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: Jun 07

Location hidden

#170024 Jun 25, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Heavens, no. Double Fine's only bias is towards women. They all seem to want Double Fine. Especially the lesbians. They love Double Fine alot, though less frequently than the straight ones.
But all silliness aside.
There are things like veriafable claims and unsubstantiated claims. Verifiable are those we can measure, document etc. I can find a fossil in strata and measure it, using Strontium and get a set age. Another researcher an do the same and if we both did it correctly, we get the same age. Verifiable.
Unsubstantiated claims like 'feeling Jesus inside me' etc are very ambigious. I understand that your culture and upbring lets you put heavy trust in that, but think of this. I can make any unsubstantiayed claim, and you cannot prove me wrong.
Take that imbecile from Australia, claiming to be the reincarnation of Jesus. Or the Mormons, who said Jesus showed up in heaven. Or that other lunatic who predicted that the rapture would happen in May 2011 and when it didnt, he said, "yeah, but it was a rapture in heaven". Hell, I can make a claim that Jesus have been hiding behind my couch all this time, and you cannot disprove my claim on any grounds, because it is unsubstantiated. Say you show up at my house, I simply say Jesus has his cloak of invisibility on, therefore you cannot see him.
It goes on.
Validity trumps age 24hours a day. Your bible info is old, but still lies.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#170025 Jun 25, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the strawman? Because some churches do have the collapsing thing going on. Falling over, etc. It happens. Maybe not in yur church, but it does.
My question is this. When do you know you are feeling (as used in context) something real?
When the lying creationist piece of sh*t produces some evidence instead of running scared from the question.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#170026 Jun 25, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously, I am familiar with your "quantum" argument, which is theoretical at best and therefore cannot be presented as a piece of absolute evidence...
You are back to your senses again, which I have already addressed in a previous post, so will leave that one for you to follow up.
Yo.

Quantum physics is not only in theory. Transistors work because of quantum physics. If we didnt understand QP, we would not be able to build transistors and therefore radios

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#170027 Jun 25, 2013
Capillary Action wrote:
<quoted text>
Triple Fine suffocated under a pile of women.
BE CAREFUL.
Hehehe.. That is a good way to go ;)

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#170028 Jun 25, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you think that, then you don't understand it. Quantum mechanics is not theoretical in that sense. It has been repeatedly shown to be accurate in a wide variety of situations, including many that are quite counter-intuitive. By the way, this also shows your whole criticism of the senses fails: people were expecting QM to fail in many of these situations, but it didn't. Their biases did not determine what they actually observed.
QM is an acausal scientific theory. It is empirical and has been repeatedly tested. So it shows that your assumption that empiricism requires causality is wrong. And that was my point.
<quoted text>
Yes, the senses are the way we obtain knowledge about the real world.
Yet you refuse to understand that acausal system and and senses obtaining knowledge is purely the mark of a product discovering itself. Its views based upon only what it is configured to physically observe are by necessity limited. However, this product has the ability to think beyond the purely physical, which means it is linked in some fashion to the world of that which created it. If that is not true, then your imagined thinking in the abstract in an "objective" fashion arising from the purely physical is fundamentally flawed. Your QM is just another religious belief.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#170029 Jun 25, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Where you find it.
Your argumentation and base of logic for it is seriously lacking in development.
Stand in the desert and gaze into the distance. If you see large patches of green or along line of trees you see water, the source of life. If you see people living there, then they are smarter than you all alone out in the desert looking at them.
They didn't gather there because there was nothing there.
You may be in there but you don't have the experience of looking back where you were to understand what you have and how you got it. So you mouth BS and criticize that which you don't know. It was always there for you.
Again, you will not understand that and will come back with some stupid pseudo-intellectual dodge or deflection.
<The Dave Nelson> "mmmm... Word salad with Meaningless dressing, my favorite"

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#170030 Jun 25, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Yo.
Quantum physics is not only in theory. Transistors work because of quantum physics. If we didnt understand QP, we would not be able to build transistors and therefore radios
Transistors work because someone experimented. Same as the vacuum tubes before them. All based upon creating a valve for a flow, which existed long, long before QM came into being.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#170031 Jun 25, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
timn17 wrote: "Answersingenesis " is an atheist site? Your religion has utterly obliterated your mind.
Read more at http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TUGI0DV...
<quoted text>
By T-Towns logic, if it is capable of determining something logically that conflicts with his fantasy.......
It's atheist!
Yah. Even if it's fubdamentalist.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#170032 Jun 25, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>his comes from a guy that blows men! what does that say about your behavior?
That's not my behavior, which just shows, again, what a evil liar you are.

You talk about Jesus, but Jesus knows you not.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#170033 Jun 25, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>you're dumb
You're fake.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#170034 Jun 25, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
<The Dave Nelson> "mmmm... Word salad with Meaningless dressing, my favorite"
The eye has it!!

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#170035 Jun 25, 2013
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/transist....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_phy...

How the transistor was developed, and a theoretical base that helped in its development.

QM is a methodology for manipulating matter. It is not an object, which is how it is portrayed by the ignorant on here. It is a god to them. They can't see past it.

Those same ignorant think they were being clever and enlightened in ridiculing my EM stuff and other thingies relating to flow of energy. What I was presenting was a combo of QM fundamentals written in another language. Those ignorant couldn't recognize them because they are stuck with the scripture they learned. They know the words, but not what they represent. This applies to the other religions as well.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#170036 Jun 25, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Transistors work because someone experimented. Same as the vacuum tubes before them. All based upon creating a valve for a flow, which existed long, long before QM came into being.
Correction. Not somebody. Many somebodies. Transistors came about because what was observed and concluded, were used in further experiments, by many others. Transistors are an example of making something practical, based on theoretical knowledge gained by experimentation.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#170037 Jun 25, 2013
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not my behavior, which just shows, again, what a evil liar you are.
You talk about Jesus, but Jesus knows you not.
Wilderide! How are you, mi amigo? How is life treating you in San Fran?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#170038 Jun 25, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/wa tkins/transist.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_phy...
How the transistor was developed, and a theoretical base that helped in its development.
QM is a methodology for manipulating matter. It is not an object, which is how it is portrayed by the ignorant on here. It is a god to them. They can't see past it.
Those same ignorant think they were being clever and enlightened in ridiculing my EM stuff and other thingies relating to flow of energy. What I was presenting was a combo of QM fundamentals written in another language. Those ignorant couldn't recognize them because they are stuck with the scripture they learned. They know the words, but not what they represent. This applies to the other religions as well.
So say's the creator of word salads and the king kahuna of garbage
pseudoscience essays.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#170039 Jun 25, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Wilderide! How are you, mi amigo? How is life treating you in San Fran?
Hey Double! SF is cool and ever-more expensive!

What's up with these kids and their crazy hipster facial hair? It's like being transported back to the 70s. I sure hope it's done ironically, because very little was actually attractive about 70s style. Campy? Definitely.
Joe fortuna

Eureka, CA

#170040 Jun 25, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Science has all the evidence to disprove all god that theists can imagine up.
If theists god were real, they would not be called religion - they would be accepted as science.
. Well I haven't seen any that disprove the deity I believe in. Maybe you can supple it. I have no problem with anyone call what I have belief in science, I don't have a name for it anyway.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#170041 Jun 25, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Correction. Not somebody. Many somebodies. Transistors came about because what was observed and concluded, were used in further experiments, by many others. Transistors are an example of making something practical, based on theoretical knowledge gained by experimentation.
"Shockley had been working on the theory of such a device for more than ten years. While he could work out the theory successfully but after eight years of trying he could not build a working model. Bardeen and Brattain were called in to handle the engineering and development, which they did in the relatively short time of two years, to the consternation of Shockley."

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/transist....

Your an engineer, you know the difference between theory and application. The application is based upon known applied physics going even past the first diversion of rivers and streams.

If you have to keep experimenting, then your init6ial theory is wrong to a degree. You keep finding what makes it wrong and add the variables you missed in it to make it work.

Experimentation.

" Shockley, as their supervisor, shared in the glory. What Bardeen and Brattain had created was the "point-contact" transistor. Shockley subsequently designed a new type of transistor called the "bipolar" transistor which was superior to the point- contact type and replaced it. Thus the transistor was, in large part, Shockley's creation."

the same link same paragraph

Took clearer minds to kick the theoretical genius into gear.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#170042 Jun 25, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
So say's the creator of word salads and the king kahuna of garbage
pseudoscience essays.
Your inability to understand things not written in your scriptural format is not my issue, it is yours.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#170043 Jun 25, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Your inability to understand things not written in your scriptural format is not my issue, it is yours.
You mean not written using Math or English, because you have your own language and expect anyone to decipher your gobblety gook which even you cannot .

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) 9 min Dally Mama 765,071
Hot gays in Abu Dhabi (Nov '13) 32 min Ayyan 1,187
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 36 min hojo 555,019
Best Black Friday Deals 2014 44 min BLACK FRIDAY 1
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 52 min Dr_Zorderz 263,606
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 58 min shyam 5,443
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr Qu_innocence 603,675

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE