Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.
Comments
167,821 - 167,840 of 225,682 Comments Last updated 11 min ago

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174892
Aug 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> The rules of logic and math do not apply to a singularity
of infinite or near infinite gravity *time does not move,
so causality has no meaning, but quantum effects are not bound by time. So The universe can create itself with gravity alone.
Lets apply Hawking argument against God.

Causes must precede their effect in time (Except gravity)
There is no time prior to the beginning of time
Therefore the universe cannot have a cause.

If that rules out God then it must also rule out gravity. Atheists rule out God but do not rule out gravity.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174893
Aug 18, 2013
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yeah?!? Well, what made the material radioactive in the first place? Huh? Isn't that the cause???
Huh?!?
:)
And this is one of the reasons I requested a definition of the term 'cause'. It is a very slippery concept as applied to many situations.

For example, suppose I push on the accelerator pedal of my car. The car goes faster. There is definitely a sense in which my pushing on the pedal is the 'cause' of the car going faster. But, more precisely, pushing on the pedal made a series of levers open up a valve that lets in more fuel, so there is a bigger explosion against the piston, which produces more torque on the drive shaft, which makes the tires spin faster, which makes the friction on the ground produce a force on the car, which makes it accelerate. If there was not fuel in the line, the car would not go faster. If the piston was not connected to the drive shaft, the car would no go faster. If any of the mechanics was stuck, the car would no go faster, etc. So the *actual* cause of the car going faster is the imbalance of the frictional force and the drag force on the car. My pushing the pedal was only one way among many to produce that imbalance. It isn't guaranteed to produce that imbalance (for example if the road is icy). But, if the conditions are right, and the car is built well, pushing the pedal does cause a sequence of events leading to the imbalance of forces.

Now, for radioactivity, the situation is a bit different. Take an atom of, say, uranium-238. The nucleus is unstable (meaning it will decay) in part because the number of neutrons is too high compared to the number of protons (also because the nucleus as a whole is too large). In one sense, that is a cause for the decay. But, an nucleus of U-238 can remain un-decayed for literally billions of years. And, unlike the car or the triggering mechanism for a bomb, there is NOTHING different about a nucleus that decays right now and another nucleus that decays in 3 billion years. There is no 'triggering mechanism' that determines when that nucleus will decay. The decay of a particular nucleus is *completely* undetermined: it is uncaused. Again, nothing is different 'just before' the decay from any other time. A nucleus of U-238 that decays today is absolutely identical to one that decays in a billion years. That is what I mean when I say the time for the decay is uncaused.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174894
Aug 18, 2013
 
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Lets apply Hawking argument against God.
Causes must precede their effect in time (Except gravity)
There is no time prior to the beginning of time
Therefore the universe cannot have a cause.
If that rules out God then it must also rule out gravity. Atheists rule out God but do not rule out gravity.
Since that is NOT Hawking's argument, you are merely showing your ignorance.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174895
Aug 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hidingfromyou wrote:
I don't really follow you here.
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.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174896
Aug 18, 2013
 
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Lets apply Hawking argument against God.
Causes must precede their effect in time (Except gravity)
There is no time prior to the beginning of time
Therefore the universe cannot have a cause.
If that rules out God then it must also rule out gravity. Atheists rule out God but do not rule out gravity.
First of all I haven't ruled out a creator.
But lets examine this, Can you find gravity now?
Can you find or show evidence of a creator>??
We can find gravity, we can also understand what general relativity
mean to gravity and the space/time continuum.

We can identify how gravity can slow time and contract space into a singularity. These are measurable things, now show me the effects of your creator. Causality only makes sense to things bound in time. We know there are things not bound to time as we are, such as quantum effects and gravity. These effects are demonstrable and testable. Demonstrate the effects a creator has on time and gravity in our world in a testable and measurable way. showing on paper what it is. Then you have an argument, but as it is you have only a belief and no measurement or observation.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174897
Aug 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Since that is NOT Hawking's argument, you are merely showing your ignorance.
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...
Towards the end of the episode, Hawking asserted that “[t]he role played by time at the beginning of the Universe is, I believe, the final key to removing the need for a Grand Designer and revealing how the Universe created itself”(“Curiosity…”). According to Hawking and other atheists, the initial moments of the Big Bang were supposedly similar to the nature of a black hole (see Miller, 2011a for a response to this idea). Hawking believes that due to the nature of a black hole, time would not have existed before the Big Bang. He asserts:

You can’t get to a time before the Big Bang, because there was no before the Big Bang. We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me, this means that there is no possibility for a Creator, because there is no time for a Creator to have existed…. Time didn’t exist before the Big Bang. So, there is no time for God to make the Universe in (“Curiosity…,” emp. added).

So, according to Hawking, there could not have been a cause for the Big Bang since that cause had to temporally precede the effect of the Big Bang, and yet time supposedly did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Setting aside the fact that this theoretical black hole, which is speculated to have been in existence at the time of the alleged Big Bang, had to itself have a cause (according to the Law of Causality even if time did not exist before the bang), Hawking still made a blunder in supposing that a Creator could not exist if time did not exist.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174898
Aug 18, 2013
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait, wait - wouldn't time be a function of the universe in question in the multiverse hypothesis?
Is there a larger time, too? Like, if you have an infinite...er..."place " that doesn't correspond to the English word equivalent where universes are spawned, does that space have time?
Does outside our universe know that our universe is progressing through its own time? Is that a knowable thing?
Can we know about phenomena outside our universe? If there is no time outside our universe, or time is at a different pace, wouldn't that sort of constrain what is knowable from our point of view?
:)
:)
:)
I can ask more questions - always lots and lots and lots of questions!
The universe has a clock that started ticking 13.7 billion years ago. Just about everything within the universe has a clock ticking
these clocks can be made to run at different rates, but the universes clock as far as we know does not vary.
Whether there are clocks ticking outside this universe we can't say. Whether this universe's clock is within another clock, we can't say. But it is entirely possible they are.
Whether the universe is aware of the passage of time , is highly controversial , but that too is possible I guess.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174899
Aug 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Covert Stealth Ops wrote:
<quoted text>If Christians go to church on Sunday, then where do atheists go on Sundays.........wait for it......got it.....THE ZOO.
Jetskiing.
Thinking

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174900
Aug 18, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

BS. Few Atheists rule out the possibility of some form of god.

That said, I know 100% that no all powerful compassionate god can exist because we have evidence of avoidable suffering.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Lets apply Hawking argument against God.
Causes must precede their effect in time (Except gravity)
There is no time prior to the beginning of time
Therefore the universe cannot have a cause.
If that rules out God then it must also rule out gravity. Atheists rule out God but do not rule out gravity.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174901
Aug 18, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Thinking wrote:
BS. Few Atheists rule out the possibility of some form of god.
That said, I know 100% that no all powerful compassionate god can exist because we have evidence of avoidable suffering.
<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.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174902
Aug 18, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Thinking wrote:
BS. Few Atheists rule out the possibility of some form of god.
That said, I know 100% that no all powerful compassionate god can exist because we have evidence of avoidable suffering.
<quoted text>
BTW, your "know" is a belief, a personal conviction, and quite the evidence it is emotion based, which clouds rational thinking.
Thinking

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174903
Aug 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Calling you a wanker doesn't make you any less incorrect.
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.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174904
Aug 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
Veiled accusations? Threats?? Lol, I'll bypass the drivel and focus on the one point. One can only explain things so many times to you without making a dent that one realizes the depths of your cluelessness.
Never underestimate the power of willful ignorance--

-- it is one of the few things humans can achieve an infinite capacity for...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174905
Aug 18, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you qualified? Do you have doctorates in physics, astrophysics, or quantum physics?
Much more than the creationist could ever hope to be.

She dismisses **all** scientific fact without a second glance.

This alone disqualifies here from the discussion.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174907
Aug 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174909
Aug 18, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••