Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

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. Full Story

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#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

Westcliffe, CO

#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...
You can admit your error now.
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.....

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#160965 Mar 18, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
My statement said nothing of the sort.

All I said was the speed of light isn't a constant.

And all y'all went in an uproar, adding in your own words & changing what I said.

That's your fault, not mine.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#160966 Mar 18, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Right.
You are a gnostic theist.
You KNOW god exists.
Which is a logical absurdity.
Why?

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#160967 Mar 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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%.
<quoted text>
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.
You supposedly have 13.2 billion by 6 trillion miles between here and there. A long walk. It is not totally empty space, materially or energywise. There is at least a bare minimum refractive effect to it along the whole way. Even more when it enters the galaxy and the solar system.

Oh, and since gravity can bend light waves, it can also impede their emission outwards.

A very light breeze will blow you off course over a long distance as will a heavy one in a short distance.

You base your constants on too little real info.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#160968 Mar 18, 2013
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
The IRA did have a very small 'protestant' membership just as the RUC had catholic policemen.
It essentially was a war between pro british and pro united ireland factions.
Gaddafi stopped funding the IRA after Enniskillen, in fact he received a delegation from those who wanted an independent ulster but in the end washed his hands of the situation.
Whos lying now you chip bag mouth?
I am not asking what you rest on your chin when you are sucking dick

I see you have not offered any citations for what you say. Your opinion is your opinion and just like buttholes, everyone has an opinion.

Nope, it was a series of minority terrorist attacks against a majority population

Let me show you what Roman Catholic Resources says about the IRA

Q. What is the Irish Republican Army, Catholic or Protestant?
A.… They are Catholics,…
A. The IRA, which is mostly dissolved, was a Catholic organization….
A. Extreme right "Catholic republicans, to be exact….

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Iris...

You want to lie then feel free to lie if it helps you masturbate but don’t go accusing me of lying just because you are a moron

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#160969 Mar 18, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
"I started retaliating"
My goodness, I step back in amazement.

He is able to read

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#160970 Mar 18, 2013
The Earth has to have matter emitting nuclear particles here and there and round about. A certain amount of plasma discharge has to occur, too.

If this is ejected into space, where will it go? Being heavier mass, would it not wind up heading for the sun? I would think electron would, too.

There has to be a return path for charged particles and loose nuclear bits back to the sun.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#160971 Mar 18, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not asking what you rest on your chin when you are sucking dick
I see you have not offered any citations for what you say. Your opinion is your opinion and just like buttholes, everyone has an opinion.
Nope, it was a series of minority terrorist attacks against a majority population
Let me show you what Roman Catholic Resources says about the IRA
Q. What is the Irish Republican Army, Catholic or Protestant?
A.… They are Catholics,…
A. The IRA, which is mostly dissolved, was a Catholic organization….
A. Extreme right "Catholic republicans, to be exact….
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Iris...
You want to lie then feel free to lie if it helps you masturbate but don’t go accusing me of lying just because you are a moron
"Active 1969–1997 (formal end to the armed campaign was declared in 2005)"

Let it go already. They just wanted you damn Brits outta their country. Leave em alone.
LargeLanguage

Chester, UK

#160972 Mar 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And science does not say that the speed of light is constant. It says that the speed of light *in a vacuum* is constant.
Now, space, even in fairly dense nebula like the Orion nebula is a very, very good vacuum, better than anything we can produce on earth. So the speed of light, even in a nebula like the Orion nebula, is more than 99.9999% of C.
So the whole discussion, which started as a question of how long it takes for light to travel billions of light years, is rather pointless. For accuracy available for the distances discussed, the speed of light through a nebula is the same as the speed of light in a vacuum.
Unless you think there are large bodies of liquid water in space between the distant galaxies and us, using the speed of light in a vacuum is perfectly valid.
Can you prove this?
LargeLanguage

Chester, UK

#160973 Mar 18, 2013
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'm not getting angry.
Are you tying to make me angry?
Is infinite energy available?
Denying you are getting angry to try to make yourself not look weak? Does meth effect the brain making it more self conscious?
LargeLanguage

Chester, UK

#160974 Mar 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
You were wrong when you said that the speed of light in water is a constant. In fact, it varies with frequency. You made the same mistake about the speed of light in paper.
Why does it vary with frequency moron?
LargeLanguage

Chester, UK

#160975 Mar 18, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
M = m/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Where:-
M = Relativist Mass
m = Rest Mass
v = Velocity of body
c = Velocity of Light
Speed is not the cause for mass. Mass and energy causes speed. An objects movement, and its speed it caused by force, idiot! Speed doesn't cause the force!

Shut up polymath257
LargeLanguage

Chester, UK

#160976 Mar 18, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
An atheist and an agnostic are quite different, son.
Right, I see it now. You call everybody "son".

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
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 7 min Ink 567,461
Scientific proof for God's existence 7 min HipGnosis 502
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 9 min Black Thunder 42 607,080
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 9 min RiccardoFire 97,439
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 10 min waaasssuuup 794,021
Community forum for study collaboration 30 min Asif Inu 2
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 35 min Reformed 442,008
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr RiccardoFire 267,329
More from around the web