Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258482 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

#174759 Aug 17, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You have intellectualized yourself out of reality.
Quantum fluctuations are caused.
The evidence says otherwise.
Quantum is not a thing, it is an effect. Quantum mechanics is an expression of those effects used as a tool.
And it is an acausal theory: events at the quantum level are all probabilistic and therefore uncaused.
The BBT is a bud or seed that emerged from a larger "universe".
That is one possibility.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174760 Aug 17, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Honestly if my 15 year old nephew was asking me what you are I would yell at him for being sarcastic. If you need these things explained to you... just don't know what to tell you,perhaps watch more science TV.
Perhaps your problem is that you only watch the popularized versions you see on TV and not that actual versions that are in the science journals.

No, I am not being sarcastic; I am being completely honest and upfront about the current understanding of the universe. At the subatomic and atomic levels, events tend to be probabilistic in nature. They are not caused. Furthermore, there is solid data that shows that a causal, realist view of the universe is impossible.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#174761 Aug 17, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
All the protest in the reflections of your postings, absolutely will not change the reality of empirical evidence.
"Anthropologists, whether you like it or not do use supposition and only supposings."
You are very wrong in stating this, there is a very rigorous methodology that is backed by multiple lines of evidence in dating fossil artifacts. But nothing is perfect so a +- figure will be in the equation, however dating methodology is pretty accurate and gives us a definitive answer to *how old things are. You reject these things on the basis of error in judgement, brought on by a active belief of biblical nonsense.
You will never go beyond a novice of reasoning skills and will think like a stone aged person to hold your belief in them.
When you return from a place closer to the galactic center, considerably, that is, with results of the same physics decay rates experiments resulting in the same measurements as the dating systems used being the same with relativistic effects being accounted for, your assertions will be of more value.

Until then, your proselytizing of your religion is no more accurate than any other earthcentric religion has been.

Prove the accuracy of your universal constants, don't expect us to believe they are the ultimate truth because you say so.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#174762 Aug 17, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You dumb shit.
Quantum mechanics is nothing more than the ripples of the original causation, no matter how far back or where it originated.
You sure have educated yourse3lf into stupidity.
Says the idiot that denies evolution

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#174763 Aug 17, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The evidence says otherwise.
<quoted text>
And it is an acausal theory: events at the quantum level are all probabilistic and therefore uncaused.
<quoted text>
That is one possibility.
The evidence doesn't say any such thing. It is your desired interpretations of the "evidence", not the reality of it leading to your conclusion.

You can stroll all about the universe and collect numbers laying about the landscape and assemble a model that appears complete. The ultimate reality is a process generated those numbers.

You have short circuited your scientific inquiry when you first started making religious value judgments on the data collected. You can look at it as your own personal quantum effect on an outcome.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#174764 Aug 17, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
You view it as you see it and I view it as I do. Knowing I have a soul, and I connect to The Perfect One. I know there is a creator. You know you do not have a soul. Regardless you should still be able to see what is obvious. Your points of denying changes nothing. You're no different from the person that says "Obama is not my President." yet he is a citizen of The United States.
Mentally ill creationist liar with no proof of god.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#174765 Aug 17, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
When you return from a place closer to the galactic center, considerably, that is, with results of the same physics decay rates experiments resulting in the same measurements as the dating systems used being the same with relativistic effects being accounted for, your assertions will be of more value.
Until then, your proselytizing of your religion is no more accurate than any other earthcentric religion has been.
Prove the accuracy of your universal constants, don't expect us to believe they are the ultimate truth because you say so.

We found decay were more variable than once thought, but this in consideration only yielded a 5% variation , so it could throw the +- figures up a little, but multiple tests that yield similar ages narrow the +- figure somewhat. So Yes we still can get a definitive answer to within a reasonable tolerance of error.

We cannot give exact dates , though we can give reasonably precise dates.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174766 Aug 17, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
David Hilbert, the greatest mathematical mind of the 20th century has stated: "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea." This means that past events are real and are finite.
Hilbert was a mathematician and not a physicist. As such, his ideas about physics were not definitive even at his time, let alone now. In point of fact, physicists commonly discuss the possibilities of infinite space and infinite time. This is a question for observation, not philosophy.
In 1913, Albert Einstein and Edwin Hubble discovered compelling evidence that the universe is expanding. As the discoveries of the 20th century accumulated, we found that time, space, matter, and energy appeared to have had a point of origin in the finite past. In the late 60s and early 70s, Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose all published papers with regard to extensions of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and these included measurements of time and space that subsequently demonstrated that both space and time had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origins of matter and energy. Their conclusion was that causally, prior to that moment, space and time didn't exist. Interesting huh?
Several points here. First, under general relativity, there must be singularities where causality is limited backwards in time. But, and this is important, we know that general relativity is not a complete description because it does not include quantum effects. When quantum effects are included, the singularity results of Penrose, Ellis and Hawking no longer hold.
That leads to the next argument.
Premise 1: Everything that *BEGINS* to exist has a cause.(This doesn't apply to God, because God is eternal. and therefore doesn't need a cause to exist.)
As stated, this is simply false. Quantum fluctuations begin to exist, but are uncaused. Most quantum effects are uncaused.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
In this, the term 'began to exist' is used differently than in the first premise. In the first, there is a requirement of a time before the 'beginning' and then a duration of time leading to the effect. The universe did not 'begin to exist' in this sense. There was no 'time' when the universe did not exist. There was no duration in which it was formed. Whenever there was time, the universe in some form existed.
Conclusion: The universe must have a cause.
Both hypotheses fail; conclusion not proven.

Furthermore, even if the universe had a cause, it is another question whether that cause is intelligent, moral, and also started life on earth. None of those are remotely implied by this argument.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174767 Aug 17, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
The first Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed but can be transferred from one system to another in different forms. This means that the total amount of energy available in the universe has been constant since it came into existence. Matter can be converted into energy as Einstein observed when he gave us his equation E=MC2.
More accurately, any gain or loss of energy (including mass) of a volume happens across the boundary of that volume.

This, by the way, has to be modified when using general relativity because the amount of energy of a system depends on the observer. The fact of curved spacetime makes it impossible for any observer to even calculate the total amount of energy of the universe, unless the universe is finite in volume. But in that case, the total energy of the universe is *zero*: the energy associated with gravitation exactly cancels the other forms of energy. So, in this scheme, energy conservation *allows* the production of the universe 'from nothing'.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is also stated as the Law of Increased Entropy. While the amount of matter/energy remains constant (conforming to the First law of Thermodynamics), the quality (usability) of that matter/energy gradually deteriorates over time. How? Usable energy is used for productivity, growth, and repair. In these processes, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. To illustrate this, imagine the heat that comes from pouring a pot of boiling water into a large lake. That heat isn't truly "lost" but rather dissipates to the point that it's undetectable. Likewise, any latent energy like a wound up spring will have a tendency towards unwinding in a kinetic stage and will dissipate towards uselessness. Usable energy constantly appears to be irretrievably "lost" in the form of unusable matter/energy. Eventually, with the exception of supernatural interference, all matter/energy will reach max entropy or for lack of better words, maximum equilibrium.
Entropy is defined as a measure of unusable energy that is inside a closed or isolated system, like our universe. As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, then entropy increases. Entropy is also a method we can use to measure randomness or chaos within the same closed or isolated system. As usable energy is lost, randomness and chaos increase.
Since the order in the universe was at maximum in the beginning and has been winding down into disorder since then, then a natural question comes into view. "Who organized it initially?" Another way we can use deductive reasoning is that if the universe had eternally existed in the past, it would have long ago decayed or dissipated into max entropy or disorder. Because that hasn't happened, we know the universe had a beginning.
And you silly atheists thought I didn't understand science and was a "quasi" young-earth-creationist? Please! LOL. Gotcha!:D
Actually, entropy measures the number of available quantum states of a system, not the 'randomness'. There are many situations where an increase of entropy drives the production of *less* randomness (although it does produce, generally, less usable energy).

That said,it does not show what you seem to think it shows (and yes, I know you copied and pasted this because I recognize it--Craig, right?). In particular, during a 'Big Bounce' of the type specified in Loop Quantum Gravity, there number of available quantum states would be smallest at the Bounce, not in the infinite past. In this sense, the entropy arrow of time reverses at the Bounce, resolving your paradox. Similar things happen to the entropy in a multiverse model. The point is that the second law is a *statistical law* and is not absolute in the fundamental sense. It can be violated and has been observed to be violated in small systems where statistical fluctuations are common.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174768 Aug 17, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
You jumped all over the place here so can we concentrate on one concept or point of contention? I'll give my answers in 3 parts or replies as time allows.
Let's discuss hell since that seems to be a major issue for skeptics. First of all, what is the nature of hell? What are its properties? For some odd reason, skeptics and fundamentalist Christians seem to think of it as a place or location and that deliberate acts of metaphysical torture occur there as if it were some torture chamber in the dark ages. As we go forward, please understand that I have a very different understanding of the nature of hell.
The concept of hell that is most popular is that of Dante's Inferno. I strongly disagree. Jesus Christ (if you choose to accept his description or concept) stated that it was a place of "outer darkness" with much weeping and "gnashing of teeth." Let's apply Forensic Statement Analysis (FSA) to this description.
"Outer darkness" implies a place that is opposite of "inner" and of "light". This appears to be a condensed description. Compressed. So let's unpack it. If God is described as the very essence and source of light (Psalm 36:9- For with you is the fountain of life; in your light we see light.) and love (1 John 4:8- Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.) then we can conclude that being in His presence is to know both. This fits the concept of the realm known as Heaven.
Outer darkness then must be a place that is devoid of love and light. Darkness and indifference must be the attributes or properties of such a place, and it follows that no love is even possible. Any references to fire or flame appear to be allegorical and may actually allude to the flush feeling of shame that we feel when we know for fact that we have done something wrong. It may also be a metaphor for the emotional feelings of burning with envy for something out of reach, and if hell is absent of light and love, then it's only logical to conclude that those who are there do indeed envy and crave what they can't have, which is love and light.
Now with those contrasts in mind, let's examine a third realm or state of existence. The one we are in right now. Here in our lives, we know both love and light, and of sorrow and darkness, good and evil. It is here and now that we get to experience these to a limited degree, and to make a choice as to which one we prefer. Now if love can only be experienced in a limited manner here on this earth in our present state of existence, it's only because it is counter-balanced by the presence of evil. They keep each other in a state of check. Neither can be totally dominant. Otherwise, we have no way to differentiate between good and evil, and no way to freely choose. If we reject God, we are rejecting eternally infinite love in favor of temporary
finite love.
If we choose to exit our current state of metaphysical existence in such denial, we are consenting by default to enter that new realm where love isn't even possible and darkness is so pervasive that it absorbs us like a black sponge, never releasing us. No thanks.
You do realize that light is a physical effect: it is electromagnetic waves. Love is an emotion: it is produced in the brain. With these observations, your post is rather meaningless.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174769 Aug 17, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
When you return from a place closer to the galactic center, considerably, that is, with results of the same physics decay rates experiments resulting in the same measurements as the dating systems used being the same with relativistic effects being accounted for, your assertions will be of more value.
Until then, your proselytizing of your religion is no more accurate than any other earthcentric religion has been.
Prove the accuracy of your universal constants, don't expect us to believe they are the ultimate truth because you say so.
But we *can* and do measure the values of such constants in other places of the universe. For example, the decay rates observed in distant supernovas agree with those measured here on earth for the same elements. We can tell the composition of distant stars using the information carried by the light from them. The results agree with elements we have here on earth, so we know the compositions. We can watch reflected light from supernovas and know that the speed of light in other places and times is the same as it is here and now.

The question of whether and how the various constants change in location and time is one that is actually addressed by observation. it doesn't have to be earth-centric when the information comes from places other than earth.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174770 Aug 17, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
The evidence doesn't say any such thing. It is your desired interpretations of the "evidence", not the reality of it leading to your conclusion.
On the contrary, most scientists would strongly prefer a causal universe: it would make their jobs a lot easier. The actual evidence does not support that, though. In particular, there are regularities in causal systems that are observed not to happen in reality (look up Bell's inequalities some time). If you want more detail, the following link has a good description at a rather easily understood level:

http://www.iafe.uba.ar/e2e/phys230/history/mo...

If you don't like following links, do a search for Mermin and 'Is the moon there when nobody looks'.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174771 Aug 17, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You dumb shit.
Abusive post reported.

Your Jewsus would be SO proud of you right now...

.... NOT!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174772 Aug 17, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
Quantum mechanics is nothing more than the ripples of the original causation, no matter how far back or where it originated.
False.

You clearly have no clue **what** quantum mechanics actually is.

Sad, really.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174773 Aug 17, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
You sure have educated yourse3lf into stupidity.
Abusive post reported.

Your Jewsus would be so NOT proud of your hate, here.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174774 Aug 17, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
You jumped all over the place here so can we concentrate on one concept or point of contention? I'll give my answers in 3 parts or replies as time allows.
Let's discuss hell since that seems to be a major issue for skeptics. First of all, what is the nature of hell? What are its properties? For some odd reason, skeptics and fundamentalist Christians seem to think of it as a place or location and that deliberate acts of metaphysical torture occur there as if it were some torture chamber in the dark ages. As we go forward, please understand that I have a very different understanding of the nature of hell.
The concept of hell that is most popular is that of Dante's Inferno. I strongly disagree. Jesus Christ (if you choose to accept his description or concept) stated that it was a place of "outer darkness" with much weeping and "gnashing of teeth." Let's apply Forensic Statement Analysis (FSA) to this description.
"Outer darkness" implies a place that is opposite of "inner" and of "light". This appears to be a condensed description. Compressed. So let's unpack it. If God is described as the very essence and source of light (Psalm 36:9- For with you is the fountain of life; in your light we see light.) and love (1 John 4:8- Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.) then we can conclude that being in His presence is to know both. This fits the concept of the realm known as Heaven.
Outer darkness then must be a place that is devoid of love and light. Darkness and indifference must be the attributes or properties of such a place, and it follows that no love is even possible. Any references to fire or flame appear to be allegorical and may actually allude to the flush feeling of shame that we feel when we know for fact that we have done something wrong. It may also be a metaphor for the emotional feelings of burning with envy for something out of reach, and if hell is absent of light and love, then it's only logical to conclude that those who are there do indeed envy and crave what they can't have, which is love and light.
Now with those contrasts in mind, let's examine a third realm or state of existence. The one we are in right now. Here in our lives, we know both love and light, and of sorrow and darkness, good and evil. It is here and now that we get to experience these to a limited degree, and to make a choice as to which one we prefer. Now if love can only be experienced in a limited manner here on this earth in our present state of existence, it's only because it is counter-balanced by the presence of evil. They keep each other in a state of check. Neither can be totally dominant. Otherwise, we have no way to differentiate between good and evil, and no way to freely choose. If we reject God, we are rejecting eternally infinite love in favor of temporary
finite love.
If we choose to exit our current state of metaphysical existence in such denial, we are consenting by default to enter that new realm where love isn't even possible and darkness is so pervasive that it absorbs us like a black sponge, never releasing us. No thanks.
Regardless of how you twist things?

The bottom line is this: it's punishment/torture of SOME degree.

All because the god you believe in, cannot manage to muster up simple forgiveness--

-- unless something DIES first.

What's worse?

Your god cannot seem to manage forgiveness AFTER we die, when it's all easily EXPLAINED to us.

Why?

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#174779 Aug 17, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
We found decay were more variable than once thought, but this in consideration only yielded a 5% variation , so it could throw the +- figures up a little, but multiple tests that yield similar ages narrow the +- figure somewhat. So Yes we still can get a definitive answer to within a reasonable tolerance of error.
We cannot give exact dates , though we can give reasonably precise dates.
If you are 5% wrong, it only takes 20 of those to be 100% wrong.

Find what all of that detection and determination, the whole dating sheban thang, is initially calibrated to. From there your errors become exponential.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#174780 Aug 17, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
False.
You clearly have no clue **what** quantum mechanics actually is.
Sad, really.
"Quantum mechanics (QM – also known as quantum physics, or quantum theory) is a branch of physics which deals with physical phenomena at microscopic scales, where the action is on the order of the Planck constant."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanic...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constan...

Ripples.

I could get into motion and all sorts of things that create that quanta, but I won't. You don't understand quantum mechanics, you wouldn't grasp them either.

You sound like some sort of religious adherent.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174781 Aug 17, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
"Quantum mechanics (QM – also known as quantum physics, or quantum theory) is a branch of physics which deals with physical phenomena at microscopic scales, where the action is on the order of the Planck constant."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanic...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constan...
Ripples.
I could get into motion and all sorts of things that create that quanta, but I won't. You don't understand quantum mechanics, you wouldn't grasp them either.
You sound like some sort of religious adherent.
And when was the last time *you* solved the Schrödinger equation? Clearly, someone here doesn't understand QM.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174782 Aug 17, 2013
Covert Stealth Ops wrote:
<quoted text>If you knew what quantum mechanics actually was, you could never be an evolutionist.
Clearly, you know nothing about either QM or evolution.
An atheist was recently arrested, when police found him in an insane state at the zoo....He kept repeating "let my people go"...
troll.

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
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 1 min swampmudd 41,714
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 16 min Just Think 690,362
Would the world have been better off...without ... 28 min Doctor REALITY 9
our STORE is starting on politics 1 hr Kill Your Television 3
Trump's "Russia Worries" louder than the noon sun 1 hr Paul is dead 14
Bring the jobs back to the USA! 1 hr Paul is dead 564
looking for boyfriend in dubai (Mar '15) 1 hr Maxin 2
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 7 hr another viewer 989,717
More from around the web