Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 244720 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

Westcliffe, CO

#177170 Sep 12, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is a good start. The next level comes when you start to *test* your ideas to see whether they work to predict new events. By repeated testing while attempting to prove your ideas *wrong*, you can gain more confidence that they are *right*. This is an ongoing process and is the basis of the scientific method.
<quoted text>
Most atheists don't claim an *absolute* knowledge. They do claim that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate the existence of deities.
The evidence is just insufficient. There is nothing it to say what did the creating. All it is doing is identifying a methodology and building blocks used in the construction.

It takes faith to believe there wasn't a creator out of the possibilities of how this all began, which is an assertion, and which is not objective, and not scientific.

Criticizing old religious texts because of their age and terminologies is poor research. The same can be said for 20 year old science texts. If the old one was wrong, then so is the new. You meld it all together and take another look.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#177171 Sep 12, 2013
every game wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the ugly behavior of the typical unfriendly atheist.
"Did you know that you just admitted that God exists, albeit with a statement of a lie in doing so, but it is wonderful to see you contradict yourself and all of your unfriendly atheist cohorts."

This from you in a previous post. I responded with evidence, still haven't seen that you're brave enough to engage me. Do we Atheists scare you that much?

I made a claim that the God YOU worship murders little babies and destroys unborn fetuses, you accused me of lying, do you still believe I am lying? If so, I would be more than happy to provide the proof for my accusations against the God YOU worship.

Personally I think you're afraid of Atheists, I can see no other reason why you would avoid engaging me in conversation. Don't be afraid, I won't bite......much!!!! Quit being a Cowardly Christian, step up and defend your God thing, they say he is watching your every move and will be very disappointed if you let accusation like this go unchallenged. I'll wait!!!
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#177172 Sep 12, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice quote... who said it?
:)
Not sure Bob, I remember thinking it was a very nice quote and wrote it down. Very true isn't it!!!
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#177173 Sep 12, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
Testing atheism and come up with the usual emotional dodges, mumbo jumbo, and amusing posts
Says the "one sentence" wonder who refuses to engage in any argument, or meaningful dialog, primarily because the logic, reason, and critical thinking of Atheists scares him.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#177174 Sep 12, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't your electrons elementary particles?
Yes.
Do you not have to go through them to get to a nucleus?
A strange question. No, you do not go through an electron. You go through the probability cloud of the electrons. That is similar to going through the orbits of planets as we approach the sun, but not going through the planets themselves. Further, something interact more strongly with electrons than others. Neutrons, for example, don't interact strongly, so they go through the electron cloud easier than, say, protons do.
Doesn't the nucleus tend to unwind or decay, or transform charges if those electrons are removed?
Not usually, no. A stable nucleus won't become unstable because the electrons are removed. Some unstable nuclei will become stable when they are removed (because they decay by electron capture).
Sort of like the center of a whirlpool when the pressure is taken off?
Nope, not at all.
Can you not move a pound of the strong forces within a nucleus anywhere you want with a strong enough magnetic field, or electrical charge?
You can move the protons and neutrons. But that isn't the same as moving the strong forces themselves. As asked, the answer is no, you cannot.
Your quantum effects are caused by waves.
The particles are described by probability waves.
EM and gravity are the only known forces to carry these across the universe, and gravity is arguable on that.
Well, except for the actual particles traveling, like for cosmic rays.
The expansion of the universe indicates there is still power hooked up. Otherwise your gravity wouldn't let it.
Huh? Why would you think that? The mere expansion is understandable by having an initial velocity at the beginning. The acceleration of the expansion is understandable via the cosmological constant. Both are squarely in the laws of gravity (i.e, general relativity). No 'power source' is required from 'outside'.
Thinking

UK

#177175 Sep 12, 2013
Did you see that Lincock has claimed to be Irish?

WTFuck?!

All the Irish people I know can write.
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>One has doubts about your ability to test gravity by standing under a falling anvil.
LCNLin

United States

#177176 Sep 12, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Not sure Bob, I remember thinking it was a very nice quote and wrote it down. Very true isn't it!!!
similar to the rest of your posts?
You and Bob are a funny team!
LCNLin

United States

#177177 Sep 12, 2013
Are they Christians making fun of Atheism?

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#177178 Sep 12, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
<quoted text>
A strange question. No, you do not go through an electron. You go through the probability cloud of the electrons. That is similar to going through the orbits of planets as we approach the sun, but not going through the planets themselves. Further, something interact more strongly with electrons than others. Neutrons, for example, don't interact strongly, so they go through the electron cloud easier than, say, protons do.
<quoted text>
Not usually, no. A stable nucleus won't become unstable because the electrons are removed. Some unstable nuclei will become stable when they are removed (because they decay by electron capture).
<quoted text>
Nope, not at all.
<quoted text>
You can move the protons and neutrons. But that isn't the same as moving the strong forces themselves. As asked, the answer is no, you cannot.
<quoted text>
The particles are described by probability waves.
<quoted text>
Well, except for the actual particles traveling, like for cosmic rays.
<quoted text>
Huh? Why would you think that? The mere expansion is understandable by having an initial velocity at the beginning. The acceleration of the expansion is understandable via the cosmological constant. Both are squarely in the laws of gravity (i.e, general relativity). No 'power source' is required from 'outside'.
What color is a probability wave? The color of graphite?

If the electrons form a cloud from motion then you have that wake thing I have referred to. You have a field generated around the nucleus that any particle or adjacent field will have to navigate or deal with, and it is what enables pressure, like a bubble skin. Our "solidity". Why would you ever think I was referring to going "through" an elementary particle?

Take away that bubble and you open the nucleus up to nearby influences that were mitigated by it. The nucleus starts coming apart, and at the least makes it very susceptible to other electron clouds and charges. The EM charge held everything inside in place. Do not forget the EM field was shared among those nuclear particles. I believe your neutron will turn into other particles, including electrons. That is because things ain't so neutral anymore when that EM cloud is gone. You can trace this same sort of process out using magnetic fields and magnets.

You move the protons and neutron and you move the strong forces holding them together. They are very, very local. The strong force does not sit on a throne, Poly. It is just an effect within the nucleus.

You need to start understanding what you know. Get a picture of what is happening.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#177179 Sep 12, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
<quoted text>
A strange question. No, you do not go through an electron. You go through the probability cloud of the electrons. That is similar to going through the orbits of planets as we approach the sun, but not going through the planets themselves. Further, something interact more strongly with electrons than others. Neutrons, for example, don't interact strongly, so they go through the electron cloud easier than, say, protons do.
<quoted text>
Not usually, no. A stable nucleus won't become unstable because the electrons are removed. Some unstable nuclei will become stable when they are removed (because they decay by electron capture).
<quoted text>
Nope, not at all.
<quoted text>
You can move the protons and neutrons. But that isn't the same as moving the strong forces themselves. As asked, the answer is no, you cannot.
<quoted text>
The particles are described by probability waves.
<quoted text>
Well, except for the actual particles traveling, like for cosmic rays.
<quoted text>
Huh? Why would you think that? The mere expansion is understandable by having an initial velocity at the beginning. The acceleration of the expansion is understandable via the cosmological constant. Both are squarely in the laws of gravity (i.e, general relativity). No 'power source' is required from 'outside'.
"Huh? Why would you think that? The mere expansion is understandable by having an initial velocity at the beginning. The acceleration of the expansion is understandable via the cosmological constant. Both are squarely in the laws of gravity (i.e, general relativity). No 'power source' is required from 'outside'."

That is vague.

Your initial velocity started bouncing off the walls. Straight paths became bank shots and curved.

As the center expanded outwards it had to push a lot with it. The stuff between the leading edge of the expansion and the core where it all started. All of that stuff made up the mass of today. The expansion produces a stretching on that core, also. You have a push and a pull. You have a single object, mass, volume,or whatever you want to call it that grew rather exponentially, likened to a mass turning into a vacuum.

Modern physics says it started as a singularity, or particle, not me. You have to account for that volume change and how it can happen based upon known physics. It can't happen with a pencil.

Dark energy and mass is the latest theory on the expansion.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#177180 Sep 12, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Did you see that Lincock has claimed to be Irish?
WTFuck?!
All the Irish people I know can write.
<quoted text>
I had not seen that.

I hereby excommunicate, expatriate and transfenestrate him.

Were he ever Irish, he is so no longer.
xianity is EVIL

Windsor, Canada

#177181 Sep 12, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
<quoted text>
similar to the rest of your posts?
You and Bob are a funny team!
YOU and the kristains are however a SAD team and pathetic excuse for a human!

LLL

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#177182 Sep 12, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
What color is a probability wave? The color of graphite?
Color is an attribute of EM waves. Probability waves are not EM waves. You can, if you want, speak of frequencies and wavelengths for probability waves, but most real waves are combinations of several different frequencies.
If the electrons form a cloud from motion then you have that wake thing I have referred to.
No. No wake. The electrons are not moving through the cloud. The cloud describes the probability distribution of the electrons.
You have a field generated around the nucleus that any particle or adjacent field will have to navigate or deal with, and it is what enables pressure, like a bubble skin. Our "solidity". Why would you ever think I was referring to going "through" an elementary particle?
That was the language you used. One thing you have top learn is to use precise language when talking about these things.

The electron cloud surrounding the nucleus will repel other electron clouds that come close and *that* is what produces the 'solidity' of macroscopic objects. Objects that are not repelled by electrons (such as neutrons) have no problem going through the electron cloud.
Take away that bubble and you open the nucleus up to nearby influences that were mitigated by it.
Nope. The repulsion of protons in different nuclei is a much more important effect than the electron cloud in keeping nuclei from interacting. And we weren't talking about interacting nuclei, but stability of an individual nucleus. Removing the electrons from around a nucleus will not affect the stability of that nucleus (except, as I said, if the nucleus was prone to electron capture, in which case, the nucleus becomes *more* stable).
The nucleus starts coming apart, and at the least makes it very susceptible to other electron clouds and charges.
Simply wrong. If you take a nucleus of, say, an iron atom and remove all the electrons from around it, that nucleus is no more prone to 'come apart'. This is actually something that people do and measure. You are simply wrong here.

If you take an atom with an unstable nucleus (say, uranium) and remove the electrons, the nucleus is no more likely to decay than it was when the electrons were around it. Again, this is something we can actually do and measure.
The EM charge held everything inside in place.
Again, wrong. The EM force in a nucleus is actually the main force driving it apart (those protons are all positively charged and will repel each other via EM). What keeps the nucleus together is the strong nuclear force, which is quite different in many ways from the EM force.
Do not forget the EM field was shared among those nuclear particles.[QUOTE]
And that EM force is primarily repulsive in a nucleus.

[QUOTE] I believe your neutron will turn into other particles, including electrons. That is because things ain't so neutral anymore when that EM cloud is gone.
Yes, the nucleus alone will be positively charged. But the repulsion from the EM force is countered by the attraction of the strong force. Whether or not there are electrons in orbit is irrelevant to the balance of forces.
You move the protons and neutron and you move the strong forces holding them together. They are very, very local. The strong force does not sit on a throne, Poly. It is just an effect within the nucleus.
The strong force is a force between the nucleons (protons and neutrons).
You need to start understanding what you know. Get a picture of what is happening.
I do understand what I know here. and I understand that you do NOT know anything about these things.
xianity is EVIL

Windsor, Canada

#177183 Sep 12, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
Are they Christians making fun of Atheism?
JESUS: Luke 14:26, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters yes, even his own life he cannot be my disciple."
Thinking

UK

#177184 Sep 12, 2013
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

He can never be Pat again, thanks to you.
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>I had not seen that.
I hereby excommunicate, expatriate and transfenestrate him.
Were he ever Irish, he is so no longer.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#177185 Sep 12, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
"Huh? Why would you think that? The mere expansion is understandable by having an initial velocity at the beginning. The acceleration of the expansion is understandable via the cosmological constant. Both are squarely in the laws of gravity (i.e, general relativity). No 'power source' is required from 'outside'."
That is vague.
I can be a lot less vague if you allow some mathematics.
Your initial velocity started bouncing off the walls. Straight paths became bank shots and curved.
huh? there were no walls.
As the center expanded outwards it had to push a lot with it. The stuff between the leading edge of the expansion and the core where it all started.
This shows a complete lack of understanding of what the Big Bang model says. There is no 'leading edge'. The expansion literally happens throughout space. There is no 'core'. All points of space 'look' the same.

Your l;ack of understanding of what the model says makes your further comments meaningless. They are based on a faulty understanding of the physics.
All of that stuff made up the mass of today. The expansion produces a stretching on that core, also.
No core.
You have a push and a pull. You have a single object, mass, volume,or whatever you want to call it that grew rather exponentially, likened to a mass turning into a vacuum.
Nope, no single 'object' that grew.
Modern physics says it started as a singularity, or particle, not me.
The singularity is not a particle. Your lack of understanding of what modern physics says is the issue.
You have to account for that volume change and how it can happen based upon known physics. It can't happen with a pencil.
It *is* based on known physics. In particular, it is based on general relativity, which is the modern description of gravity.
Dark energy and mass is the latest theory on the expansion.
As supported by the data.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#177187 Sep 12, 2013
followerofSatan wrote:
<quoted text>
idiotic fundie extrapolation .....matter/energy existed as a singularity before the Big Bang....your little presentation skipped over that little detail....back to the drawing board and remember, never too late to get an education....
Excuse me, I did not make that response. Professor Stephan Hawking Cambridge University argumentatively The World's Smartest man gave you that 1 minute and 50 second response. If you were not so stupid you would feel stupid, after saying what you did.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#177188 Sep 12, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes... we know you have zero counter-argument here.
My point is valid: religion is the **opposite** of science.
Science seeks to **understand** the universe.
Religion seeks to re-fabricate it in it's wish-fulfillment image-- and will **deny** any and all facts that contradict religion's claims.
The two cannot co-exist peacefully-- religion will **always** be forced to **deny** science, as science proves over and over, that religion is just a big lie.
That is because your statement is too stupid to be worthy of a response. The fact you go on, is the difference between you being an idiot, and being a stubborn idiot.

“Robert Stevens”

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#177189 Sep 12, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Is anything in the above provable or an actual... argument?
No?
Interesting.
The only thing that has been provable in this tread is your third grade reading comprehension if that. I would love to see how much spell check saves you. After noting your failed reading comprehension I should expect something as stupid as "Religion has never had any interest in science."

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#177190 Sep 12, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I can be a lot less vague if you allow some mathematics.
<quoted text>
huh? there were no walls.
<quoted text>
This shows a complete lack of understanding of what the Big Bang model says. There is no 'leading edge'. The expansion literally happens throughout space. There is no 'core'. All points of space 'look' the same.
Your l;ack of understanding of what the model says makes your further comments meaningless. They are based on a faulty understanding of the physics.
<quoted text>
No core.
<quoted text>
Nope, no single 'object' that grew.
<quoted text>
The singularity is not a particle. Your lack of understanding of what modern physics says is the issue.
<quoted text>
It *is* based on known physics. In particular, it is based on general relativity, which is the modern description of gravity.
<quoted text>
As supported by the data.
" It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across."

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.h...

That's NASA, not Polymath.

So how did you get from a volume of millimeters to billions of light years in a flash without a leading edge? Other than magic.

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
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 9 min MUQ2 40,855
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 34 min Great Day of Arma... 612,892
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 36 min June VanDerMark 599,401
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 42 min dollarsbill 6,376
How To recover deleted notes on iphone 4/4S/5? (Mar '13) 1 hr doyleleighty 71
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr scaritual 863,884
There is Everything Wrong with Abortion (Nov '07) 1 hr Grunt56 221,979
The Christian Atheist debate 3 hr Critical Eye 1,927
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 4 hr Charlie Sheen 272,402
More from around the web