Mr Newton's Classroom

[Brain Man]

there is a greater chance of being a bad person, and living a miserable life if you don't live by a code of ethics, and most people who live by a code of ethics do so in correlation with a belief in a Creator of Physical Reality (God).

If you are trying to argue that atheists are less likely to live by a code of ethics, some sort of empirical data to back that claim up with might be in order. I am not holding my breath, though, for that to happen. Statistics very strongly suggest the opposite. There is a pronounced tendency indicating that the higher the percentage of atheism in a nation, the lower the crime rate, abortion rate, and so on. In short, atheists tend to live more moral lives than theists.

Correlation is not causation.

That is all I'm talking about. None of your special pleading or links undermine the relationship between moral conduct and religiosity as published by Zuckermann among others.

not much of a reply there seraph. I guess because i am goring the holy cow of athiesm to which you are subscribed heavily and am using science to do it. Bet you never stopped to consider that athiesm has an evil flipside. Of course not, you are caught up in it, almost like a belief.

Thats why i do not associate with atheists. Its a road to trouble that people should even associate on that basis except for any other reason than they find themselves in a minority within a religious community. The vast number of people that frequent here are not in that position. Atheism here is a cover for irresponsible behavior, immoral antics (how many people here have cheated on their partners since joining this group... i knew somebody personally on this group and got to hear of quite a few incidents) and self indulgence of perverted smut on these threads which is really quite disgusting for most people to read.

Not all bad though, members of rationalia are considered a load of deviant weirdos by most outside of the group, so that ought to tell you something, and at least the rest of the world doesnt want to dive in to this cesspool so easily. The athiesm here is really just a cover to be deviant and immoral. If not atheism something else would have done. Dawkins did not even want you. Most of you ended up here for talking about fisting and other lewd acts on a forum that children could access.

[JimC]

I don't think this thread belongs in the science subforum. Jim, would you move it to the atheism and religion subforum, please? Cheers.

The discussion has turned in that direction recently, but the OP was definitely physics oriented. The thread has made quite a few startling turns, rather like a demented moebius strip, so we might leave it where it is for now, and see what happens...

[JimC]

Ok, this is the second obvious mistake I have made (the other was on the Work of Harley Borgais thread: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseud ... 2-160.html)...

When I said "Kinetic Energy" of a mass resting on a surface, I should have said "Potential Energy" instead. Sorry, that was certainly an Elementary School Error. There really is no good excuse for it. I will try proof read my posts better.

Also when I said: "...Energy as a general term which can refer to Momentum of a Pressure wave of Matter (sound), or to a Pressure wave of Electrical Charge..."

Instead of: "Pressure wave of Electrical Charge" I should have said something more like: a "Wave of Electrical Charge" or: "Wave Fronts of Electrical Pressure", or "Electrical Pressure Waves" with this right after: " (EM Waves),".

I was trying just to say that Sound Waves and EM Waves are regions of Pressure in motion, and that they are both forms of Energy just as much as Potential Energy of a mass resting on a surface.

What do you think of this re-phrasing JimC? (Maybe you can even respond in an adult and respectable manner, like a descent teacher ought to)

1. Gravitational potential energy will do... (no need for capitals, by the way). More important to be able to calculate it in a variety of contexts than use it as part of a waffling, rambling discourse...

2. The fact that sound and electromagnetic radiation are both waves, and both possess energy, is not disputed. To use the term "pressure" in the context of interacting electrical and magnetic fields which propagate at the speed of light is meaningless. Sound waves may be described in one sense in terms of areas of low and high pressure, but the term "pressure wave" adds nothing to an understanding of sound.

3. I'm not sure what descent teachers do...

[harleyborgais]

BrainMan: "Problem is religion is not compatible with logical positivism which has helped build and rapidly evolve todays world. "

Positivism: "a set of epistemological perspectives and philosophies of science which hold that the scientific method is the best approach to uncovering the processes by which both physical and human events occur".

Religion: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"

These seem compatible to me, it only depends on your perspective. I have been noticing that with the flower of life, Bija Seed Syllables, Kaballa, many physics equations, and other sources that there is a common theme of about 11-13 different perspectives through which to perceive how an why we exist (13 max, some leave out 1 or 2), or as I have written, 12 schools of thought or methods to figuring out how and why we exist.
-----------------------------------
JimC: "To use the term "pressure" in the context of interacting electrical and magnetic fields which propagate at the speed of light is meaningless."

Pressure (the symbol: P) is the force per unit area applied in a direction perpendicular to the surface of an object. (Wiki)

As discussed in my debating about thermodynamics, matter moves from high to low pressure. Electrical current also moves from High Negative charge to low negative charge. It is the outer particles (the Electrons) which move, and they are the "Negative" ones. Considering this, it was actually more reasonable to use the classically reversed naming of Negative and Positive because....

A negative charge is an excess of electrons (more electrons than protons in the atoms nuclei)...
A positive charge is a deficiency of electrons (compared to those protons)...

So a "Negative Charge" actually has greater Electrical Pressure than a "Positive Charge". The Negative end of a battery has Positive Electrical Pressure. Voltage is Pressure, and Current is the number of electrons passing a point per second (divided by one coulomb which is about 6.24 or 6.28 quintillion electrons, or one farad at one volt of pressure).

So yes, pressure of atoms or molecules as we experience in air or water is analogous to Electrical Pressure.
The analogy only breaks down where emission is considered because Electrical Current exhibits the Skin Effect (conducting only across the surface) whereas water or air expand outward freely in water or air. There is also the vacuum tube effect discovered by Thomas Edison which allows electrical energy to pass more easily through space when less atoms are in the way.


I still want to discuss the issue of the absolute simplest form of consciousness (without emotion, intelligence, or anything else unnecessary for pure and simple consciousness).

[harleyborgais]

One thing I feel strongly about religions and science is this....


In order to disbelieve in God and/or theistic religions (Sets of Beliefs including Deities), one must ignore the possibility that certain (sometimes miraculous) events in the Ancient Texts may be true.

As a scientist to dismiss any information without adequate consideration is not just foolish, but unscientific, and in many cases even criminal (whenever it leads to harm).

Also there is the burden of proof, and the fact that you cannot disprove the existence of any thing. Only the opposite is possible because we cannot know or see all. This is like the black swan theory...i.e.: "3. The psychological biases that make people individually and collectively blind to uncertainty and unaware of the massive role of the rare event in historical affairs". (Wiki)

[harleyborgais]

It has been said that the greatest crimes were committed in the name of religion, and I agree to a point, but in all cases I have seen so far it was the people in control making decisions which actually went against the set of beliefs of the people under control. Christian and Islamic Teachings say to forgive those that are apologetic, and to never instigate any conflicts, but rather to learn from your mistakes and avoid repeating them (true repentance), and do beneficial things but avoid causing harm.

Like BrainMan said, people who choose to ignore other peoples welfare (the sociopaths) choose to ignore religions because they wish to avoid being limited by a strict code of ethics.


I like to believe that people who are smart enough will usually realize that doing harmful acts reduces ones quality and length of life, while doing constructive acts extends ones life and increases the quality of that life at the same time. We really only need one law: do no harm. That is just too hard for us to follow though because figuring out the best option with every single choice one makes it not feasible.

If we just try to follow that as well as we can we will obviously be better off though. Also, believing in the possibility or even likelihood of a creator of the physical universe is a wise bet regardless of your other beliefs. That is the biggest reason I will teach my children to believe. I believe though because I think I figured out how God came to exist, and how the Universe was created (or more accurately, its formation was guided) by Gods Free Will.

[harleyborgais]

Our responsibility (whether theres a God or not) is to make the best choices we can. This requires an awareness of all of the possible choices. This is why nature has evolved more and more awareness (as Humans are more aware than other animals).

Like Stan Lee said: "With Great Power comes Great Responsibility". (I really like that quote)

Developing our technology, our instruments, our knowledge and ultimately our understanding of our own existence is the key to stabilizing our Existence (Insuring Human Survival Indefinitely).

I think that God has interfered very little, and that many of those instances are recorded in ancient texts. Remember that it was not easy to get paper and writing utensils before certain technologies were invented like pencils, pens and paper presses.

Writing something down usually meant it was important enough to go to great effort to make a record that would last this long. Most of the things we use today would not have a chance of lasting that long. We have to consider that when recording things for posterity.

[Brain Man]

BrainMan: "Problem is religion is not compatible with logical positivism which has helped build and rapidly evolve todays world. "

Positivism: "a set of epistemological perspectives and philosophies of science which hold that the scientific method is the best approach to uncovering the processes by which both physical and human events occur".

Religion: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"

These seem compatible to me, it only depends on your perspective. I have been noticing that with the flower of life, Bija Seed Syllables, Kaballa, many physics equations, and other sources that there is a common theme of about 11-13 different perspectives through which to perceive how an why we exist (13 max, some leave out 1 or 2), or as I have written, 12 schools of thought or methods to figuring out how and why we exist.
-----------------------------------
JimC: "To use the term "pressure" in the context of interacting electrical and magnetic fields which propagate at the speed of light is meaningless."

Pressure (the symbol: P) is the force per unit area applied in a direction perpendicular to the surface of an object. (Wiki)

As discussed in my debating about thermodynamics, matter moves from high to low pressure. Electrical current also moves from High Negative charge to low negative charge. It is the outer particles (the Electrons) which move, and they are the "Negative" ones. Considering this, it was actually more reasonable to use the classically reversed naming of Negative and Positive because....

A negative charge is an excess of electrons (more electrons than protons in the atoms nuclei)...
A positive charge is a deficiency of electrons (compared to those protons)...

So a "Negative Charge" actually has greater Electrical Pressure than a "Positive Charge". The Negative end of a battery has Positive Electrical Pressure. Voltage is Pressure, and Current is the number of electrons passing a point per second (divided by one coulomb which is about 6.24 or 6.28 quintillion electrons, or one farad at one volt of pressure).

So yes, pressure of atoms or molecules as we experience in air or water is analogous to Electrical Pressure.
The analogy only breaks down where emission is considered because Electrical Current exhibits the Skin Effect (conducting only across the surface) whereas water or air expand outward freely in water or air. There is also the vacuum tube effect discovered by Thomas Edison which allows electrical energy to pass more easily through space when less atoms are in the way.


I still want to discuss the issue of the absolute simplest form of consciousness (without emotion, intelligence, or anything else unnecessary for pure and simple consciousness).

Well i still think this forum is not a good place harley. Have you tried visiting some of the social threads and getting a feel for what this place is about ?.. If you have any moral standards on sexual behaviour and stuff like monogamy and being faithful in marriage you will be in for a shock believe me..

.its not that depraved.. though...i mean tame to where i come from where stabbing, fighting, rob n steal..birds selling their arse and hard drugs are the norm...

Back on track....

these are not compatible

Positivism: "a set of epistemological perspectives and philosophies of science which hold that the scientific method is the best approach to uncovering the processes by which both physical and human events occur".

Religion: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"

The scientific method is not interested in purpose. It is purely about pursuing the most accurate description possible on the mechanics of reality.

Yes science looks at cause of deduction and generalities in nature for induction, but these are starting points to keep hacking away at process.

[Brain Man]

It has been said that the greatest crimes were committed in the name of religion, and I agree to a point, but in all cases I have seen so far it was the people in control making decisions which actually went against the set of beliefs of the people under control. Christian and Islamic Teachings say to forgive those that are apologetic, and to never instigate any conflicts, but rather to learn from your mistakes and avoid repeating them (true repentance), and do beneficial things but avoid causing harm.

Like BrainMan said, people who choose to ignore other peoples welfare (the sociopaths) choose to ignore religions because they wish to avoid being limited by a strict code of ethics.


I like to believe that people who are smart enough will usually realize that doing harmful acts reduces ones quality and length of life, while doing constructive acts extends ones life and increases the quality of that life at the same time. We really only need one law: do no harm. That is just too hard for us to follow though because figuring out the best option with every single choice one makes it not feasible.

If we just try to follow that as well as we can we will obviously be better off though. Also, believing in the possibility or even likelihood of a creator of the physical universe is a wise bet regardless of your other beliefs. That is the biggest reason I will teach my children to believe. I believe though because I think I figured out how God came to exist, and how the Universe was created (or more accurately, its formation was guided) by Gods Free Will.

I still dont understand what your God is harley..

is it consciousness which has more memory, processing power etc per volume of space than a human brain ?

[Brain Man]

One thing I feel strongly about religions and science is this....


In order to disbelieve in God and/or theistic religions (Sets of Beliefs including Deities), one must ignore the possibility that certain (sometimes miraculous) events in the Ancient Texts may be true.

As a scientist to dismiss any information without adequate consideration is not just foolish, but unscientific, and in many cases even criminal (whenever it leads to harm).

Also there is the burden of proof, and the fact that you cannot disprove the existence of any thing. Only the opposite is possible because we cannot know or see all. This is like the black swan theory...i.e.: "3. The psychological biases that make people individually and collectively blind to uncertainty and unaware of the massive role of the rare event in historical affairs". (Wiki)

These texts are just books, like movies of their day. in fact most of them were written by jewish storytellers. These people had to psychologically deceive more powerful host nations just to survive. Psychology was their most powerful tool, hence most psychologists today are jewish and the field was invented by them.

If you analyses the old testament stories about 70% are how the jews took power over a larger nation by psychological strategy. Such strategy for a minority in times when people could believe anything supernatural was to bring in hollywood tricks of the day. The parting of the red sea. Probably staged at a time when the tide went out for example. Staffs being turned to snakes...either spiking drinks with hallucinogens or auto hypnosis or Magic tricks which the jews invented.

Jesus was jewish as were his disciples. His disciples were entertainment stage effect and promotion managers in the same vein of todays hollywood jews.

BTW none of this is anti-semitic..it just putting forward the reality of what the jews had to do to survive and still do to this day. They will admit this themselves openly.

[harleyborgais]

So where did the belief in a God originate from (Originally)?


As I remember the Bible or other scriptures say that Adam was the first Human, and he knew God personally...Then there was Abraham not long afterwards who re-introduced or originally introduced a belief in a creator God (at this time there were very many Humans on Earth). I guess this was supposed to have been between 4,400 years ago (before the great flood) and 6,000 years ago (when Adam was put on Earth).


I have seen quite a bit of evidence used to support and disprove these notions, but none of them definitely eliminate these possibilities, and many do support or allow for these to be true.

Like the Continental Shelf, it looks like there was millions of years of erosion up to the continental shelf, and only thousands of years of erosion between the shelf and the current shoreline.

If the skies really did open up and pour water down, then maybe Kent Hovind was onto something proposing that there was a sphere of water where the space junk currently floats. The water does absorb and reflect UV rays which do cause free radicals (harmful/useless molecules) in our bodies, and those do shorten lifespans because they are the mechanism for diseases. Also it makes sense that the water could get up there from the dinosaur extinction event 65M Years ago or the end of the Carboniferous period where the Earth was scorched 200M years ago, and then brought down by an Ice Meteor 4,400 years ago. That explains why there are sea shells on top of mountains and everywhere else, as well as the legends, and it explains the Woolly Mammoth found with its stomach contents still fresh (only possible with a flash freezing temp the same as an Ice Meteor).

[harleyborgais]

Now that BrainMan is a good argument for the Invention of religion (for Psychological warfare against an otherwise superior and controlling enemy).


That is a difficult argument to defeat.

However, it still dismisses the writings and the fact that it was quite difficult to get good paper and writing utensils, also, the ancient texts were written over a very long period of time (thousands of years) so they cannot all be attributed to one event or situation.

[Brain Man]

So where did the belief in a God originate from (Originally)?


As I remember the Bible or other scriptures say that Adam was the first Human, and he knew God personally...Then there was Abraham not long afterwards who re-introduced or originally introduced a belief in a creator God (at this time there were very many Humans on Earth). I guess this was supposed to have been between 4,400 years ago (before the great flood) and 6,000 years ago (when Adam was put on Earth).


I have seen quite a bit of evidence used to support and disprove these notions, but none of them definitely eliminate these possibilities, and many do support or allow for these to be true.

Like the Continental Shelf, it looks like there was millions of years of erosion up to the continental shelf, and only thousands of years of erosion between the shelf and the current shoreline.

If the skies really did open up and pour water down, then maybe Kent Hovind was onto something proposing that there was a sphere of water where the space junk currently floats. The water does absorb and reflect UV rays which do cause free radicals (harmful/useless molecules) in our bodies, and those do shorten lifespans because they are the mechanism for diseases. Also it makes sense that the water could get up there from the dinosaur extinction event 65M Years ago or the end of the Carboniferous period where the Earth was scorched 200M years ago, and then brought down by an Ice Meteor 4,400 years ago. That explains why there are sea shells on top of mountains and everywhere else, as well as the legends, and it explains the Woolly Mammoth found with its stomach contents still fresh (only possible with a flash freezing temp the same as an Ice Meteor).

its far too bed time for me to get into geology. but i still dont understand what god is, so how can i comment on it...there are countless gods, so what is it..

Is it a thinking entity that can process sensory information. If it creates DNA or planets it must have serious tools of some kind.. What is your idea of god. is it a thinking god with complicated mechanics like us.... or is it a vague and simple energy field that assists in self organization from which we emerge ?

[Brain Man]

uh oh..sleeping pills kicking in...

hope to hear what the god is 2morrow. Still baffled on that one totally.

[LucidFlight]

I think that what a teacher teaches should be determined by the parents for a public school, and by the administrators of private schools.

I do however agree with evolution, and that it should be taught as a likely explanation, but creationist beliefs should also be presented. The young will hopefully grow up to prove to us which is right. I think Evolution is an intentional byproduct of Gods design (and that design refers to the forces of nature, not directly the design of DNA, life-forms, or galaxies).

Oh, OK.

So, the main product of design is the forces of nature, and we are a by-product? What leads you to this conclusion? How do you differentiate intentional design from unintentional design? That is to say, how do you know it was not God's specific intention for life to evolve, rather than it being a by-product?

Any thoughts about this, Harley?

Hi, Haryley. Any thoughts on this?