 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> writes:
>> There are certainly tons of atheists (a term which I'm using in a very
>> broad sense here) who have all kinds of misconceptions about the Bible
>> and the christian dogma, and which are quite easy to prove wrong, and
>> which, basically, make themselves as foolish with their misconceptions
>> as many creationists with their misconceptions about science.
>
> Oh, sure - those who are *active* atheists, though (as compared to those
> who just "don't care" - which is more agnosticism than atheism IIRC) do
> tend to have studied a lot more than the average practitioner of a
> theistic religion.
Again, I disagree - perhaps you phrased it carelessly. The ones I spoke
of in my message are very much atheists, not agnostics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:59:44 -0700, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> writes:
>
>>> There are certainly tons of atheists (a term which I'm using in a
>>> very
>>> broad sense here) who have all kinds of misconceptions about the Bible
>>> and the christian dogma, and which are quite easy to prove wrong, and
>>> which, basically, make themselves as foolish with their misconceptions
>>> as many creationists with their misconceptions about science.
>>
>> Oh, sure - those who are *active* atheists, though (as compared to
>> those who just "don't care" - which is more agnosticism than atheism
>> IIRC) do tend to have studied a lot more than the average practitioner
>> of a theistic religion.
>
> Again, I disagree - perhaps you phrased it carelessly. The ones I spoke
> of in my message are very much atheists, not agnostics.
I think rather I didn't phrase it 'carelessly' but rather based on my own
experiences. What would YOU do?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/22/2010 11:02 AM, Warp wrote:
>> In any case, no, the problem here is that you have to present a
>> plausible thing to "be" there, if you don't have particles, given that
>> even breaking up something like an electron gives you... more particles.
>
> Matter/energy degenerates under such enormous gravity, forming something
> which doesn't happen normally elsewhere. It retains certain properties
> (such as mass) because energy cannot be destroyed nor created, but its
> physiology may be completely different than normally.
>
> It's the same as what happened in the first moments of the Big Bang.
> There were no particles until later.
>
Based on what? Observation? At best you can't say one is more plausible
than the other, and at worst, having to make up a whole set of
assumptions about how all the laws of physics differ in black holes *is*
a violation of Occam's Razor itself, imo. One extra rule, which fits
with known math involving non-black holes, or a whole different set,
which only matter after you get past the "edge", where you can't observe
if they are true or not anyway. Those seem to be the options, and there
is nothing that the later ones provide, in the way of useful
experiments, or even utility wise, which is "necessary" to explain
anything that can't be explained with standard physics, as long as you
allow for one equation having a special case, again, instead of dozens
of others.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/22/2010 12:18 PM, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>> Warp wrote:
>>>>> Matter degenerates under that much gravity. They are not "particles"
>>>>> anymore.
>>>
>>>> Err, what are they, then?
>>>
>>> How should I know? I'm not an astrophysicist.
>
>> Why do you think they aren't particles, then?
>
> Because you can't have a huge bunch of particles in a space of zero
> volume. Hence if all the mass is in a singularity, it cannot be in the
> form of particles, but something else completely (basically something
> that cannot be described with current knowledge of physics).
>
> (Of course I'm assuming here that singularities do exist. It's possible
> that reality is different and they don't.)
>
Special pleading. That is all I have to say on that. If you don't get
them, you don't have to make up some *unknown*, and *undefined* thing
for matter to "be" when its in one.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/22/2010 7:58 PM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> They also had a terrible tendency to generalize: They see something
> silly in one sect in one religion, and they generalize like
> crazy.
>
> Their rhetoric isn't helpful. They often ask religious people to defend
> principles that those religious people don't always believe in, for
> example. They didn't bother establishing whether the person they're
> speaking to fits their mental model of a religious person. He merely
> does, because he's religious.
>
Problem with this is, while true, there is a fairly consistent "media"
trend on what kind of stuff people believe, and that 99% of believers
may not believe it doesn't help, if what they do believe is just as silly.
In any case, you cannot address a position you are not aware of, so you
address the ones you *are* aware of, which tend to be that presented by
the loudest, most annoying, incoherent, but visible, people.
But, even among the so called "worst", the basic position is that
religion has two forms. The first is, "I collect stamps, and I would
love to meet other people that collect stamps", variety, which you can
usually ignore, as long as some situation doesn't come up, in which
their stamps are threatened. The second is, "You MUST collect STAMPS,
anyone that DOESN'T is a horrible person, and everyone that says stamp
COLLECTING isn't interesting, NEVER MIND that its useless, or nuts, is
out to DESTROY our entire way of LIFE!!!" Sorry, but I know some of you
can't get html, so I can't add in the random colors and Comic Sans. ;)
In any case, its not possible to take on an issue, without doing "some"
level of generalizing. And, yeah, we do have some idiots on our side
that do it a bit too often.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/22/2010 11:23 AM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> The funny thing on that is, the average "believer" I know has maybe read
>> 20% of the Bible, almost **nothing** on the history tied to the time
>> periods described in it (with possible exception of texts designed to
>> ignore things that don't fit in with the "official" dogma), where as
>> most atheists have read more than half of it, or the entire thing, more
>> than once, and at least 1-2 books on the history of some of the periods,
>> *and* more than a few books on other religions. The other thing is, like
>> 95% of atheists used to be believers, probably 20% of them where
>> Evangelical, before concluding it was all gibberish, and another 2% or
>> so where ***actually priests*** at one point in time.
>
> I'm wondering if you are talking about Americans there.
>
Bingo.
> Here the majority of people are atheists, and from them, the vast majority
> have always been. And only a very, very small percentage have ever even
> opened the Bible. (Yes, while in the US people are by default christians,
> atheism being the rare exception, here people are by default secular,
> religion being the exception. It might be hard for an American to fathom,
> but it is really a bit surprising if someone claims being a believer, as
> the assumed status quo is being secular. I suppose some American atheists
> could call this a paradise of sorts.)
>
Yes, well.. Doesn't stop Europeans and others from getting the same
class of wackos, often US funded, trying to push the same BS too.
Scarily, it seems to work in some places, to a degree. But, no. Probably
most Americans are fed up with it, and just as, generally, secular as
Europeans. What we have is a whole mass of false national pride, a near
total refusal to deal with anything that involves religion, an a larger
than acceptable percentage of people who ignore the fact that 99% of the
world, think they are nuts, in favor of crying "persecution", every time
someone tells them they can't demand people do something, in the name of
God, and have everyone cry, "Hallelujah!"
To these people, merely having a slightly different opinion about
Christianity is blasphemy and grounds for possible deportation (and they
have babbled so, once or twice, to Faux News), never mind actually doing
something serious, like telling them that the Bible belongs in, maybe, a
history course, or literature, not science, math, or even their
distorted and badly warped, revisionist, version of civics.
BTW. Good humor at the latest "Fred Phelp" protest. He had 4 people, the
Comic Con people have like 30, ranging from a guy with a blank sign, to
one saying, "Is this thing on", to a guy in a Bender costume, holding a,
"Kill all humans", sign, and even a shout of, "What do we want? Gay Sex!
When do we want it? Now!". Would love to see some of the, "Making fun of
these people is hurting the cause!", types explain why this isn't a
proper ration to hate mongering.
If everyone was the confused, semi-nice, cherry pick for the cause of
spreading a peace the Bible sort of only has in the later bit, (as long
as you ignore the, "I am going to show up and kill you all anyway, even
if you try to be nice to each other.", bits in the NT...), types, no one
would care, for the most part, including atheist. Well, no more so than
I care that some people hate Star Wars, or Star Trek, badly enough that
both sides would throw things at me, if I showed up at a convention, in
the wrong costume. lol Otherwise, who gives a frack?
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> writes:
> On 7/22/2010 7:58 PM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> Their rhetoric isn't helpful. They often ask religious people to defend
>> principles that those religious people don't always believe in, for
>> example. They didn't bother establishing whether the person they're
>> speaking to fits their mental model of a religious person. He merely
>> does, because he's religious.
>>
> Problem with this is, while true, there is a fairly consistent "media"
> trend on what kind of stuff people believe, and that 99% of believers
> may not believe it doesn't help, if what they do believe is just as
> silly.
>
> In any case, you cannot address a position you are not aware of, so you
> address the ones you *are* aware of, which tend to be that presented by
> the loudest, most annoying, incoherent, but visible, people.
Which is my point: They (at least the loud atheists) tend not to know
much about religion.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> On 7/22/2010 11:02 AM, Warp wrote:
> >> In any case, no, the problem here is that you have to present a
> >> plausible thing to "be" there, if you don't have particles, given that
> >> even breaking up something like an electron gives you... more particles.
> >
> > Matter/energy degenerates under such enormous gravity, forming something
> > which doesn't happen normally elsewhere. It retains certain properties
> > (such as mass) because energy cannot be destroyed nor created, but its
> > physiology may be completely different than normally.
> >
> > It's the same as what happened in the first moments of the Big Bang.
> > There were no particles until later.
> >
> Based on what? Observation?
Pretty much, yes. Observation in the sense that GR has hold up pretty
well in a very large amount of different experiments (including things
like gravitation lensing and orbital measurements of the Moon).
To say that singularities can't exist you would have to demonstrate
somehow that GR stops working when matter density goes high enough (but
is still finite). AFAIK no such observation has been made, so the *simpler*
explanation at this moment is to assume that GR does hold even with
extremely high densities because it doesn't require any additional, yet
unknown, physical models.
One known physical model is simpler than one known plus one unknown
(especially when there's no experimental observation of where the latter
becomes more prominent than the former, so drawing the line between the
two is pretty much impossible).
I have always wondered why it seems that quantum mechanics is somehow
considered "holier" than general relativity. If some physical phenomenon
is predicted which seems to contradict either one or the other, or both,
then it must be GR which breaks, never the "holy" QM, which never breaks
and is always in effect no matter what the circumstances.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/07/did-time-exist-before-the-big-bang.html
Unrelated to the point itself, but I couldn't help but notice how the
article uses the word "theory" with the *colloquial* meaning rather than
the *scientific* one (the more scientific term would have been "hypothesis"
or perhaps even "conjecture").
If even scientific publications confuse the colloquial and scientific
meanings of the word "theory", is it any surprise that laymen do that too
(and hence all the arguments of why the theory of evolution is "only a
theory")?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > According to GR you would need an infinite amount of energy to maintain
> > a shape with non-zero volume. Obviously there isn't an infinite amount of
> > energy inside a black hole.
> Interestingly, according to QM, you need an infinite amount of energy if two
> particles can be zero distance from each other. And that is *exactly* the
> problem.
I suppose the apparent contradiction won't be solved until a unified
theory is discovered.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
