Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258041 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.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174906 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> So nobody can question Hawkins conclusions without advanced knowledge in Physics? Is that what you are saying?
Wrong.

We **are** saying that you must have a LEAST a RUDIMENTARY education in BASIC physics.

A subject of which you have demonstrated you are 100% unfamiliar with.

**THAT****IS** the distinction.

You?

You dismiss ALL scientific fact without a second's hesitation.

AND WITHOUT BOTHERING TO STUDY IT, EITHER.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#174907 Aug 18, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
And the majority of Topix self professed atheists don't know WTF they believe. But the name sounds cool, and it gives them a license to be obnoxious, they believe.
Face up to reality and admit you're a liar with no proof of god - like all creationists.

Its idiots like you who cannot answer basic questions about your faith based mental illness and you try to criticise science instead.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174908 Aug 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
At a deep level, the universe is acausal.
And this is the fundamental beef that **all** religions have with the present universe.

They *want* to be "special".

They **demand** that the Universe **notices** them in their tiny existence.

So gods were fabricated to "answer" this elementary drive of the human psyche.

Sadly, the price society has to pay for this "answer" is much too steep-- in human suffering and in the perpetuation of ignorance.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#174909 Aug 18, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Calling you a wanker doesn't make you any less incorrect.
<quoted text>
That was quite a deviation from the subject.

Is that an offer to lend me a hand in an effort to get me pointed in the right direction? To get me to rise up to your expectations?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174910 Aug 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The stress-energy tensor is essentially a description of the distribution of mass, energy, momentum, and 'stress' in a region. On the other hand, the Einstein tensor describes, essentially, the curvature of spacetime. General relativity proposes that the Einstein tensor and the stress energy tensor are equal (up to a constant proportion factor). So, essentially, mass, energy, momentum, and stress produce curvature of spacetime. Curvature means that close by paths will either converge or diverge (depending on the type of curvature). This is gravity.
So, basically, you are saying that gravity is ...

...**geometry**?

:D

I **knew** there was a use for all that High School math I took back-when...

;)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174911 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it is an expression of Hawkings core argument in deductive form. Unlike you, i don't know everything.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.asp...
<quoted text>
Quote Minding from a Lying For Jewsus website is not honest.

It is **lying**.

But lying is your forte, isn't it?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174912 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> 1+1=2 is abstract and is not time dependent. 1+1=2 would remain true even if there was nothing and not something. It transcends physical reality.
But it is not a statement that directly applies to the real world. It follows from certain *assumptions* and definitions concerning 1,+,= and 2 and their properties. These assumptions are invented by humans as a language to help us understand. Because they are abstract, that language can potentially be used in a large number of situations. But it is an experimental question whether the assumptions hold in any given physical situation. Pure logic cannot say when such assumptions do and do not hold.

For example, the equation 1+1=2 doe not hold in the following:

1. Take 1 marble and smash it into another 1 marble at high energy. You will get 0 pebbles and a variety of fragments.

2. Take 1 quart of water and 1 quart of alcohol and mix them. You will not get 2 quarts of mixture, but slightly less.

3. Take 1 proton and smash it into another 1 proton. You will often get out 3 protons and one anti-proton. Sometimes you will get more.

The point is that the assumptions of the abstract statement 1+1=2 do not apply in these physical cases, so the conclusion may fail (and actually does in these examples).

What happens in abstract mathematics and logic is that we *assume* certain basic propositions and rules of deduction and derive new propositions. As long as the assumptions and rules of deduction are correct, the conclusions are valid. But in no physical situation can you absolutely know that the assumptions are, in fact, correct. So what happens is that we *test* the assumptions to the best of our ability and then use the conclusions, testing them also as a further test of our assumptions. In this way, we learn which assumptions hold for the real world and which do not. Even more, we learn when various assumptions can and cannot be used to help us understand what happens in reality.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174913 Aug 18, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
So, basically, you are saying that gravity is ...
...**geometry**?
:D
I **knew** there was a use for all that High School math I took back-when...
;)
Yes, in general relativity, gravity is geometry, although in curved spacetime.

“The King of R&R”

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#174914 Aug 18, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
You're still assuming. Let me now introduce you to what I find to be most possible. The creator of The Universe may set off so much energy. Nothing could get close to it. I find this to be the greatest possibility . No creator it has way to much that can't be explain, and really it just does not go that direction. In the possibilities of creation I don't see how Atheism could even make the top 10. You need to battle it out with Fundamentalist Christians. It's like fox hunting rabbits, but some times the rabbits win.
hey dudeo, just show me on piece of evidence of supernatural power. oh, you say you can't right now. well, that's to be expected of a born again faker!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174915 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> 1+1=2 is abstract and is not time dependent. 1+1=2 would remain true even if there was nothing and not something. It transcends physical reality.
It transcends physical reality only in the same way that a game of chess transcends physical reality.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#174916 Aug 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, in general relativity, gravity is geometry, although in curved spacetime.
If the universe expanded from a singularity, outward in all directions, yes, gravity could be considered as curved spacetime. Would certainly take on that appearance to an observer in the midst. Might not be, but would certainly look that way. One could even think that space would be curved according to the mass distributions it is in line with. It could be more curvy in some places more than others. Could even create, oops, there's that word, forms and shapes.

Gravity has one pretty well defined characteristic. It works in straight lines. Always has.

Your curved spacetime is illusory. Caused by staring at papers too much.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#174917 Aug 18, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh-huh. So what equations do you use to determine the unlikeliness of no-creator?
Every morning I awake. I don't see why I should be persuading you towards my religious beliefs. This is a tread for you to prove yours. In an era of many people giving their beliefs, I don't rank Atheist in the top 10 of likelihood.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#174918 Aug 18, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
If the universe expanded from a singularity, outward in all directions, yes, gravity could be considered as curved spacetime. Would certainly take on that appearance to an observer in the midst. Might not be, but would certainly look that way. One could even think that space would be curved according to the mass distributions it is in line with. It could be more curvy in some places more than others. Could even create, oops, there's that word, forms and shapes.
Gravity has one pretty well defined characteristic. It works in straight lines. Always has.
Your curved spacetime is illusory. Caused by staring at papers too much.
About time. When defining the age of the universe time is defined linear. 16 bil yrs ago or whatever. Now time is defined as a point on a globe?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174919 Aug 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, in general relativity, gravity is geometry, although in curved spacetime.
And those kids who made fun of me for taking elective math classes said I wouldn't have any real-world uses for it.

They were so wrong...

;D

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#174920 Aug 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
It transcends physical reality only in the same way that a game of chess transcends physical reality.
BS, Why do you make these idiot comparisons? What are you attempting to accomplish? 1+1=2 is true within its own context which is elemental math. You pull it out of context for what purpose other than obfuscation? You introduce a chess game for what? 1+1=2 exists in the same manner as E=MC2 as abstract concepts not time dependent. Because they are abstract they lack causal power. Truth is not time dependent. These constructs point to a source which is also not time dependent. We call that source God.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174921 Aug 18, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Every morning I awake. I don't see why I should be persuading you towards my religious beliefs. This is a tread for you to prove yours. In an era of many people giving their beliefs, I don't rank Atheist in the top 10 of likelihood.
Of course you don't think that-- you are in the MAJORITY at the present time.

But that time has come-- and is going, fast.

Soon?

Soon you **will** be required to justify your bigotry and hate-- or you will be penalized for public display of it.

Just as you can no longer openly display your hate for People Of Color in the US?(well-- for the most part)

And you are rapidly losing your "right" to display your hatred of LGBT?

Soon enough, you'll be in the **minority** with regards to your idiotic beliefs.

You really ought to be thinking about **that** and begin formulating your "justification" for your ugly hatebeliefs.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174922 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> About time. When defining the age of the universe time is defined linear. 16 bil yrs ago or whatever. Now time is defined as a point on a globe?
The above idiotic statement?

Is 100% proof you are not qualified in ANY way to criticize ANYTHING about physics.

At all.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#174923 Aug 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>But it is not a statement that directly applies to the real world. It follows from certain *assumptions* and definitions concerning 1,+,= and 2 and their properties. These assumptions are invented by humans as a language to help us understand. Because they are abstract, that language can potentially be used in a large number of situations. But it is an experimental question whether the assumptions hold in any given physical situation. Pure logic cannot say when such assumptions do and do not hold.

For example, the equation 1+1=2 doe not hold in the following:

1. Take 1 marble and smash it into another 1 marble at high energy. You will get 0 pebbles and a variety of fragments.

2. Take 1 quart of water and 1 quart of alcohol and mix them. You will not get 2 quarts of mixture, but slightly less.

3. Take 1 proton and smash it into another 1 proton. You will often get out 3 protons and one anti-proton. Sometimes you will get more.

The point is that the assumptions of the abstract statement 1+1=2 do not apply in these physical cases, so the conclusion may fail (and actually does in these examples).

What happens in abstract mathematics and logic is that we *assume* certain basic propositions and rules of deduction and derive new propositions. As long as the assumptions and rules of deduction are correct, the conclusions are valid. But in no physical situation can you absolutely know that the assumptions are, in fact, correct. So what happens is that we *test* the assumptions to the best of our ability and then use the conclusions, testing them also as a further test of our assumptions. In this way, we learn which assumptions hold for the real world and which do not. Even more, we learn when various assumptions can and cannot be used to help us understand what happens in reality.
"Take 1 marble and smash it into another 1 marble at high energy. You will get 0 pebbles and a variety of fragments."

This is not 1+1
This is something like ((1(impact survivability speed))/(speed))+((1(impact survivability speed))/(speed))=x

"Take 1 quart of water and 1 quart of alcohol and mix them. You will not get 2 quarts of mixture, but slightly less."

This is not 1+ 1= 2

This is 1a + 1b = 1a + 1b

"Take 1 proton and smash it into another 1 proton. You will often get out 3 protons and one anti-proton. Sometimes you will get more."

1a+1a+E=x

Well these formulas are not perfect you should get the idea that you are adding more to the equation then just 1+1.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#174924 Aug 18, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
And the majority of Topix self professed atheists don't know WTF they believe. But the name sounds cool, and it gives them a license to be obnoxious, they believe.
License to be obnoxious. 100% correct. That is all atheism is. An imaginary license to behave in any way they choose with no accountability to anyone or anything. It is the ultimate delusion. To be fair there are a few notable exceptions, Poly, Hiding and Aura come to mind.

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#174925 Aug 18, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
If the universe expanded from a singularity, outward in all directions, yes, gravity could be considered as curved spacetime. Would certainly take on that appearance to an observer in the midst. Might not be, but would certainly look that way. One could even think that space would be curved according to the mass distributions it is in line with. It could be more curvy in some places more than others. Could even create, oops, there's that word, forms and shapes.
Gravity has one pretty well defined characteristic. It works in straight lines. Always has.
Your curved spacetime is illusory. Caused by staring at papers too much.

Curved space and space/time geometry is only a 2D representation and a way of understanding a 4D effect.
It's taking a linear slice out of a path to represent the effect.
It still doesn't give a complete picture, but allows an abstract understanding what effect acceleration or mass has between two points physically and temporally and the objects on these paths. The truth is somewhere between Newton and Einstein, unfortunately
we haven't discovered it yet.

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
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 3 min bad bob 184,759
There is Everything Wrong with Abortion (Nov '07) 4 min Slightly Perfect 223,171
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 7 min Slightly Perfect 977,402
Christians cannot debate with ATHEISTS 9 min Seentheotherside 596
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 15 min RADEKT 284,589
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 27 min Seentheotherside 45,842
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 31 min Seentheotherside 665,402
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 1 hr Aerobatty 88,257
Secular Humanism VS Christianity 1 hr It aint necessari... 178
More from around the web