God save us from the Christians!
Brainitor the Magnificent
After all, they have proven themselves unable to follow a simple evidence
chain and come to a sensible conclusion. Let's face it, if God was accused
of 'existing' in a court of law, any rational jury would be back with a 'not
guilty' verdict in about ten seconds.
'Beyond a reasonable doubt indeed', the jury members would sneer.
Unfortunately, however, not everyone is so rational - apparently these
religious types choose to base their entire _lives_ on a few apocryphal
stories! Not only that, but they will happily wage armageddon on other
groups in what amounts to an argument over whose imaginary friend is
biggest!
Although I agree with Elizabeth I, who, when the idea of punishing
non-churchgoers was put to her, refused, saying 'We should not make windows
into men's lives'; in that people shouldn't be actively _punished_ for their
views, I do think that the case is overwhelming for religious types to have
to centrally register their naivety. Such a register would then be used to
bar them from jury duty, voting, or political office - and other responsible
positions - on the grounds that the evidence strongly suggests that such
duties would be beyond them, due to their proven propensity for
irrationality.
It is truly a horrendous thought that if one went on trial in Dublin, say,
or Boston, then the likely majority of one's triers will consider their
verdict, then go to mass that Sunday and LITERALLY believe that they are
eating Christ's body, and drinking his blood!!
Literally they believe this!
LITERALLY!
And such people are supposed to be able to sift through a complex case and
come to a logical, unprejudiced and rational verdict? Do me a favour - no
wonder juries are so consistently perverse in their verdicts.
Talk to any trial lawyer, and he will tell you that it is quite impossible
to predict a jury's verdict. Translated, he is saying that verdicts are
effectively random. In other words, the average jury is no more reliable at
correctly weighing the evidence than a spun coin.
Surely it is beyond time that we rooted out the stupidity? The type that
believes in a supreme being, despite not being supported by a shred of
decent evidence, should be first on the list to go!
--
Brainitor the Magnificent
Average IQ = 100
Genius IQ = 148
Brainitor IQ = 200!!!
A Planet Visitor
"Brainitor the Magnificent" <st_g...@NOSPAMnetmatters.co.uk> wrote in message
news:95n53t$gr8$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
Talk about profiling ---
And then perhaps we can move on to those others, that Mark
sees as less than competent to sit on a jury. We all know who
they are!!!
PV
Earl Evleth
--
----------
Dans l'article <95pmpp$cpd$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, "St.George"
<st_g...@NOSPAMnetmatters.co.uk> a écrit :
> I am a case in point - I am sceptical in the extreme about current
> widely-accepted cosmological theories as the Big Bang, dark matter and
> universal expansion. As it happens, to a great extent I agree with you that
> certain scientists do exhibit an almost religious faith in these things,
> which is thoroughly unjustified on the evidence.
The problem with the Big Bang theory is that it explains quite a bit,
predicted the background radiation, the initial distributions of hydrogen,
deuterium, helium, in its two isotopic forms. No other theory does this.
The expansion is a measued event. The dark matter is another "matter" and
the recent "determination" that the expansion is accelerating is currently
causing some consternation.
Scientists work at several levels of theory. Many are only "working
hypotheses" which allows one to progressively construct experiments
to test out the "theory". Next, the scientist who proves that an
existing theory is wrong, gets a Nobel Prize. For there is "glory" in
disproving the accepted.
Some theories are so well entrenched that it is hard to imagine their
being overturned, merely modified in some ways.
Take the "theory" of evolution. Part of this "theory" is observational.
animals and plants which once existed no longer exist, those which exist
now did not exist in the past. What we don`t have is a 100%, picture frame
by picture frame, movie of the transitions, but we do have a slide show with
some of the slides missing. We keep finding slides to put into place.
With regard to the evolution man we have a fair picture of what happened,
DNA analyses allows us to have some idea of when our ancestors split off
from our nearest primate relatives (the Chimpanzees), etc. These time
estimate might be wrong, but the general picture is in place and nothing
right now scientifically challenges the broad basis of the theory of
evolution. This we can also imagine. I would class the theory of evolution
as sufficiently observational that like "gravity" it is a law.
What we can`t imagine is the "beginning" of the Big Bang, how something came
out of nothing. Its mathematical basis defies our imagination.
Somebody said once that not only are things more complicated than we imagine
but more complicated than we can imagine. That inability to imagine occurs
in the time range under one second in the Big Bang theory. From about 1
second on, no problem.
Earl
A Planet Visitor
what you believe, I don't think you are without some
measure of expertise in your given field. Where we differ
is our belief of what constitutes 'human rights.' And it's a
fundamental difference, that certainly deteriorated with your
grouping all retentionists into a certain class, and personally
claiming that I 'radiate phony,' and calling me an 'arrogant
SOB,' long before 'I' realized you had a problem in recognizing
any definition of 'human rights.' I think you should know by
now that I do not shirk from confrontation, nor do I easily
accept insults, distortions, and outright lies. I quite readily
descend to the same methods, if for no other reason, then
to achieve some personal satisfaction on my own part. I
believe, and I think quite rightly so, that 'human rights' are
an invention of man dependent on what every person views
those 'human rights' to be. With you being a scientist, I'm
surprised that you don't view it in the same manner. Since
no empirical evidence exists which DEFINES such rights.
No word from a higher authority other than man himself.
The term 'inalienable' is also simply a word devised by man,
with a meaning so obscure as to be discounted. 'Human
rights' to me, are those right that 'we' as individuals ascribe,
and what we give, we can withhold. Both individually, for
example when we murder, and collectively, for example
when we execute those who have murdered. We assume
no God-like action when we, as a society, use the DP. It
is a measured, time-consuming and humanely thought out
process (anyway it should be in all cases). But murderers
have assumed themselves to be God-like in their taking of a
life. I think this is hard to refute logically and morally.
Let me assure you that I care not at all if you read my posts,
respond to my posts, or mention my handle. I do not post
to this newsgroup for that purpose. I post to present my
opinion, and after doing so if I receive no response back,
it's dead-ended to me. But I have always reserved the
right to comment on your posts, with sarcasm if I feel it
appropriate, and with substance if I feel sarcasm not
appropriate. I seem to see sometimes that you hope to
receive the approval of others in support of your posts.
Well, I seek no approval from anyone. Some posts of
others move me to evaluate my opinion, either strengthening
my view, or forcing me to consider the criteria I use - but
I certainly don't post believing that my opinion is superior
to others. Simply that my opinions don't often agree with
others, and using forceful and insulting terms to make that
point. Rest assured I will continue to do so. Your clips
of articles usually present only one side of a highly complex
moral issue, and actually, to my mind, tend to trivialize the
issue, by compartmentalizing all opposition to you into a
monolith, having no diversity in their views, nor understanding
of the moral implications of those views. It tends to detract
from any balance you might believe you achieve in presenting
your views.
Evolution speaks to us with a very deep meaning. Because
of it, we need to ask ourselves if there IS a higher purpose in
our existence? And if there is, what is that purpose? We
certainly, in present day, see our advance as possibly
unlimited (Ignoring the fact that we may ourselves, through
our own stupidity, limit that advance). Certainly evolution,
doesn't appear to provide such a limit. We then need to
examine if there is an underlying hand in the creation of our
existence and the laws that provide this existence, which
some call 'divine intervention.' A fundamental, omnificent
cause to the effect we see in our existence. The scientist
provides a useful function in this respect, by tying together
those laws into a coherent masterpiece. But science,
in present day terms, cannot answer the question "Why?"
Certainly "How?" may someday be achievable in total, but
the other question appears to be outside of our grasp for
quite some time in the future, if ever. I found Paul Davies,
(a world-class physicist and author of "The mind of God"
among others books), to be an author who I feel successfully
melds Scientific, Philosophical and Theological understanding
of our existence, at the layman level of comprehension.
And this question of knowing the 'reason' for our existence
and the existence of our universe, permeates his writing.
But evolution does appear to provide SOME degree of proof
that our advancement is not without reason or purpose, provided
by SOMETHING, regardless of what name we wish to attach
to that something.
But certainly, nothing inherent to evolution, or any aspect
of NATURE, forces us to accept that the DP diverges, or
diminishes such a force. To me, quite the contrary is in
evidence. Perhaps someday, evolution or science will
provide the answer to WHY we murder as individuals, and
hopefully allow us to correct such anomalies of nature
BEFORE they happen. Until then we need to struggle
through, using the best means at our disposal to assist
such an evolutionary process, by eliminating as best we
can, the root disease -- murder itself. Certainly, no one
can argue that EVERY murderer we have executed would
not have murdered again.
Of course... IMHO!!!
PV
"Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:95r4gu$ts8$1...@news5.isdnet.net...
p@u.c
St.George <st_g...@NOSPAMnetmatters.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"John Smith" <you...@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:aRXf6.11694$8I1.2...@nntp3.onemain.com...
>>
>> > Brainitor the Magnificent
>> > Average IQ = 100
>> > Genius IQ = 148
>> > Brainitor IQ = 200!!!
>>
>>
>Faith
>> is the evidence of things unseen. It defies scientific rational. In
>other
>> words, it does for me what your measly 200 point IQ can't do for me.
>Your
>> words can't make a difference in my life. You are exhibiting just as much
>> faith in yourself as the Christians do in Christ.
>>
>> Why in the world should we put the 5% of true athiests on a jury? They
>> believe in the waxing and waning world of scientific rational just like it
>> was a religion.
>
>
>
>Bullshit - an atheist doesn't have to be a 'scientific rationalist'
>
>I am a case in point - I am sceptical in the extreme about current
>widely-accepted cosmological theories as the Big Bang, dark matter and
>universal expansion. As it happens, to a great extent I agree with you that
>certain scientists do exhibit an almost religious faith in these things,
>which is thoroughly unjustified on the evidence.
This is about as off-topic as one can get, but you've piqued my interest --
what are your reservations about these theories? There is substantial
and compelling evidence for all of them.
--
Patrick Crotty e-mail: prcrotty @ midway.uchicago.edu
Re-elect Al Gore in 2004
John Smith
Don't lie about what I said. It has become obvious why you snipped my
entire post now - typical religious zealot who will fictionalise something
if the facts inconveniently do not fit."
"What ARE you talking about? At the start you made some reasonable points,
then you deteriorated into dishonesty, and now you stumble into
uninterpretable gibberish."
Hmmmmmm.... What IS your definition of persecution? Is calling someone a
liar, religious zealot, speaker of gibberish, etc. NOT a form of
persecution? And, the reason that I snipped your entire post in my reply is
that I think that most people have the intelligence at IQ of 100 to read
your original post without having to scroll down a second time. Another
reason: Why should I leave your post in my reply? If someone has an IQ of
200, it must be true, right?
By the way, persecution to me is the ridicule of heartfelt faith issues
that you can't or don't comprehend, simply dismissing them as fools living a
fairy tale.
Here's what you call gibberish: (posted by me)
> Why should we allow the athiests on the stands, when they are living this
> fairytale that their imaginary friend, their own reason, is sufficient to
> negate what they consider to be apocryphal and foolish. Do they have some
> kind of superpower that allows them to believe thing into and out of
> existence, just because their 200 point IQs cause it to make sense to
them?
If this is gibberish, please answer me this one point. On what foundation
do you stand to proclaim that you are right? Is it not your own reason? If
not, then why do you parade around your "200 point" IQ?
What exactly qualifies YOU to say that the whole Christian faith has an
imaginary friend, etc.? I'm trying to explain myself to you in a way that
you won't interpret as gibberish. Please explain what enlightens you to the
point that you can make such bold and sweeping statements?
John Smith
"John Rennie" <Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote in message
news:95q5qc$a41$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "St.George" <st_g...@NOSPAMnetmatters.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:95pmpp$cpd$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "John Smith" <you...@msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:aRXf6.11694$8I1.2...@nntp3.onemain.com...
> > >
> > > > Average IQ = 100
> > > > Genius IQ = 148
> > > > Brainitor IQ = 200!!!
> > >
> > >
> > Faith
> > > is the evidence of things unseen. It defies scientific rational. In
> > other
> > > words, it does for me what your measly 200 point IQ can't do for me.
> > Your
> > > words can't make a difference in my life. You are exhibiting just as
> much
> > > faith in yourself as the Christians do in Christ.
> > >
> > > Why in the world should we put the 5% of true athiests on a jury?
They
> > > believe in the waxing and waning world of scientific rational just
like
> it
> > > was a religion.
> >
> >
> >
> > Bullshit - an atheist doesn't have to be a 'scientific rationalist'
> >
> > I am a case in point - I am sceptical in the extreme about current
> > widely-accepted cosmological theories as the Big Bang, dark matter and
> > universal expansion. As it happens, to a great extent I agree with you
> that
> > certain scientists do exhibit an almost religious faith in these things,
> > which is thoroughly unjustified on the evidence.
> >
> rational
> > for a jury, and that is why the system is fundamentally flawed.
> >
> >
> >
> > Besides this, they believe with just as much faith and
> > > fervor that God doesn't exist (or else they might be agnostic and say
he
> > > might exist), and persecute the ones that do believe, as you do.
> >
> >
> >
> > In fact, I specifically stated that the religious should NOT be
> persecuted.
> > Don't lie about what I said. It has become obvious why you snipped my
> > entire post now - typical religious zealot who will fictionalise
something
> > if the facts inconveniently do not fit.
> >
> that
> > some people, like the young, very old, and mentally retarded; simply do
> not
> > have the practical mental capacity to make a coherent and logical
> analysis.
> >
> > Incidentally, you do make a good point in that true, hardcore atheists
(of
> > which I am not one) - i.e. those that categorically state that 'God'
does
> > NOT exist, are also making an unproven leap of faith, and in their way
are
> > almost as irrational as the religious.
> >
> >
> >
> > That shows
> > > not only arrogance, but it also shows a one-sided mindset that should
> > never
> > > exist on a jury. In fact, you might persecute the christian
individual
> at
> > > trial as much as you do in your supremo manifestos that we are living
a
> > > fairy tale!
> > >
> > > Why should we allow the athiests on the stands, when they are living
> this
> > > fairytale that their imaginary friend, their own reason, is sufficient
> to
> > > negate what they consider to be apocryphal and foolish. Do they have
> some
> > > kind of superpower that allows them to believe thing into and out of
> > > existence, just because their 200 point IQs cause it to make sense to
> > them?
> >
> >
> >
points,
> > then you deteriorated into dishonesty, and now you stumble into
> > uninterpretable gibberish.
> >
shall
> > have to express yourself in such a fashion that does not lead me to
> believe
> > that your eyes were wide, black and staring when you typed your words.
> >
>
> Ah something to get our teeth into at last! (What a relief from all the
> ego barging.) I don't actually believe you John when you said you would
> disbar Atheists off juries. You are far too considerate to contemplate
> doing a silly thing like that.
>
> Just like Mark I have almost as much scepticism in Science as I have in
> religion. I too am not a hardcore atheist but I am a profound agnostic
> which means that not only do we not know the reason for our existence but
> that our very existence does not allow us to know. I am not and, I
hope
> will never be, anti-religion - I am just not interested in disturbing
other
> people's faiths. However if their beliefs endanger my life, children or
> anything else that I hold dear, I will attack in return. But that has
not
> happened yet and dv. (sic) will never happen. I do not think religions
> cause wars but they are used as an excuse sometimes. But then so is
> racialism. I think religion was probably necessary as part of the
> evolution of humans (our ancestors needed those fairy stories Mark). I
> have not brought up my children as Christians but I have emphasised time
and
> again that they will make their own way in the world and make up their own
> minds in due course. Oh yes and atheists can be just as big headed and
> intolerant as any 'born again Christian' but we know that already don't
we?
Well said, John. No, I don't actually believe that they should disbar
athiests from a jury. I am just drawing the similarities between certain
athiests and certain Christians. Actually, I feel that athiests are
actually closer to a relationship with God than the agnostics, because they
have this mature, deep faith in themselves. This and they have the need to
reach out and talk against religion. Makes me think that there is something
more to religion to them, else they would be able to just snicker at what
most people think is foolish.
But, I am not here to save the athiests nor the agnostics. Only God
himself can do that. The only thing that I have is my own personal
testimony, and if God chooses to use that to bring others close, then that
is great. But, make no mistake, only God can draw a person. If it were any
other way, then it would indeed be the athiest's view that it is simple
persuasion or fairy tale.
John Smith
<p@u.c> wrote in message news:Yihg6.41$v3.503@uchinews...
If I may say my two cents, the "evidence" is not hard, it is indirect. To
the person that takes science as a religion, he/she takes this indirect
evidence and applies faith, and voila. You have "proof". On a closer to
home level, if the priest of science yells into the sky "God, if you're
there, blow up this building", and fire falls from the sky and destroys it,
the faith lies in "there must be a logical explanation for this".
Desmond Coughlan
Erm ... what ?
--
Desmond Coughlan des...@coughlan.net
Death Penalty Discussion Group : http://www.egroups.com/group/death-penalty
********
PGP Public Key: http://www.coughlan.net/desmond/pgp/pubring.pkr
Fingerprint: 3F1F C838 88D5 2659 B00A 6DF6 6883 FB9C E34A AC93
Earl Evleth
--
----------
Dans l'article <slrn983e35...@gateway.voute.net>,
des...@gateway.voute.net (Desmond Coughlan) a écrit :
> That inability to imagine occurs
>> in the time range under one second in the Big Bang theory. From about 1
>> second on, no problem.
>
> Erm ... what ?
Yeah, it the time period of way less than a second which confuses me. Once
protons, electrons, neutrans and photons were formed, the initial syntheses
of hydrogen, deuterium (tritium but it did not stay around long), helium 3
and helium 4 occured. In the expansion period things cooled off to fast to
form the heavier elements, like carbon. So the hydrogen we have in our
bodies came from those early moments. Later on stars formed, some were large
enough to allow stellar syntheses up to iron (nuclearly the most stable
element). Higher elements were formed in the super star explosions, which
threw material into outer space, later to be condensed and form "us". "Our"
exploding star detonated more than 4.5 billion years ago.
So the starting of the process is easy to imagine from about one second on.
Prior to one second, one thinks in log time scales back to time zero plus
10-33 seconds or something like that. I only understand the post one second
period, and lose no sleep over the time prior to that.
Earl
George
:-)
--
To reply, delete the "NO" and the "JUNK" from address
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <des...@gateway.voute.net> wrote in message
news:slrn983e35...@gateway.voute.net...
yourself, are certainly correct to question this 'Big Bang' (ha... ha)
theory. You need to stand by your belief and certainty that Bishop
James Ussher's computation of the beginning of the universe,
back to the time of Adam and Eve, of 4004 BC, is indeed the only
theory which rests on logical foundation and mathematical
computation. And you are right to claim that it is indeed the only
theory necessary to understand our existence and the existence
of our Universe.
A huge, huge :-)
PV
John Rennie
>
> --
>
>
> ----------
> Dans l'article <slrn983e35...@gateway.voute.net>,
> des...@gateway.voute.net (Desmond Coughlan) a écrit :
>
>
> > That inability to imagine occurs
> >> in the time range under one second in the Big Bang theory. From about 1
> >> second on, no problem.
> >
> > Erm ... what ?
>
> Yeah, it the time period of way less than a second which confuses me.
So it should confuse you - you are using a timescale that we find suitable
for ourselves in our rather slow moving universe. Every principle that
we are used to came out of BB - it did not exist before and, therefore,
quite likely it did not exist until after.
I get annnoyed reading about what happened in the first 1 millionth of a
second after BB and how the first 'strings' appeared within a few seconds.
The Scientific American a couple of issues ago had an article about the
speed of light - which we all know travels at approx 186000 miles a
second. The article suggests that immediately after BB it travelled
much faster! If so, every bloody measurement made of the heavens
in the last century is nonsense and every calculation made of the age of the
universe or stars is wrong - blue shifts and red shifts may not mean
what Einstein thought they meant. Oh yes! I am with Mark on this one
the astro physicists certainly give the theologians a run for their money
when it comes to mumbo jumbo!
HailToFire
changing?? While the basic principles laid down in the Bible have not
changed in 2000 years.I'll tell you science and society are always wrong
never right that's why they change.People like you think they have it
all figured out they ignore the bible and do things their way.Then in
time you realize you were wrong and make a change.it's funny because
Jesus tells us in plain english how to live.not for god's sake,or to be
a christian.It's simple the only way you will be happy.and he tells us
and died for us because he loves us.
As for your silly retarded jury thing.Tell me smartass that jury you
suggest that should atheist,how are they gong to believe the testimony
of witnesses that put their hand on a bible and swear to "god" to tell
he truth?? after all there is no god right?? opps there goes another
scientific theory down the drain.....whatever
I think your IQ is backwards it should be 002.....
Now
Let my people go,land of Goshen
Go
I will be with thee,bush of fire
Blood
Running red and strong,down the nile
Plague
Darkness three days long,hail to fire
S Moir
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message news:Xvjg6.107517> >snipped
> > >
> > >
> > > Somebody said once that not only are things more complicated than we
imagine
> > > but more complicated than we can imagine. That inability to imagine
occurs
> > > in the time range under one second in the Big Bang theory. From about
1
> > > second on, no problem.
> >
> > Erm ... what ?
> >
> >
> What? is certainly true, Desmond. Fundamentalists, such as
> yourself, are certainly correct to question this 'Big Bang' (ha... ha)
> theory. You need to stand by your belief and certainty that Bishop
> James Ussher's computation of the beginning of the universe,
> back to the time of Adam and Eve, of 4004 BC, is indeed the only
> theory which rests on logical foundation and mathematical
> computation. And you are right to claim that it is indeed the only
> theory necessary to understand our existence and the existence
> of our Universe.
> A huge, huge :-)
>
> PV
> --
> > Desmond Coughlan des...@coughlan.net
> > Death Penalty Discussion Group :
http://www.egroups.com/group/death-penalty
>
>
What did God say after creating Eve?
Practice makes perfect :-)
Shona
St.George
That first second just can't be ignored, though, can it?
What particularly stretches my credulity circuits is the part of the model
which has the universe expanding at a speed of trillions of trillions of
times the speed of light. Doesn't it go from a singularity to a
pineapple-sized universe in something like 10^-30 seconds?
Besides, even if this DID occur, measurement in 'time' would be impossible,
as in the supposed pineapple-universe space-time is so warped that it surely
has no meaning. Hence, IMHO, _nothing_ can be said about the first second
using any sort of conventional time or distance measurement.
In order to describe the 'second', one would have to construct wholly new
measurement concepts, but these would be meaningless as they would have no
frame of reference in today's universe.
And as for 'dark matter'...ROTFL!!
A Planet Visitor
"S Moir" <smsc...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:95sqb1$iqbch$1...@ID-50327.news.dfncis.de...
since after creating Adam, all he could utter
was "Oops!"
PV
Desmond Coughlan
{snip}
> > Erm ... what ?
> What? is certainly true, Desmond. Fundamentalists, such as
> yourself, are certainly correct to question this 'Big Bang' (ha... ha)
> theory. You need to stand by your belief and certainty that Bishop
> James Ussher's computation of the beginning of the universe,
> back to the time of Adam and Eve, of 4004 BC, is indeed the only
> theory which rests on logical foundation and mathematical
> computation. And you are right to claim that it is indeed the only
> theory necessary to understand our existence and the existence
> of our Universe.
The 'what' was intended to be humour (directed at our European readers,
as Americans don't even know how to spell the word, let alone comprehend
the concept), PV.
> A huge, huge :-)
Of course. ;-)
--
Desmond Coughlan des...@coughlan.net
Death Penalty Discussion Group : http://www.egroups.com/group/death-penalty
Earl Evleth
--
----------
Dans l'article <95sh85$8h3$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, "John Rennie"
<Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> a écrit :
> Oh yes! I am with Mark on this one
> the astro physicists certainly give the theologians a run for their money
> when it comes to mumbo jumbo!
The scientific community does not communicate well within itself. I am
a quantum chemist, but only was interested interactions of electrons and
nuclei, and photons. We possess the mathematical power to compute the
absolute energies of interactions, the energies of various states ect.
although for larger systems we depend on approximate solutions. But I am
not interested in interactions of more fundamental particles.
So what happened prior to the formation of protons, electrons, neutrons
and photons does not interest me enough to go to the books and find out
more, in detail. Whatever, what happened in the time period after one second
is theoretically fairly clear. Future developments will likely clarify the
situation more, but no one expects Big Bang to be replaced. Even Newton's
"law" of gravitation was mildly altered by Relativity when it was found that
the orbit of Mercury was not super accurately described. It turns out that
even in quantum mechanics, relativistic effects occur, the color of gold
is due to a relativistic effect, gold would be colorless if there was no
correction. We had absolute solutions for the energies of the interaction of
an electron with a single proton, but not with heavy nuclei, the electronic
orbits get perturbes as in the case of Mercury going around the Sun.
Einstein did not really like quantum theory so it was the fusion of quantum
and relativistic mechanics which went further than he was able to.
Earl
S Moir
Shona
JIGSAW1695
From: "Earl Evleth" dev...@noos.fr
Date: 2/8/01 4:23 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <95toco$7dg$1...@news2.isdnet.net>
--
Earl
===============================
Quoting Jon Rennie "What has this got to do with the death penalty".
I can see the tie in between guns, some social issues and other etcetera's. but
for the life of me I cannot see any correlation between quantum
physics/mechanics and the death penalty. Unless of course you want to compute
how many amps to takes to send a 198 pound killer to that great lab in the sky)
Earl Evleth
--
----------
Dans l'article <20010208101813...@ng-fb1.aol.com>,
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) a écrit :
> Quoting Jon Rennie "What has this got to do with the death penalty".
`
When I first came on this NG I asked the same question. But strings
drift, just like normal conversation, so people talk about American
movies and now from God saving us from Christians to somebody saving
"us" from scientists.
Earl
A Planet Visitor
useful because they tend to drift toward the belief or non-belief
of people in this newsgroup, as to the existence of a 'prime mover'
of our universe. Anyway, that's where I always hope the drift
goes, to make it interesting to me. In this respect, I feel there is a
loose connection between that belief and on what we base our
belief in morality, and 'human rights,' concerning use of the DP.
It's certainly not a direct connection, anymore than the abortion
issue, but the fact remains that human morality opinions depend
somewhat on how we view our existence, whether meaningless
or meaningful, and gives some insight as to the reasons we
support or oppose the DP. And it's certainly more meaningful than
who won last year's cricket match. Of course, Earl (IMHO) starts
to get a little too detailed, rather pointlessly to me, which causes
others to yawn and begin to drift off. I'd rather stick to concepts
instead of posting comments such as "Once protons, electrons,
neutrans (sic) and photons were formed, the initial syntheses of
hydrogen, deuterium (tritium but it did not stay around long),
PV
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <95ugra$2kfi$1...@news4.isdnet.net>
--
Earl
===============================
But qunatum mechanics???
John Rennie
"JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010208142303...@ng-fu1.aol.com...
You seem a little uncertain about these Jiggy?
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote:
> "JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > ===============================
> >
> > But qunatum mechanics???
> ===================================
> You seem a little uncertain about these Jiggy?
Jiggy doesn't think that any of his quantums need fixing.
(Huge ;) )
Mr Q. Z. D.
----
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"Alright brain, I don't like you and you don't like me... so let's just do this
and I'll get back to killing you with beer."
St.George
Exactly. The only _important_ point which should concern the
topicality-zealots is whether the OT discussions are actually resulting in
_less_ death penalty discussion; and that is something I find very difficult
to believe.
Hence, assuming that there is the same amount of topical posts as there
would be with no OT stuff, then the OT stuff is just so much noise for
people to easily tune out, should they wish.
St.George
> "In fact, I specifically stated that the religious should NOT be
persecuted.
> Don't lie about what I said. It has become obvious why you snipped my
> entire post now - typical religious zealot who will fictionalise something
> if the facts inconveniently do not fit."
>
> "What ARE you talking about? At the start you made some reasonable
points,
> then you deteriorated into dishonesty, and now you stumble into
> uninterpretable gibberish."
>
>
>
> Hmmmmmm.... What IS your definition of persecution? Is calling someone a
> liar, religious zealot, speaker of gibberish, etc. NOT a form of
> persecution? And, the reason that I snipped your entire post in my reply
is
> that I think that most people have the intelligence at IQ of 100 to read
> your original post without having to scroll down a second time.
A _remarkably_ lame justification for what was, at best, poor 'netiquette',
and at worst a deliberate attempt at deception
Another
> reason: Why should I leave your post in my reply? If someone has an IQ
of
> 200, it must be true, right?
> By the way, persecution to me is the ridicule of heartfelt faith issues
> that you can't or don't comprehend, simply dismissing them as fools living
a
> fairy tale.
>
> Here's what you call gibberish: (posted by me)
> > Why should we allow the athiests on the stands, when they are living
this
> > fairytale that their imaginary friend, their own reason, is sufficient
to
> > negate what they consider to be apocryphal and foolish. Do they have
some
> > kind of superpower that allows them to believe thing into and out of
> > existence, just because their 200 point IQs cause it to make sense to
> them?
>
> If this is gibberish, please answer me this one point. On what foundation
> do you stand to proclaim that you are right? Is it not your own reason?
If
> not, then why do you parade around your "200 point" IQ?
> What exactly qualifies YOU to say that the whole Christian faith has an
> imaginary friend, etc.?
I didn't say that, as would be easily evidenced if you hadn't snipped it.
In the context of holy wars, as was my statement, I was pointing out that
_at least_ one side was killing themselves over an imaginary friend.
I'm trying to explain myself to you in a way that
> you won't interpret as gibberish. Please explain what enlightens you to
the
> point that you can make such bold and sweeping statements?
I never claimed to be "enlightened".
What I do claim is to be able to assess the evidence rationally. Unlike
you, who I would bet a pound to a penny had the Christian faith dogmatically
rammed down your throat from birth, I was fortunate enough not be
brainwashed into these fairy tales as a child. Now, as an adult, when I
consider them, I find that there is no compelling evidence for me to accept
any of them.
Let's face it, John - you're just gullible - your Christianity is nothing
more than an accident of birth. If you had been born in Israel you'd be a
devoted Jew; if you'd been born in Iran you'd be a Muslim and if you were
Indian you'd be a Hindu.
Of course, if you were brought up in an atheist household, then reached the
age of majority, studied theology and came to a rational conclusion that
Christianity, of ALL the religions, was the truth, then I apologise for my
presumptuousness.
But funnily enough, something tells me that that is _not_ the case.......
St.George
<p@u.c> wrote in message news:Yihg6.41$v3.503@uchinews...
Heh - not to get into TOO involved a discussion, but all of these smack to
me as just 'something that fits'.
Like Einstein's 'cosmological constant', it seems that the theory has been
simply constructed as one of many possibilities that fit in. Not that there
is anything wrong with this, of course - it's how science works - but there
is little or nothing that actually demonstrates the _truth_ of these. The
current situation, that they haven't yet been _disproved_, is a million
miles from them being proved, and there are so many unexplained holes that
no-one can reasonably claim to have the full understanding necessary to
justify unquestioning acceptance - IMHO at least.
Take dark matter, for example - allegedly fully 90% of the matter in the
universe is dark matter - but where the hell is it??? Surely, if there's so
much of it, someone should have found some by now!
Of course, I am over-simplifying, as detailed discussion is well beyond both
the newsgroup and my time, but I see the current theories as just the latest
in a very long line - from 'the earth is flat' onwards - that simply haven't
been disproved yet. Almost all past 'latest' theories have been either
plain wrong, or required modification, and I see no reason why these should
be different.
Of course, I have more specific objections to the ones I mentioned than the
general 'theories get modified' argument - for instance I see no reason why
_G_ should be constant throughout time and space, or even the speed of light
_c_. Certainly my own pet theories increase my doubt about the generally
accepted ones.
However, in conclusion, one thing I am certain of - in 1,000 years,
humanity's understanding of cosmology will surely be very different to now -
and that alone is grounds to be prepared to think originally on these
matters.
After all, a slavish acceptance of the Big Bang is hardly less a matter of
pure faith than a slavish acceptance of Genesis!!
'Let There Be Light!'
St.George
"HailToFire" <HailT...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:20404-3A...@storefull-612.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> if what you say is true then why is society and science constantly
> changing?? While the basic principles laid down in the Bible have not
> changed in 2000 years.I'll tell you science and society are always wrong
> never right that's why they change.People like you think they have it
> all figured out they ignore the bible and do things their way.Then in
> time you realize you were wrong and make a change.it's funny because
> Jesus tells us in plain english how to live.not for god's sake,or to be
> a christian.It's simple the only way you will be happy.and he tells us
> and died for us because he loves us.
> As for your silly retarded jury thing.Tell me smartass that jury you
> suggest that should atheist,how are they gong to believe the testimony
> of witnesses that put their hand on a bible and swear to "god" to tell
> he truth?? after all there is no god right?? opps there goes another
> scientific theory down the drain.....whatever
Blimey....my argument now lies in tatters at my feet....
Gabriel
This whole thing has sparked my interest. How does the "rational
conclusion" on theology that you mention boil down to faith? That's a
pretty tall order to tell someone that they must have an evidence-based
spirituality. Faith is a gift from God, and we are free to reject it and
ask for more evidence. When that evidence comes, we can always rationalize
it away, and ask for more evidence. I'll say one thing in John's behalf.
Maybe he would be a Jew or Muslim if brought up that way. But at least he
would have faith, true faith, and if Christ is the way, then he would be
compelled by faith alone and not by his rational mind. Most people see
Christians as brainwashed puppets to the church, scripture, etc. Some of
them are, indeed. But, when you look at the true person of faith, it is not
about being a puppet. It is about, well, having faith. If God granted your
wish, and revealed to mankind that God exists in a way that you nor anyone
else would doubt, then you would be able to see Christians as puppets. It
surprises me to see that this is what you would want, to have no choice but
to believe.
George
household (not sure which as there was no mention of religion even) but
have since become Christian. I never had any "brainwashing". I became
interested in evidence for Christianity and read a little. This led me
to realise the historical validity of the Bible and accept Christ that
way....faith came after that. Whether that is a good or bad way round I
don't know but the important thing to me is that I now have faith and
any evidence or arguments either way is secondary.
--
St.George
<snip>
> Talk about profiling ---
> And then perhaps we can move on to those others, that Mark
> sees as less than competent to sit on a jury. We all know who
> they are!!!
Fine, PV, fine.
I agree 100% that the vast majority of atheists are grossly unsuitable to
serve on juries too.
Perhaps we should only have professional jurors - laymen chosen for
exceptional ability only. These could be paid ten million a year, just
three or five would need to sit per case, and only those with IQs of 199+
need apply!
St.George
"Gabriel" <nos...@IMEANIT.com> wrote in message
news:3a834...@news.chartertn.net...
<snip>
> This whole thing has sparked my interest. How does the "rational
> conclusion" on theology that you mention boil down to faith? That's a
> pretty tall order to tell someone that they must have an evidence-based
> spirituality. Faith is a gift from God, and we are free to reject it and
> ask for more evidence.
And those that do, mark themselves out as possessing more enquiring minds
than those that do not. Hence, I reserve the right to draw conclusions from
this, and furthermore to desire, at least, that those who I do not consider
rational are NOT put in a position to judge me and influence my life.
If I was ever put on trial for something I didn't do, the last thing I would
want is to have a jury of twelve people who base their life on some fable
they were indoctrinated with as a kid. This is the root of it all - how
many religious adults are there who were not brought up religious from
childhood?
Personally, when I became a man, I put away childish things!
When that evidence comes, we can always rationalize
> it away, and ask for more evidence. I'll say one thing in John's behalf.
> Maybe he would be a Jew or Muslim if brought up that way. But at least he
> would have faith, true faith, and if Christ is the way, then he would be
> compelled by faith alone and not by his rational mind.
And you think this would be a GOOD state of affairs?!?
What is the point of having an able mind if we refuse to use it and accept
dogma?
Most people see
> Christians as brainwashed puppets to the church, scripture, etc. Some of
> them are, indeed. But, when you look at the true person of faith, it is
not
> about being a puppet. It is about, well, having faith. If God granted
your
> wish, and revealed to mankind that God exists in a way that you nor anyone
> else would doubt, then you would be able to see Christians as puppets. It
> surprises me to see that this is what you would want, to have no choice
but
> to believe.
All I search for is the TRUTH.
The truth is the truth - it is as simple as that, and it is still the truth
whether I like it or not. I believe that religion has caused more suffering
in this world than is almost imaginable, and as soon as this ends, the
better.
And to this end, perhaps you could say that Yes, I hope there IS a God, so
that he could show himself now and end the continual misery.
St.George
"George" <scram...@JUNKtotalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3A842041...@JUNKtotalise.co.uk...
> Some good points Gabriel. I was brought up in an agnostic/athiest
> household (not sure which as there was no mention of religion even) but
> have since become Christian. I never had any "brainwashing". I became
> interested in evidence for Christianity and read a little. This led me
> to realise the historical validity of the Bible and accept Christ that
> way....faith came after that. Whether that is a good or bad way round I
> don't know but the important thing to me is that I now have faith and
> any evidence or arguments either way is secondary.
Interesting, George.
I think that you are very rare, though - I know no-one religious who was not
brought up that way.
However, I give you much more credit than others who continue to believe
just because they are scared to stop.
George
those that have been brought up with it and, I'll wager, they're also
the same ones that come on this newsgroup citing Old Testament verses to
condone the DP.....I strongly believe that's flawed.
In my case it took guts to admit that I thought I was wrong all those
years and have friends give me weird looks and so on. It's too easy to
just dismiss it because it is a scary thing changing your entire outlook
on life.
George
--
A Planet Visitor
because I don't think it's relevant to secular justice anymore than one
of deep religious bent, being ineligible. Unless of course, their
personal beliefs hold that those who are found guilty, cannot be
sentenced to one of the penalties incorporated into guilt of the crime.
I was thinking more in terms of profiling because of ethnic, racial, or
political reasons. The effects one sees when first we eliminate a
right from one group, and then another, and then another, until we
are left with only those who agree with those in power, having such
rights.
As a matter of fact, I agree with the concept of professional jurors.
We call them judges, and I think more use should be made of them,
because they obviously know the law, more than the layman. Perhaps
one or two per jury composition, especially in DP cases. The problem
is would their presence overwhelm the other members of the jury, and
if that is so, would that be good or bad for true justice? Obviously, the
rest of your post was a return to sarcasm.
PV
John Rennie
Oh we mustn't have any sarcasm in this ng only irony please. Seriously I
don't think the jury system is all that we crack it up to be. Of course
when Osmo attacks it we turned all our Anglo-American fury on him but he had
a point. Professionals do perform their tasks better than amateurs, the
problem is how to choose the professionals - election or appointment?