Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258473 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.

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#176358 Sep 4, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Before 150 years ago , everyone in the west was christian, So what?
Not really. Were quite a few Jews around. Even atheists. They took over France. Some Pagans were scattered here and there. All sorts of weird cults and spiritualists.

You need to expand your historical perspective. You are way too topical. Comic books will warp your head like that.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#176360 Sep 4, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Well we artificially do this and even colder.
http://www.livescience.com/25959-atoms-colder...
But I was referring to the natural ground state of the universe
is 2.7 degrees above Absolute zero.
Well, that's the temp of the background radiation.

But I believe the universe can, and will, eventually get colder, if current models are accurate.

It will approach, but never reach, absolute zero trillions of years from now.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#176361 Sep 4, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
Which includes you. I remember your interpretation of the Genesis account where you say the ancients believed there was a bowl in the sky supported on pillars. You sleazed out of answering my question about the stars giving light. If there was a bowl why the stars? The bowl would have blocked the light. The interpretation is moronic but what can one expect from Topix atheists.
Sorry, I thought you might be smart enough or resourceful enough to figure it out on your own.

The viewpoint was that the stars were small hols in the bowl letting through the light from the other side. That was the standard explanation for stars until the middle ages. They were wrong.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#176362 Sep 4, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
"There was no knowledge of physics, chemistry, medicine, anatomy, or many other basic subjects. Their view of the universe had the earth at the center with the sun, planets, and stars moving around it. They believed different rules applied above the moon (the heavens) than what applied below (the earth)."
They only had several thousand years of observing nature and living experience like we do. The difference was they didn't have the centralized education system to "educate" everyone to the same belief. How unscientific.
No, the difference is that they did not have telescopes. A simple look at Jupiter and its moons or of the phases of Venus would have put the Ptolemaic system to rest.
Modern science still puts the earth at the center. All judgment of how the universe works is based upon how matter seems(uncertainty principle?) works here. Very scientific.
Not at all. We can *test* that the properties of matter we measure here are the same as the properties of matter in other places. The uncertainty principle, for example, is shown to work in other places through spectral measurements (which shows the size of hydrogen atoms in other locations and that is based on the uncertainty principle).

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#176363 Sep 4, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
The same applies to electricity and the measurements made since by physics. BTW, most of that was initiated by a devout Christian named Michael Faraday. Which of course means it was part of a Christian conspiracy for world dominance and enslaving of you. It is all lies. You can prove it. Get two long nails, take a shower, don't dry off, then with a nail in each hand, stick them into your nearest wall socket. The truth will set you free. Come back and tell us about it.
And how did Christianity predict anything the Faraday discovered? How was it supported by anything he discovered?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#176365 Sep 4, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Horseshit. They had brains and reasoning and experience.
The use of telescopes means you are viewing and basing your observations on how light is filtered through some matter, such as glass. There is a fixed geometry to those materials, so you will see only what they can filter, and in a pattern limited by the atomic geometry and grinding geometry. Your determinations of physics and cosmology is based upon assumptions in manipulating that geometry.
I will guarantee you that in those thousands of years someone noted the optical properties of drops of dew on a plant, or the glass that has been made and blown. Or of the camera obscura principle.
Just because you are dumb doesn't mean they were dumber.
And yet they never managed to make a telescope. The magnification of dew drops was noted, yes. The refractive properties of water was even investigated by al Haytham during the middle ages. Simple lenses were used for correcting vision. But it wasn't until much later that a telescope was invented and even later that it was used to look at the sky.

Aristotle mentioned the use of a device essentially a camera obscura to view solar eclipses. There were many that observed and investigated the geometry of this device over several centuries. Al Haytham (again) was the first to show that the camera obscura projects *everything* on the outside to the image inside. He did this by using several lamps and was the first to project a full image (as opposed to simply the image of a candle flame, for example).

The ancients were often very intelligent. But they did not yet know the techniques we have today (partly because of their work, mind you). many things we take for granted were simply not known until they were investigated. And that was not done all at the beginning of civilization. It took time and devotion and considerable work.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#176366 Sep 4, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, that's the temp of the background radiation.
But I believe the universe can, and will, eventually get colder, if current models are accurate.
It will approach, but never reach, absolute zero trillions of years from now.
It is essentially the temperature of empty space, of course it isn't completely empty. Yes after all matter and energy has moved into infinity, and black holes evaporate it's adapt to get very very cold.
But for all we know it may just be a new aeon on the horizon.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#176367 Sep 4, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny Dave, seriously.
We know the exact figure really , you can chill something to 2.7 degrees above absolute zero, at that temperature you cannot remove the remaining kinetic energy of the atoms or particles.
That is the ground state of energy the lowest reduction possible , because to do so you would have to defeat the uncertainty principle and all known quantum effects.
As stated, this is wrong. The temperature of 2.7 K is that of the cosmic background radiation, but that has little to do with the issues of creating low temperatures in the lab (otherwise, we would have found this temperature *long* before we did). More relevant are the temperatures when various gases liquify and/or freeze. There are a large number of tricks used to achieve low temperatures, from simple evaporation (which reduces the energy in the left over material), to magnetic alignment, etc. It is a very specialized area of study, actually.

The issue is NOT quantum effects, for the most part. They arise in liquid helium, to be sure, but they are not the limiting factor for lower temperatures. instead, there are good thermodynamic considerations relating to the energy balances for low temperatures that come into importance. It is simply impossible to have high efficiency refrigerators at low temperatures putting energy into a high temperature environment (the lab).

And the 2.7 K is NOT, by far, the lowest energy level for anything in the lab. It is simply the cooled temperature of the background radiation which was a few thousand degrees when it decoupled from matter.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#176368 Sep 4, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Science was born by the end of the 17th century.
Since then we have learned......almost everything.
1608 The refracting telescope is invented.
1624 The slide rule, compound microscope is invented.
1636 The micrometer is invented.
1642 Adding machine is invented.
1643 barometer is invented.
1675 The Watch is invented.
It is easy to underestimate the amount of knowledge of how things work we had through experience with, say, forges and waterwheels. The Antikythera device shows that the ancient Greeks knew how to make precision machines with gears, but such devices never became common. There was even simple knowledge of heat engines, but they were used for toys partly because the metallurgy of the time didn't allow seams tight enough for large scale use and high pressures. Knowledge doesn't progress linearly.

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#176369 Sep 4, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet they never managed to make a telescope. The magnification of dew drops was noted, yes. The refractive properties of water was even investigated by al Haytham during the middle ages. Simple lenses were used for correcting vision. But it wasn't until much later that a telescope was invented and even later that it was used to look at the sky.
Aristotle mentioned the use of a device essentially a camera obscura to view solar eclipses. There were many that observed and investigated the geometry of this device over several centuries. Al Haytham (again) was the first to show that the camera obscura projects *everything* on the outside to the image inside. He did this by using several lamps and was the first to project a full image (as opposed to simply the image of a candle flame, for example).
The ancients were often very intelligent. But they did not yet know the techniques we have today (partly because of their work, mind you). many things we take for granted were simply not known until they were investigated. And that was not done all at the beginning of civilization. It took time and devotion and considerable work.
If simple corrective lenses were manufactured, there is no way someone didn't make a telescope or microscope just by experimenting a bit. Or using it to start fires.

Your bowl creating stars was camera obscura. After a fashion, that is how this world is created and maintained. The universe shapes the objects within it. We seem to be within the universe.

Your dependence on scholarship, following a trail left behind by written words, and the resultant narrow world view, has blinded you to the rest of reality.

As a stujent you are a mind undergoing training, and that training becomes your god. Once you get past the training and into real application and free thought, then you can put that training to use in quantifying as you develop an independent logic, translate it, and then insert it into that narrow world view to enlarge and expand it.

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#176370 Sep 4, 2013
This statement is not true. With religion, your faith is tested every day. God wants us to walk by faith and not by site. Bash atheism! https://praiseorbash.com/s/atheism

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#176371 Sep 4, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
If simple corrective lenses were manufactured, there is no way someone didn't make a telescope or microscope just by experimenting a bit. Or using it to start fires.
Yes, they did; eventually. That was what happened when the telescope *was* invented. A lens maker put two lenses together and noticed the effect.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#176372 Sep 4, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
As stated, this is wrong. The temperature of 2.7 K is that of the cosmic background radiation, but that has little to do with the issues of creating low temperatures in the lab (otherwise, we would have found this temperature *long* before we did). More relevant are the temperatures when various gases liquify and/or freeze. There are a large number of tricks used to achieve low temperatures, from simple evaporation (which reduces the energy in the left over material), to magnetic alignment, etc. It is a very specialized area of study, actually.
The issue is NOT quantum effects, for the most part. They arise in liquid helium, to be sure, but they are not the limiting factor for lower temperatures. instead, there are good thermodynamic considerations relating to the energy balances for low temperatures that come into importance. It is simply impossible to have high efficiency refrigerators at low temperatures putting energy into a high temperature environment (the lab).
And the 2.7 K is NOT, by far, the lowest energy level for anything in the lab. It is simply the cooled temperature of the background radiation which was a few thousand degrees when it decoupled from matter.

Again artificially it can be done, but in the functioning universe
it doesn't happen or at least not that we discovered.
I phrased it wrong though and know over a hundred years ago helium was taken down below that temperature. But it also does involve the uncertainty principle, because theoretically you have to remove all the atoms out of a space to achieve absolute zero.
But theoretically you cannot remove all the atoms out a given space because of it.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#176373 Sep 4, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
It is easy to underestimate the amount of knowledge of how things work we had through experience with, say, forges and waterwheels. The Antikythera device shows that the ancient Greeks knew how to make precision machines with gears, but such devices never became common. There was even simple knowledge of heat engines, but they were used for toys partly because the metallurgy of the time didn't allow seams tight enough for large scale use and high pressures. Knowledge doesn't progress linearly.
Still even though a few ancients were very far ahead of their time,
Leonardo, Archimedes etc. The way we are able to store and communicate knowledge makes the human knowledge factor no comparison. It was easy to lose and forget all great advances known in the destruction of a few places. Think of the stored information now. Home computers with 4 terabyte hd's is like a entire library of Alexandria in millions of places on the web.
Along with millions of websites, and millions of researchers with millions of schools and private corps. with information at the fingertips.

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#176374 Sep 4, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they did; eventually. That was what happened when the telescope *was* invented. A lens maker put two lenses together and noticed the effect.
"he oldest lens artifact is the Nimrud lens, dating back 2700 years to ancient Assyria.[3][4] David Brewster proposed that it may have been used as a magnifying glass, or as a burning-glass to start fires by concentrating sunlight.[3][5] Another early reference to magnification dates back to ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs in the 8th century BC, which depict "simple glass meniscal lenses"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_%28optics%2...

Sure took them a long time.

You think the more modern developers read those old books to get their knowledge?

http://www.instructables.com/id/Build-a-Pinho...

Bet there was something like that around in the old days, too.

If you ever meet your ancestors expect to get scolded real bad about you calling them so stupid.

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#176375 Sep 4, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Still even though a few ancients were very far ahead of their time,
Leonardo, Archimedes etc. The way we are able to store and communicate knowledge makes the human knowledge factor no comparison. It was easy to lose and forget all great advances known in the destruction of a few places. Think of the stored information now. Home computers with 4 terabyte hd's is like a entire library of Alexandria in millions of places on the web.
Along with millions of websites, and millions of researchers with millions of schools and private corps. with information at the fingertips.
Takes more brains than a Topix atheist has to put all of that info in a coherent manner and learn something.

Since: Sep 08

Lamar, CO

#176376 Sep 4, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Again artificially it can be done, but in the functioning universe
it doesn't happen or at least not that we discovered.
I phrased it wrong though and know over a hundred years ago helium was taken down below that temperature. But it also does involve the uncertainty principle, because theoretically you have to remove all the atoms out of a space to achieve absolute zero.
But theoretically you cannot remove all the atoms out a given space because of it.
You can if you polarize them and give them a place to go. Polarizing is the direction of spin. You give a path for those vortexes to follow and join. Think black hole. But it won't last. The void will be filled by the strain it puts on surrounding material, decomposing them until a balance is met.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176377 Sep 4, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Cite reference to what program, or scientist who said that.
We all know some scientists believe, but more often than not the scientist's words are twisted around or used out of context by creationists to support their own belief.
So you saying the above has very little value, or meaning without showing their words and not yours.. but I can tell you this. That very little physicists or cosmologists believe in god the way you think of a god. Some may make reference to "god" meaning anything beyond human understanding at the present, but you can count the percentage of believers with one hand when it comes to the hard sciences and belief in you bible god.
I don't have a Bible and never claimed to. The tread does read "Atheism require as much faith as religion" If you are not up to that standard, you should not post here at all.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#176378 Sep 4, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You can if you polarize them and give them a place to go. Polarizing is the direction of spin. You give a path for those vortexes to follow and join. Think black hole. But it won't last. The void will be filled by the strain it puts on surrounding material, decomposing them until a balance is met.
Inside of a black hole is essentially outside the universe.
The parts of a black hole that are in this universe are heated to millions of degrees. But we still don't really know what is going on inside them. But we do know those gamma rays bursts, that come out of them, are millions of degrees also.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#176379 Sep 4, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
If there is a creator then it is certainly possible that they may have planned it that way. I, myself, doubt that...but it is simply because I do not have a belief in a "god". However, if you are correct in your belief, then I actually do hope that you get to see the second coming, and then there will be no doubt on the rights and wrongs of creation ;)
I not only believe in God or Gods, I believe in two styles of Gods.

1. The real McCoy. This is a style that does not need worshipers. Such a sort not only is in your DNA it makes adjustments. Example black American people are often afraid of dogs by nature. The Lynch Farm and other slave handlers used dogs to punish. The grand child of a victim of this abuse will avoid and possible fear dogs. There could be more than one creator/protector God. I believe Earth is a God. Or at the very least a higher form of life. Let's not leave out a good chance we were created by Extra Terrestrials. I think we are most likely a computer simulation.

2. Gods we create. The human mind is that powerful, in my opinion. I believe the power of believe has made Jesus a power that does answer prayers.

In my opinion it is clear the frequently posting online Atheist does believe in the power of the human mind also. To spread Atheism, you have to be a hater. I do respect an atheist, that just doubts. No effort to convert others. For someone like that to claim they have no faith, I would say true. Id you try to deliver anything as an answer, you have faith.

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 38 min Russian Amb Grope... 2,630
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 4 hr Trump Worshiper 119,219
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 hr Trump Worshiper 679,164
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 4 hr earthly science f... 445,839
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 4 hr Holy Jehowa Witness 46,214
What Your Church Won't Tell You by Dave and Gar... (Apr '10) 4 hr Trumps worshiper 33,216
Melania Trump's hair shines in Saudi sun 4 hr Trumps worshiper 5
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) Thu UMAKEWORLDPEACEUM... 982,141
More from around the web