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
167,841 - 167,860 of 224,013 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

“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?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174916
Aug 18, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174917
Aug 18, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174918
Aug 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174919
Aug 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174920
Aug 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174921
Aug 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174922
Aug 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174923
Aug 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174924
Aug 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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.
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.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174926
Aug 18, 2013
 
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"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.
And that is part of my point: that simply stating that 1+1=2 misses important aspects when it is applied to a physical situation. Whether the abstract rules apply or not is a matter of observation and testing, not of pure logic.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174927
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?

Time is defined as the temporal distance between two points.
Specifically the temporal distance between the start counting, and the stop counting. This line can be effected by acceleration the same way space can be curved, acceleration curves the path between the temporal distance between two points.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174928
Aug 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
According to Dr Michael Newton what you suggest will happen. I do see Atheist reacting as you suggest. Atheism will remain a unproven faith. You'll prove Orwell correct as you introduce things like 2+2=5. It will be the end of science as we know it, because my original statement is true and you know it. That is Atheism can't be a proven fact, unless man knew everything. We won't know everything but in such a society we would pretend we do, actually more like demand it. Books will be burned and sciences will be forbidden. All because The Universe is gathering so many intelligent beings that not all of them could have intelligent souls. I would predict a cleaner Earth, but when Earth dies so would the Human Race.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174929
Aug 18, 2013
 
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> 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.
I meant it in a very literal and precise sense: we invent the rules of chess. A game of chess is supposed to follow those rules to be a 'valid' game. You can have problems where, for example, you give a particular position and ask for how to get checkmate in, say, 3 moves. It is an abstract system.

In exactly the same way, we invent the rules for math and logic. Once those rules are decided, we call an argument 'valid' if it follows those rules. But whether those rules apply to any given situation is determined by testing and observation.

Even your example of E=mc^2 is a proposed *physical* link that needs to be tested to see if it is valid or not. In point of fact, it misses some subtleties; light doesn't obey this equation. Nor do masses in motion. For such we actually have E^2=m^2c^4 +p^2 c^2 where p is the momentum of the particle. This is true even for photons (light) because m=0 and E=pc.

So, your example actually proves my point: whether the abstract system is true for the real world is a matter of observation and testing. it is not automatic.

Finally, the fact that mathematics and logic follow from assumptions and rules of inference has absolutely nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a deity. We make the rules, we follow those rules and we do experiments to see if those rules apply to reality. Sometimes they do and sometimes they do not. It isn't nearly as automatic as you might think.

This was first noticed in math about 200 years ago when it was realized that geometry is NOT a priori, as everyone up t that point expected. Non-Euclidean geometry is just as consistent as ordinary geometry but with different assumptions and different conclusions. For example, in ordinary geometry, the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees. That is false for non-Euclidean geometry. Different assumptions lead to different conclusions.

In the same way, there are number systems where 5 is not prime, or where 1+1=0, or where you get different results depending on the order of multiplication. All of these are internally consistent and are just as good as 'ordinary' arithmetic. Many are even useful for understanding the real world.

Even logic has variances. There are versions of logic where the law of excluded middle fails; where propositions do not have to be either true or false; etc. Once again, different assumptions lead to different conclusions. Whether any particular collection of assumptions is useful or not for understanding the real world is a matter of testing and observation.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174930
Aug 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
I meant it in a very literal and precise sense: we invent the rules of chess.
Which involves intelligence. The game starts with an idea and a purpose. It is not random. So i don't really know what your point is here as it relates to your conclusions since you do not allow for intelligence.
In exactly the same way, we invent the rules for math and logic.
We cannot invent what was already there. They are discovered. The universe is intelligible and points to a source. That source is what we call God. I have no comment on the rest of your post.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

420 Users are viewing the Top Stories Forum right now

Search the Top Stories Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 10 min It aint necessarily so 720,131
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 11 min RoSesz 532,394
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 12 min Catcher1 172,248
What Your Church Won't Tell You by Dave and Gar... (Apr '10) 12 min End of Church Ages 32,919
American Soldiers - Duty, Honor, Country (Jun '11) 25 min HasbhaRAT Trolls Biffers 37,597
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 30 min HasbhaRAT Trolls Biffers 114,973
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 40 min Dr_Zorderz 256,380
Game of Thrones Ebook Download Free [PDF] (Feb '13) 4 hr John 53
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••