Are you smarter than an atheist? A religious quiz

[avxo]

I will combat this argument with this simple article, are we going to talk subatomic structures or matter?  http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970724a.html

Actually we are talking about bosonic particles, which do not have mass, vs. fermionic particles, which do have mass. It's been proven theoretically and verified by observation that the interaction of bosonic particles can create fermionic particles.

What I meant without copy and pasting someone elses ideas or thoughts, this is just mine entirely, is like in that case where they used accelerators and high laser beams, it took accelerated electrons blasted across a tube and to collide (with probably a tungtsten material) to dispell millions of electrons thus producing a vast amount of photons (energy)...This was my point, it takes so much more energy to even make one subparticle and this is no where near living matter.

Right, traditional particle accelerators accelerate electrons (or positrons) at relativistic velocities and slam them into a target (the specific nature of the target is irrelevant, except that it's made of fermions - i.e. it has mass). They do not do this to generate photons, although photons are certainly generated. They do this because at the extremely high energies produced by such collisions, energy itself can be converted into exotic forms of matter, which could have existed for very brief amounts of time immediately after the Big Bang.

As to your point that it takes a lot of energy to convert matter into energy, that is right. The energy levels necessary for the creation of a single particle/anti-particle pair is significantly higher than the energy the pair would have at a resting state.

You may want to read up on a branch of experimental/applied physics called "Two Photon Physics" which looks at what happens when photons collide. It's really quite fascinating.
 

I need to be more pointed in my argument, we have not seen any indication that energy can be converted to any "living" matter in which this whole argument started about is a higher power creating "living" matter from energy.

Terminology does matter, especially in discussions such as this, because without accurate and consistent terms, it's both impossible to get anywhere and possible to get anywhere. For example, there's no such thing as living matter. Matter is matter. Life is an emergent property of particular arrangements of matter. But the way you phrased the above statement suggests some mystical distinction between, say the matter that's in a rock and the matter that is you. Fundamentally, both are quite similar.

I must admit, for someone I thought rolled around naked with pictures of himself, you have proved that your not just another schmoe.  Hats off sir!

Well thanks. To be fair, I would never roll around naked with pictures of myself - I'm neither ripped nor muscular enough to entertain such notions. But hey, one can dream... one can dream!

[muscularny]

they could of made all questions on one page, but they force you to load new pages for each as well as a page inbetween in order to display more ads lol

smart

[doriancutlerman]

Define Intelligence, just because someone holds a degree or high status position doesn't make them intelligent, they are just successful repeaters and were able to memorise facts and remember them when tested.  

A doctor of astrophysics doesn't get by on rote memorization, for God's sake (pun intended).  Are you familiar with the term "cognitive complexity"?

the Title Professional should be something that is earned from your peers, not given to you from a school that is praising you for following there set curriculum and successfully memorising it.  To be Intelligent, you need to be able to follow your own line of inquiry to a satisfying conclusion, and most professionals I have met are unable to do this, they just repeat what they have been told like parrots.

Somehow the subject of my post was changed from an astrophysicist of my acquaintance into "most professionals" you know.  How did that happen?  And why do you assume Curtis is a mere parrot, or that he's the only truly smart person who eschews atheism?  Talk about a bold statement!

The irony is, a person of even fairly modest intelligence could've figured out who I was talking about by now ...

[PJim]

And how has science proven there is no God, could you elaborate please?

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence

[Dr.Ill]

What sides? There is only 1 side, the proven sides such as exact sciences. There is no other side. SHould be teach kids about Spiderman. He must be real, I saw it in a book and more importantly 'How do we know Spiderman IS NOT real'. Prove to me Spiderman IS NOT real and I will suspend my belief. Until then he is real and better then any God!

Kids being fucked up? Whats the connection with this and not teaching religion? With religion kids would be allright? How so?

I ask him what science proves there is no God with this statement.

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence

With that, I am asking for his evidence.

[Butterbean]

1  of 32

 

[avxo]

I ask him what science proves there is no God with this statement.

Before you ask anything about "God" you must provide a definition of the term. What does the term mean? What attributes does "God" possess?

[Dr.Ill]

Before you ask anything about "God" you must provide a definition of the term. What does the term mean? What attributes does "God" possess?

Whatever God he is dispelling, by saying "science" proved otherwise, just curious what "God" he is referring?  

With that, are you agnostic, atheist, what position to you hold?

[avxo]

Whatever God he is dispelling, by saying "science" proved otherwise, just curious what "God" he is referring?  

With that, are you agnostic, atheist, what position to you hold?

Me personally? I'm an atheist.

[Dr.Ill]

Me personally? I'm an atheist.

I am surprised to see that?  I figured you to be agnostic.

With your willingness to educate yourself and always find the why and hows to your questions, I would suspect you to be that way with the beginning?

[avxo]

I am surprised to see that?  I figured you to be agnostic.

With your willingness to educate yourself and always find the why and hows to your questions, I would suspect you to be that way with the beginning?

I'd be receptive to an argument that agnosticism is a more rational position, but so far I haven't heard anything compelling.

[BustinAss]

I'd be receptive to an argument that agnosticism is a more rational position, but so far I haven't heard anything compelling.

atheist replies a connection with religion, albeit a negative one. It puts believing in god as norm and therefore all others are non-believers.

This also implies and in a way validates believing by putting it first and thus legitimising it further.

Agnostic is a pure standpoint of not being attached to any ruling view of God or supernatural. It does not even recognize it. There could be a god, there could be not. Until so far there is zero evidence so I am not swaying one way or the other-->agnostic

[avxo]

atheist replies a connection with religion, albeit a negative one. It puts believing in god as norm and therefore all others are non-believers.

Atheist implies someone doesn't believe that deities exists or that belief in deities is rational. Nothing more nothing less.

This also implies and in a way validates believing by putting it first and thus legitimising it further.

I don't follow? Saying that the concept of a deity is illogical and belief in a deity is irrational validates and legitimizes deities and beliefs in them? Really??

Agnostic is a pure standpoint of not being attached to any ruling view of God or supernatural. It does not even recognize it. There could be a god, there could be not. Until so far there is zero evidence so I am not swaying one way or the other-->agnostic

If it's true that there is zero evidence, it would only be because there are no consequences at all to the existence of this deity. Claiming that there is something thing that is neither provable nor disprovable implies that neither the claim nor the claims' negation has any detectable consequences. Or to put it simply the "claim" doesn't actually claim anything.

[NarcissisticDeity]

Atheist - originating from the Greek word Atheos , " A " meaning without and " theos " meaning theology or the study of God , Atheos = without God

Anything beyond that isn't really atheism , more like Christopher Hitchens said " anti-theism "

[shizzo81]

You guys had me at Bosonic Particles 

[BustinAss]

Atheist implies someone doesn't believe that deities exists or that belief in deities is rational. Nothing more nothing less.

Atheism does imply a clear connection to religion. In the real world. Not in filosophy or pure in words (I get what you are saying) but in the real world there is a heavy dogmatic relation between theism and atheism. Atheism deals in same terms as religion, namely belief (or lack of) and is therefore not only in the real world but also in idea linked to religion. Agnosticism deals in the word knowledge. A person is agnostic if he has no knowledge to claim whether a god exists or not.

So there is a difference in atheism and agnostic.


I don't follow? Saying that the concept of a deity is illogical and belief in a deity is irrational validates and legitimizes deities and beliefs in them? Really??

In a way offcourse. But it is dependable whether you see the word a-theism as connected to religion by factors described above. Even simple debate on that which has not yet been proven (god) gives it (albeit in simpel minds) more credibility. Constantly negating the existance of god and thus putting thought and argumentation in the debate is giving energy to those who believe. Logically it doesnt further validation BUT in real life it does. Remember, Logic is something most people cannot comprehend.


If it's true that there is zero evidence, it would only be because there are no consequences at all to the existence of this deity. Claiming that there is something thing that is neither provable nor disprovable implies that neither the claim nor the claims' negation has any detectable consequences. Or to put it simply the "claim" doesn't actually claim anything.

If its true? So far no evidence but thats obvious. The claim offcourse does not prove that god doesnt exist. The claim doesnt offcourse claim anything as there is NOTHING to be claimed. Thats clear.

It is a negation of something that indeed has no consequence (god) and therefore doesnt filosophically prove anything. HOWEVER, as you know, in the real world CLAIMS are made daily that god does exist and therefore there are 2 possibilities: a). Claim back that god does not exist as counter measure or b). give no claim at all because its not needed to disprove something that has not been proven.

Option a is option chosen by people in human interactions for the sake of interaction with less intellectual people and option b is offcourse the right way filosophically speaking to react to something that has never been proven (god)

[dantelis]

For Getbiggers, here is questions 33:  Name the Greek/Roman demi-god who was the strongest of the ancient mythological heros?  Bonus points if you can come up with the Greek spelling of his name.

Heracles

Give that man (and e-Kul) a gold star!  Though this should have been the picture posted:



Or maybe this one, if you have $20:

[Onetimehard]

For Getbiggers, here is questions 33:  Name the Greek/Roman demi-god who was the strongest of the ancient mythological heros?  Bonus points if you can come up with the Greek spelling of his name.

Give that man (and e-Kul) a gold star!  Though this should have been the picture posted:



Or maybe this one, if you have $20:

Now 34; Who was the Sumerian hero that slayed humbaba in the ceder forest, reigned out of walled Uruk, Not Greek but Akkadian mythology

[poldaktalos]

Now 34; Who was the Sumerian hero that slayed humbaba in the ceder forest, reigned out of walled Uruk, Not Greek but Akkadian mythology

Gilgamesh

[avxo]

Gilgamesh

Technically, yes. But he only killed Humbabaafter Enkidu urged him to show no mercy.

[Onetimehard]

Gilgamesh

Technically, yes. But he only killed Humbabaafter Enkidu urged him to show no mercy.

ha, yes, amazing story though

[Mr Nobody]

Religions  Give 10% each week for a big ass church wtf? Then they teach non-materialism.

[BustinAss]

Religions  Give 10% each week for a big ass church wtf? Then they teach non-materialism.

haha yes, Religion insitutions dont pay any taxes and therefore are not materialistic!