"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

Jan 22, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Examiner.com

It is fascinating to note that atheists boast that most scientists are atheists.

Comments (Page 590)

Showing posts 11,781 - 11,800 of13,521
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
KJV

Sioux City, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12105
Aug 2, 2012
 
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>No it's not. See below. And what do you want proven?

KJV wrote, "Atheist: Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities."

What don't you understand about that? I'm sure willing to help.
You believe there is no God but you have no proof. Therefore Atheism is a Faith based religion.
KJV

Sioux City, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12106
Aug 2, 2012
 
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>In it's broadest sense, an atheist is someone who doesn't give a flying f**k what you think.
Another lie.

Atheism is: Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10]

Does not say anything like what you said. "In it's broadest sense, an atheist is someone who doesn't give a flying f**k what you think"
KJV

Sioux City, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12107
Aug 2, 2012
 
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>Why don't you go find a faith-based atheist before running off at the mouth?

I imagine most atheist feel your supersitious mumbo jumbo is just a waste of time. Seriously, how much time do you waste every day not believing in leprechauns?
"Why don't you go find a faith-based atheist before running off at the mouth?"

All atheist are faith based. You believe (Faith) that there is no God.(where there is no proof of no God) a believe with out proof by definition is Faith based.
KJV

Sioux City, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12108
Aug 2, 2012
 
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>God isn't real. Its a fact. if you think god it real, you need to prove it. If you've already seen the science and haven't bothered to understand it, you're a liar who is lying about god to other people, knowing full well that god is scientifically (reality) impossible.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is being intellectually lazy and ignorant.
"God isn't real. Its a fact."

This of course is a lie and unprovable.

Idiots make these ridicules claims and we simple brush them aside.

“Fortes Fortuna Juvat, ”

Since: Dec 09

Wichita. Ks.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12109
Aug 2, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
You believe there is no God but you have no proof. Therefore Atheism is a Faith based religion.
So if anything that I do not believe is by your perception a religion?
KJV

Sioux City, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12110
Aug 2, 2012
 
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text>Thus speaketh the pope and grand inquisitor of atheism. He speaks for the atheist faith - just ask him! he knows things. he does not need to prove anything. other people do. he doesn't. He would tell God that God isn't real, if he met God if God existed. If i met a creator God, I'd complain about the things wrong in the world. If Skeptic met a creator God, he would tell it that it did not exist.
You will get your chance.

“Fortes Fortuna Juvat, ”

Since: Dec 09

Wichita. Ks.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12111
Aug 2, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Why don't you go find a faith-based atheist before running off at the mouth?"
All atheist are faith based. You believe (Faith) that there is no God.(where there is no proof of no God) a believe with out proof by definition is Faith based.
No, I do not have faith in that. I just do not believe in that.
KJV

Sioux City, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12112
Aug 2, 2012
 
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>I'll believe NASA, the people who took us to the moon over some two-bit armchair "scientist" who can't even get his units right..or bring himself to understand quantum
The new Religion founded by Skeptic

"I'll believe NASA"

NASA the almighty!

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12113
Aug 2, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Why don't you go find a faith-based atheist before running off at the mouth?"
All atheist are faith based. You believe (Faith) that there is no God.(where there is no proof of no God) a believe with out proof by definition is Faith based.
Is I don't give a flying f**k what you think a faith based religion?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12114
Aug 2, 2012
 
Very Cynical Person wrote:
<quoted text>
So if anything that I do not believe is by your perception a religion?
I believe in the Papua New Guinean Mud God Pikkiwok. I know He exists because I saw the shrunken heads at the Museum of Natural History. Proof positive.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12115
Aug 2, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Why don't you go find a faith-based atheist before running off at the mouth?"
All atheist are faith based. You believe (Faith) that there is no God.(where there is no proof of no God) a believe with out proof by definition is Faith based.
Easter Bunny
Magic Pumpkin
Little Red Riding Hood
Merlin
Loki
Gandalf
Fred Phelps
Tinkerbell
Mister Ed
Cold fusion
Rumpelstiltskin
Beer
Pantagruel
Global warming
Romulus and Remus
Willy Wonka
Batgirl
Pinocchio

With all those religions you're practicing, where do you find the time to not believe in atheism, homosexuality, science, and Catholicism?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12116
Aug 2, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Why don't you go find a faith-based atheist before running off at the mouth?"
All atheist are faith based. You believe (Faith) that there is no God.(where there is no proof of no God) a believe with out proof by definition is Faith based.
And yet in your post just before this one you said that atheism was, and I quote "Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." You further clarified that "Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists."

And now you say that the "absence of belief" is a belief.

You really need to work on your critical thinking skills. I hope you don't go to school in Texas.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12117
Aug 2, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"God isn't real. Its a fact."
This of course is a lie and unprovable.
Idiots make these ridicules claims and we simple brush them aside.
So the polytheistic gods Shiva, Vishnu, & Brahama are real?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12118
Aug 2, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Why don't you go find a faith-based atheist before running off at the mouth?"
All atheist are faith based. You believe (Faith) that there is no God.(where there is no proof of no God) a believe with out proof by definition is Faith based.
Do you believe the discussion in Genesis 3 was between a naked lady and a loquacious rutabaga?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12119
Aug 2, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Why don't you go find a faith-based atheist before running off at the mouth?"
All atheist are faith based. You believe (Faith) that there is no God.(where there is no proof of no God) a believe with out proof by definition is Faith based.
Do you believe sola scriptura fundamentalists are the stupidest creatures on the face of the earth?
humble brother

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12120
Aug 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
Truthfully, doign the transforms is more than I feel like doing at this point. Your biggest mistake is thinking that 1 second in one frame is *always*.87 seconds in another and 1.15 seconds in another. That is wrong. If you look at the transormation
t'=(t-(v/c)*(x/c))/S
*both* time t and distance x are relevant for the t' duration. If x=0. then t'=t/S, but if x=v*t, then t'=t*S. If x is something different than both of those, then t' will be something else again.
In the light signals, the x is relevant.
You are in error. I presented the case to you EXACTLY as the relativistic model predicts:
In relativistic movement time progresses slower in the observer's rest frame:

Relative speed: 0.5 * c
Time seen by a "stationary" observer: 1.0 seconds
Time in the "moving" rest frame: 0.87 seconds
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/... *FS-_**RelativisticTimeDilatio nFormula.to-.*RelativisticTime DilationFormula.t-.*Relativist icTimeDilationFormula.v--& f2=1.0+s&f=RelativisticTim eDilationFormula.t_1.0+s&f 3=0.5+c&f=RelativisticTime DilationFormula.v_0.5+c

Moving length: 1.0 meters
Length in the rest frame: 1.15 meters
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/... *FS-_**RelativisticLengthContr actionFormula.lo-.*Relativisti cLengthContractionFormula.l-.* RelativisticLengthContractionF ormula.v--&f2=1.0+m&f= RelativisticLengthContractionF ormula.l_1.0+m&f3=0.5+c &f=RelativisticLengthContr actionFormula.v_0.5+c

When an observer moves towards the beacon he is at rest and it is the beacon that is "moving" towards the observer. When the speed in that case is 0.5*c, one second in the beacon ALWAYS corresponds to 0.87 seconds for the observer. Relativity dictates that time ticks always slower for the observer, the same applies for an observer in the beacon. For him 1.0 s in the ship frame corresponds to 0.87 seconds.

You are confused with your transformation. Feed the values to WolframAlpha an you will ALWAYS be given the result that I provided above.

Your argument is already destroyed.

1. We know that in the beacon frame the observer measures 1.5 and 2.0 million light waves for the two different 1.0 meter light segments.
2. We know that for the observer in the ship 1.0 meters in the beacon corresponds to 1.15 meters in ship.
3. We know that also in the ship there must be the same exact amount of light waves inside each light segment, which are now 1.15 meters long.
4. We know the constant speed of light within the model

This is what the relativistic model clearly predicts.
humble brother

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12121
Aug 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
This is the mistake. Distances in one frame are relevant for finding durations in another.
Now you're arguing against the relativistic model and even yourself. Those are the numbers given by the equations that you proclaim. The numbers do not change unless the input data changes. You're dead in the water.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12122
Aug 3, 2012
 
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
<quoted text>
A law is a law! Please give your definition of a law of logic!
Run forest run
Logic consists of the propositional and quantifier calculus. So, such concepts as logical 'and', logical 'or', logical 'implication', logical 'negation', and the logical quantifiers:'for every' and 'there exists'. Logic can be extended to include basic concepts of equality.

Logic is not concerned with mathematics like arithmetic, algebra, trigonometry, calculus, differential equations, etc, although these subject areas use logic heavily. They also have additional assumptions about the properties of numbers, etc.

Logic has *nothing* to do with such concepts as time, space, composition, or causality. These concepts have to be dealt with empirically; they need to be tested to see if reality corresp[onds with our pre-conceptions.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12123
Aug 3, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You are in error. I presented the case to you EXACTLY as the relativistic model predicts:
In relativistic movement time progresses slower in the observer's rest frame:
This is the simplisitc, popular presentation, but is not accurate for all situations. using the Lorenz transformations *is*.
When an observer moves towards the beacon he is at rest and it is the beacon that is "moving" towards the observer. When the speed in that case is 0.5*c, one second in the beacon ALWAYS corresponds to 0.87 seconds for the observer.
Correction: two points that are at rest and 1 second apart in the beacon frame will ALWAYS be 1.15 seconds apart in the observer frame. Two points that are moving with the observer and 1 second apart in the beacon frame will be .87 seconds apart in the observer frame.
Relativity dictates that time ticks always slower for the observer, the same applies for an observer in the beacon. For him 1.0 s in the ship frame corresponds to 0.87 seconds.
A great deal of care is required here. Remember I commented that the time dilation is done under certain assumptions? Well, here they are. If two points are at rest and 1 second apart in the observer's frame, they will be 1.15 seconds apart in the beacon frame (yes, there is symmetry here). If two points are 'moving' with the beacon and are 1 second apart in the observer's frame, they are 1.15 seconds apart in the beacon frame.
You are confused with your transformation. Feed the values to WolframAlpha an you will ALWAYS be given the result that I provided above.
Did you check the assumptions of WA? No, of course not.
Your argument is already destroyed.
1. We know that in the beacon frame the observer measures 1.5 and 2.0 million light waves for the two different 1.0 meter light segments.
Correction: for the segment that is 1 meter long in the beacon's frame.
2. We know that for the observer in the ship 1.0 meters in the beacon corresponds to 1.15 meters in ship.
Wrong. There is also a mix of different times when transforming distances. To measure the length in the observer's frame, we have to find points at the same time in the observer's frame. When this is done, the length is contracted to give .87 meters.
3. We know that also in the ship there must be the same exact amount of light waves inside each light segment, which are now 1.15 meters long.
Wrong. The length, I believe, is .87 meters.
4. We know the constant speed of light within the model
This is what the relativistic model clearly predicts.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12124
Aug 3, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you're arguing against the relativistic model and even yourself. Those are the numbers given by the equations that you proclaim. The numbers do not change unless the input data changes. You're dead in the water.
the Lorenz transform are *always* the correct ones to use.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 11,781 - 11,800 of13,521
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

54 Users are viewing the Science / Technology Forum right now

Search the Science / Technology Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 15 min SoE 4,830
How do I know if my crush likes me? (Jan '08) 25 min Nice 1,100
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 1 hr DanFromSmithville 168,622
Students hack into school system, change grades (Apr '07) 3 hr TruthHurts2 605
Invention Could Herald Interactive Revolution 4 hr mrniceguyuc4 1
How to Find, Download and Install Latest Java V... 10 hr GuideOfWeb 2
China says 1/5 of its farmland polluted 13 hr RESISTANCE IS FUTILE 6
•••
•••
•••
•••