is spread in all directions. But that attraction, the cause of the motion, is polarized toward the strongest other receivers of that energy flow. It's a 3D web of push and pull. Of course, that is a greatly simplified description.

We have over defined physics and energy, which has clouded just how things actually work.

Back to that video. On earth, the physical location of the sun is something like 2 degrees further west than you see it. Even Mercury has that same sort of time lag. There is even that same time lag when you catch a line drive. Yet there is programming in you to do such a thing. No fancy physics formulas, you just do it. That is very, very fancy evolution, and it appears to have developed very early on, the first time something reached out and seized a moving object.

Intuition tells you everything is connected, but "education" can send that intuition into loops. Confusing the issue. That is why there is this religion of "Oh, it just happened". That is putting blinders on to force objectivity, but that objectivity can get lost.

Explain this natural "math" ability to catch flying objects, those complex calculations built into molecules.

There needs to be a new approach.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#160959 Mar 18, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
"Finally, E&M fields can affect the index of refraction, so you would also need a uniform E&M field in the material (before the light comes through). Although that could also be put into the uniformity and isotropy conditions."
Why thank you.
Yon distant galaxy's light we see, 13.2 billion light years away, started out as a whole bunch of different light sources bouncing around within the galaxy. Much like ours does? So you have a lot of light sources modifying that pinpoint we see. That pinpoint started out galaxy sized, but we get a very tiny perspective of it. It becomes a very narrow beam towards us comprised of a lot of action. This beam has been getting modified for 13.2 billion years by your calculations by beams from other galaxies, plasma clouds, and various other cosmic bric a brac. EM fields like you referred to, but spread out. There is no empty pure vacuum between here and there. A thin sea of particles and fields, coupled with the mixing at the source. Each field that warps the path, or particles that absorb and emit slows down that light. That beam is the same as a flashlight beam at a distance. So, your spectrography and distance estimates can be considerably off.
The E&M fields mostly lead to rotation of the polarization of the light and it takes very large fields to affect the refractive index in any significant way. So the distances are reliable to within their error bars even with these effects.

Once again, even in the most substantial nebulae, the density is lower than the best vacuums we can obtain on earth. So the speed of light is affected, but not by any substantial amount. Certainly much less than .01%.
I posted this yesterday. One would think, judging by the definition of these photos that simple old triangulation should be able to be employed and compared to the assumptions based on light speed and spectrography. Are you aware of such being done?
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/49168911/ns/technol...
Triangulation, also known as parallax, is only available for stars within a few hundred light years of us. Past that, the angles involved are just too small. Even within these limits, the error bars are quite substantial. Look up the Hipparchos mission some time.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#160960 Mar 18, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Care to discuss it over a stack of foreclosed church deeds?
<quoted text>
Sure. You bring the deeds, I'll buy breakfast.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#160961 Mar 18, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
For you to understand it.
Right.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#160962 Mar 18, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
http://hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy/black...
That doesn't provide any evidence....

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#160963 Mar 18, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not wrong.
Incomplete, maybe, but not wrong.
Your statements, that the speed of light varies, are equally incomplete, so by your own admission they are also wrong.
Your statements that the speed of light varies, should read something like, depending on the medium, or when going from one medium to another.
When light is travelling in a single medium, its speed does not vary. It is only "c" in a vacuum, but its speed will be constant for each medium it travels in.
You can admit you were wrong now.
I said the speed of light varies.

You agreed.

And you want me to admit what?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#160964 Mar 18, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Not in the U.S.
It is shrinking here while in underdeveloped and third world countries it is growing.
That is most likely due to lack of education and desperate poverty.
Then the Canadians, Norwegians & Chinese are clearly uneducated.....

#### 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.