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: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#175263 Aug 23, 2013
xianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
thats God punishing you Davyboy!
isnt he just Awesome!!!
Praise da Lawd!!
LLL
:-)

I see your memory has issues, also, forgetting to add the rest to that quote.

What is truly awesome is your still being able to breathe considering the mental faculties available to you. Oh, you have a friend nearby letting you know when? How nice. God looks out and provides for people like you. Praise God!

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#175264 Aug 23, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
The question I have to ask that is off topic, is. How do you call yourself Quantum Bob. I give you the theories of alternate existences and you have the opinion you do. I know you'll spin this some backwards way as you all ways do. Quantum physics is the greatest proof of a creator. How or why you spin it is beyond me.
It is simple. He doesn't understand what he "knows". But that doesn't stop him. His first lesson in life was if you can't dazzle with brilliance, then baffle with BS. Has served him well.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#175265 Aug 23, 2013
spudgun wrote:
<quoted text>
Because of this, many theists have beliefs which are more akin to deists. They know, but often won't admit, that religion is nonsense, because more often than not, people are indoctrinated into a particular religion from birth.
If only they were more honest.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#175266 Aug 23, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
I never claimed I could produce evidence. My statement is clear and simple. For Atheism not to require faith, and furthermore not be a belief. The origin of The Universe would have to be proven, and proven that there is no creator. This would only happen when the human race knows everything. That's not happening. It comes down to what you believe is the greatest likelihood. I believe that is a case by case basis. Face it you faith should not be spread. Every time you do it, you prove you are a person of religion. I see no reason to spread my beliefs. I could offer books to read. I doubt you would enjoy them. They just are not for you. I accept you do know yourself, why do you have a hard time with all of humanity knowing themselves? I think that answer is obvious, and I don't need to hear it. Now could you get back on topic.
1. You claimed that the default position should be one of creation. Here you do not answer my request for evidence.

2. You write "Face it you faith should not be spread." I have no idea what you mean. That's not a sentence.

3. You write "I accept you do know yourself, why do you have a hard time with all of humanity knowing themselves?"

Huh? Clearly you do not read what I write. If you do, you take wildly different meanings from it than everyone else who reads me.

“Get it right”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#175267 Aug 23, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing in the above godswill?
ADDRESSES A SINGLE ONE OF MY POINTS, BELOW:
Quantum mechanics proves beyond any doubts, that an omniscient god cannot exist within the present universe.
Period.
That proves to 100% that your god isn't real.
But it's worse: the theory of relativity--well tested-- also proves beyond any doubts that an omniscient god is impossible in the present universe.
That's two.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle? That's 3 proofs you cannot have an all-knowing god in the universe.
That's three-- there's more.
...or, perhaps, three proofs that if there is an omniscient God then we would not be able to explain how it could possibly be omniscient.

I would posit that "proves beyong any doubts" is not entirely accurate either. Even if you worded it 'reasonable doubts' I don't think it would be completely accurate.
xianity is EVIL

Tecumseh, Canada

#175268 Aug 23, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
The question I have to ask that is off topic, is. How do you call yourself Quantum Bob. I give you the theories of alternate existences and you have the opinion you do. I know you'll spin this some backwards way as you all ways do. Quantum physics is the greatest proof of a creator. How or why you spin it is beyond me.
Im starting to think youre mentaly retarded,or on some hard drugs,your posts are total nonsense.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#175269 Aug 23, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
It is simple. He doesn't understand what he "knows". But that doesn't stop him. His first lesson in life was if you can't dazzle with brilliance, then baffle with BS. Has served him well.
He does take his bull shit too seriously, but that may be all he has.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#175270 Aug 23, 2013
xianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
Im starting to think youre mentaly retarded,or on some hard drugs,your posts are total nonsense.
To be honest with you, I think the average online atheist is a 400 plus pound person that just lives to post online and eat. How they afford I. Only in America. Just imagine why you and you gang do this people are working themselves to death to fed their families.

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#175271 Aug 23, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
To be honest with you, I think the average online atheist is a 400 plus pound person that just lives to post online and eat. How they afford I. Only in America. Just imagine why you and you gang do this people are working themselves to death to fed their families.
I've laughed till my balls hurt! thanks Robert

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#175272 Aug 23, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
Quantum physics is the greatest proof of a creator.
Would you care to supply details to this claim?
How or why you spin it is beyond me.
The truth is beyond you.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#175274 Aug 23, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
He does take his bull shit too seriously, but that may be all he has.
It is nourishing to him.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#175276 Aug 23, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you care to supply details to this claim?
<quoted text>
The truth is beyond you.
You don't get waves unless you have a container.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#175278 Aug 23, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
The question I have to ask that is off topic, is. How do you call yourself Quantum Bob.
Quaalude Bob. Poly's insignificant other.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#175279 Aug 23, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't get waves unless you have a container.
Quantum physics is the calculation of statistical probability that something will be in position x at a specific point in space and time. Einstein didn't like this notion, thinking prediction could be nailed in exacts. He was wrong. You have a wave that is in every position and in some positions not even measurable , until you measure it, and pinpoint the location at a specific point in space and time.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#175280 Aug 23, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Quantum physics is the calculation of statistical probability that something will be in position x at a specific point in space and time. Einstein didn't like this notion, thinking prediction could be nailed in exacts. He was wrong. You have a wave that is in every position and in some positions not even measurable , until you measure it, and pinpoint the location at a specific point in space and time.


And?

One more time.

You don't have waves unless you have a container. I should have added you also need a lesser density available for the waves to even form. The difference between a fully enclosed and totally filled container versus a dish.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#175281 Aug 23, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
And?
One more time.
You don't have waves unless you have a container. I should have added you also need a lesser density available for the waves to even form. The difference between a fully enclosed and totally filled container versus a dish.
Containers and dishes have nothing to do with it.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#175282 Aug 23, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you care to supply details to this claim?
<quoted text>
The truth is beyond you.
I just ain't wasting my time like that. I know I have seen enough TV Shows on Quantum physics to make the statement I have. Because you deny or state something does not make it the truth. You are the classic "I know everything person" and you bare that burden.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#175283 Aug 23, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Containers and dishes have nothing to do with it.
Uh huh.

Tell us how you get waves in the Greater Universe. Maybe more on this position thing without waves.

Aura, a wave is a moving displacement. If you have nothing to stop it, it just wanders off to out of sight. If it is traveling at light speed away, you aren't going to see it.

There are a bunch of questions that could be asked about those terms and definitions and determinations. Something oddly circular about them.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#175284 Aug 23, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
I just ain't wasting my time like that. I know I have seen enough TV Shows on Quantum physics to make the statement I have. Because you deny or state something does not make it the truth. You are the classic "I know everything person" and you bare that burden.
Sorry, but watching popularizations on TV just doesn't cut it when discussing QM. Most are so watered down as to be silly. Others are simply wrong in particulars.

I certainly don't know everything, but I do know my subjects: math and physics. If you want references to refereed papers, I can give them.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#175285 Aug 23, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh huh.
Tell us how you get waves in the Greater Universe. Maybe more on this position thing without waves.
Aura, a wave is a moving displacement. If you have nothing to stop it, it just wanders off to out of sight. If it is traveling at light speed away, you aren't going to see it.
There are a bunch of questions that could be asked about those terms and definitions and determinations. Something oddly circular about them.
No,,,but there is something odd about them... yes .

It is the fact that you cannot pinpoint them exactly, because they are everywhere AT THE SAME TIME., but if you force pinpointing a location you can find it being at a place or position x at a probabilistic point in space/time. Another words it is likely to be there by numerical odds at a given time and position.

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) 3 min BenAdam 795,594
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min Tony17 568,285
Scientific proof for God's existence 43 min BenAdam 589
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 46 min bad bob 175,867
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 51 min Black Thunder 42 607,213
first gay experience? 1 hr christelnkoma 4
Panelvan 1 hr amcat 1
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr WasteWater 267,462
More from around the web