Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => The Lounge => Topic started by: Dark_Me on 5 November 2005, 06:03
-
Found this while browsing deviant art.
Explain to them that "god" is a word that comes from the germanic 'gud', meaning 'good', and that they refer in such way to their deity because, well, "god is good" and all that crap. Also take the time to explain that 'god' is not a name, but a term, and that if they actually bothered to read their books, they'd discover that the closest thing we have to the name of "god" is the tetragrammaton 'YHVH', which, oh fate and fortune, nobody knows how it is pronounced. Therefore, nobody (except some Sufi monks, I assume) knows what the name of "god" is. Therefore, how can anyone use his name in vain when we don't even know what the darned name is?
Soooo, who's a Christian and who have I offended?
-
I'm atheist or anti-theist, whatever the situation warrants ...
Archibald MacLeish wrote ... "If God is God he is not good, if God is good he is
not God ..." :D
I expect to be raped by some theists (opposite of atheist) ... bring it ... :mad:
-
I believe in God, only to explain the bits that science can't (like, where did the raw materials for the big bang come from?).
-
There where no raw materials involved in the big bang. Just pure unaduterated energy.
You see matter=energy. So says Ensein. Energy gained=Mass lostxSpeed of light squared or E=MC squared. It's what happens when an atomic bomb goes off. A very small amount of matter (on the level of 100,00's of atoms) is converted into energy. Lot's of energy.
-
Well where did the energy come from then?
-
No idea. There are some theorys that it's a repeating cycle, when the universe loses all it's outward momentum it will collaps back on itself and the cycle will start all over again. Though that still doesn't explain where it origanally came from. Mabey time repeats? Like a circle, it just keeps going round and round.
-
No idea. There are some theorys that it's a repeating cycle, when the universe loses all it's outward momentum it will collaps back on itself and the cycle will start all over again. Though that still doesn't explain where it origanally came from. Mabey time repeats? Like a circle, it just keeps going round and round.
Who/What set the circle (or time) rolling then?
God!
-
The whole point behne the circle analogy is that there is no begining to it. It just is. It might seem like a copout but it could be it.
There is a reason for everything but one of those reasons is that there is no reason.
It's a moot point anyway as we cannot percive time in any coherent or useful way.
-
In my opinion Einstein was, in general, a moron (except for Photoelectric effect, that was useful) :), I diagree with his equation (E=mc2) it's flawed, and I have derived the real form, and as for the Big Bang ...
Religion + Science = Big Bang
Who created the Big Bang ? God of course.
I also think all science is bunch of shit, except for maybe a few fundemental laws like Conservarion of Mass and Energy. Scientists can make up all the shit they want and call it truth, it's just shit ! Oh and the matter = energy bit is retarded, and it voilates fundemental laws. All experiments trying to prove Einstein's stupid equation are just stupid, the conclusions dont follow from data:
Perfect Example:
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/emc1.htm (http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/emc1.htm)
Quote: "In Paris in 1933, Ir
-
God ?... science ??
i don't know when i think about it i just get the feeling that everything is like becouse of me every time i do not look at it... it disapears like in THE MATRIX and every thing is there FOR ME
like a big simulation and nothing is real and my mind is makeing it up
as the time goes and stuff and i should stop watching X-Files movies and smoke weed ... people i need help!:eek::nothappy:
_______________________________________________________
Ima antichrist!!!!!!!!
:P
*plays DJZenith & Avex - The Music Is Now*
ps:can supply you with a link if you people want :)
-
In my opinion Einstein was, in general, a moron (except for Photoelectric effect, that was useful) :), I diagree with his equation (E=mc2) it's flawed, and I have derived the real form, and as for the Big Bang ...
Religion + Science = Big Bang
You're joking, right?
Scientists can make up all the shit they want and call it truth, it's just shit !
Yea, only as long as all the experiments they (hundreds of scientists) do (over and over again) points their direction.
Oh and the matter = energy bit is retarded, and it voilates fundemental laws. All experiments trying to prove Einstein's stupid equation are just stupid, the conclusions dont follow from data:
Perfect Example:
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/emc1.htm (http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/emc1.htm)
Quote: "In Paris in 1933, Ir
-
There where no raw materials involved in the big bang. Just pure unaduterated energy.
You see matter=energy. So says Ensein. Energy gained=Mass lostxSpeed of light squared or E=MC squared. It's what happens when an atomic bomb goes off. A very small amount of matter (on the level of 100,00's of atoms) is converted into energy. Lot's of energy.
Err.... not exactly. When nuclear fission occurs, a neutron strikes the atom. This causes an imbalance in the forces inside the atomic nucleus, which then splits in half to relieve the pressure. The massive release of energy that results is because of the collapse of the strong nuclear force generated by the protons and neutrons. Then you get two lighter atoms, and two neutrons that spread the fun.
-
You're joking, right?
Yea, only as long as all the experiments they (hundreds of scientists) do (over and over again) points their direction.
I thought the idea was that the particles were converted from light (energy), and not "CREATED by God"?
Bah, forget it ... I suppose I was just joking :D ... just wanted to see people's reaction to "controversial" material ;)
What the fuck was the point of this tread again ?
-
What god? What sience?
Man, this is all just somthing I'm dreaming while in a coma.
Damn! Why can't I dream up myself a few million in cash and a trophy wife?
-
Err.... not exactly. When nuclear fission occurs, a neutron strikes the atom. This causes an imbalance in the forces inside the atomic nucleus, which then splits in half to relieve the pressure. The massive release of energy that results is because of the collapse of the strong nuclear force generated by the protons and neutrons. Then you get two lighter atoms, and two neutrons that spread the fun.
This is true but if this was the only reason then E=mc2 wouldn't work. I'm more familar with fusion so i'll use that. Your basic fusion reaction is basicaly heating isoptopes of hydrogen up to make it vibrate to the point that when two atoms collide they have enough force to combine into helium and also produce a newtron. So? How does this produce energy? It's not splitting, there are no forces being ripped apart. It does so because of something called the mass deficit. The combined mass of helium and nutron is slightly lighter then the combined mass of the hydrogen. So where did this mass go? It was turned into energy. The same goes for fission.
-
What god? What sience?
Man, this is all just somthing I'm dreaming while in a coma.
Damn! Why can't I dream up myself a few million in cash and a trophy wife?
I like the way you think man .. I really wish the same :D :thumbup:
If only this were a dream in deep coma, and when I wake up, everything is perfect ... the way it was meant to be, no science, no religion, no pain, no suffering, no work, no school, no bullshit, and best of all NO Microsoft !!! :eek: :thumbup:
-
This is true but if this was the only reason then E=mc2 wouldn't work. I'm more familar with fusion so i'll use that. Your basic fusion reaction is basicaly heating isoptopes of hydrogen up to make it vibrate to the point that when two atoms collide they have enough force to combine into helium and also produce a newtron. So? How does this produce energy? It's not splitting, there are no forces being ripped apart. It does so because of something called the mass deficit. The combined mass of helium and nutron is slightly lighter then the combined mass of the hydrogen. So where did this mass go? It was turned into energy. The same goes for fission.
Well yes, but the majority of the energy comes from the collapse of the nuclear force. At least in fission, fusion isn't used nowadays because no one is firing off hydrogen bombs and fusion reactors are a big waste of money.
-
So it's not a matter of if it's a matter of which produces more. I'm not sure, all I can say is that when matter is converted into energy it's a lot of energy.
-
Who/What set the circle (or time) rolling then?
God!
and who created God?
I'm christian myself. But really you can't prove or disprove whether a god/deity exists or that our universe is just one of an infinite number of universes. Either theory is perfectly acceptable .
Would be interesting if there only is one universe and that it is in the state it is because of some mathematically relationship or something.
-
Deism, baby. No theology to prove or disprove. No bone to pick with everybody else. I believe there's a god, but no, I don't know who they are, nor do I really care.
-
and who created God?
I'm christian myself. But really you can't prove or disprove whether a god/deity exists or that our universe is just one of an infinite number of universes. Either theory is perfectly acceptable .
I never tried to, or claimed that I could.
Here (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0071/0071_01.asp) is an interesting article I recently found about Roman Catholicism.
-
The concept of god is a little story that primitive people use to explain away their fear of death. Religion is nothing more than assholes using this fear to control other people. Really. Even Wiccans and Satanists are pushing a certain type of morality. Most religions are just about devoid of spirituality, and are therefore worthless to the modern man who can see that god and religion were constructs he produced to entertain himself while waiting until the universities opened up.
-
And the infinite universe theory is a desperate attempt to explain how a universe that can produce living beings is possible given the near impossible odds without involving a third party.
Religion is not used to control me, I can ditch christianity whenever I fell like it.
Ahhhhhhhhh, You're just trying to suck us in to keep this stupid thread going....
@PenguinPirate: That second bit was just general babble, not directed at you specificially.
-
And the infinite universe theory is a desperate attempt to explain how a universe that can produce living beings is possible given the near impossible odds without involving a third party.
Religion is not used to control me, I can ditch christianity whenever I fell like it.
In some parts of the world, religion controls the people. For example in my country in the 50's, you couldn't get a decent job in Southern Netherlands, unless you where a Catholic.
There where almost no state run schools, only Christian.
-
Regardless of how the state uses religion, religion is still used to control you. Christianity has a pretty complex list of things that one must do or must not do in order to find salvation. "Thou shalt not kill" is not a suggestion, it is a law. Now, admittedly, the 10 Commandments are pretty decent and civilized laws, except for the whole "no other gods before me" thing, and the "lord's name in vain" bullshit. Okay, so like maybe 5 out of 10 are good laws.
Additionally, if you are a Christian, you are expected to attend worship services on a regular basis - if you don't, you're somehow less Christian - the bible not only tells you what to believe, but how to believe. There is a priest/minister who is "in charge" of the congregation. This guy is further subject to a whole heirarchy of jackasses - in the case of Catholicism, this goes all the way to the pope, a guy who has special powers to talk to Jesus directly. Thus, being a Christian implies aligning yourself within this heirarchy. This heirarchy is ALWAYS pyramidal, with the normal people at the bottom and the powerful at the top. By kneeling down to pray, you pass your freedom and responsibility not only to god, but to some rich powerful Italian as well.
If neither of these qualify as examples of any reasonable definition of control, let me know, and I will gladly take it back.
-
The whole human race began with just two people!
The age or the world and universe is just 6000 years!
The rest of the universe revolves around the earth!
-
I put religion in the same category as astrology, Greek mythology and Scientology.
-
Now, admittedly, the 10 Commandments are pretty decent and civilized laws, except for the whole "no other gods before me" thing, and the "lord's name in vain" bullshit. Okay, so like maybe 5 out of 10 are good laws.
Nice math. 10 Commandments minus 2 bad ones equals 8, not 5. :p
-
Nice math. 10 Commandments minus 2 bad ones equals 8, not 5. :p
I decided in mid-sentence (a respected literary comic device) that the whole "remember the sabbath day" thing sucked too. The number of good commandments is probably somewhere between 7 and 2. Average rounds to FIVE. I could get more specific, but that would require looking up the actual ten commandments.
-
To be christian you only have to follow the teachings of christ, there doesn't have to be any formal clergy or priest. God theorically speak with anyone. And the pope isn't Italian.
Religion is nothing more than assholes using this fear to control other people
I have never felt fear because of religion or been taught to do so. Religion is there to provide answers.
If neither of these qualify as examples of any reasonable definition of control, let me know, and I will gladly take it back.
Those are examples of control, thats the point of an established church, to control the message they provide and the behaviours they accept. But they are not controlling the follower, there is no punishment for not following the rules only guidance.
Yes religion can be and still is used to control people but it is more than that.
-
Religion is not used to control me, I can ditch christianity whenever I fell like it.
Well first ...
religion = mass crowd control
And second, I was born catholic orthodox ... was even baptized, have a godfather ... so how did I end up atheist ?
It wasn't easy at all ... it's like a drug, a drug that cures fear of death artificially ... you can try to quit, but the fear will always bring you back ... unless of course you demolish the fear at its root.
The only way to demolish all fear is to believe in yourself, know that you can take on anything that comes your way, even the whole world, even death.
Now I don't believe in any god, but I can still theorize about what happens after death ... if I choose to ... if you want to know my theories, I could write em down, at least the basic principles of logic behind them :)
-
H_TeXMeX_H,please do pot your theory on death, I'd be most interested.
Here's mine:
When you die, your body and brain both stop functioning and you're gone, you are no longer a living feeling emotional being on this planet in the universe, once you're gone, you're gone, you are expendable just like any other life form in existance.
I am scared of death it's my greatest fear, I know it's going to happen one day but I don't know when and I don't want to know either. I hope that when I die I either accept this or die very quickly, the latter would be nice in either case.
-
Death is just a state of mind IMO.
-
Actually, quite the opposite. Death is a loss of mind.
But check this out - what if the process of decay causes continued minor electrical impulses through the brain? You could be left with the ghost of your thoughts for hundreds of years. If your memories were bad, that could suck royally.
-
Ok, here goes nothing ... most of it is a thought experiment:
1) Say we have a machine that will perfectly clone you, it can build you atom by atom to an exact replica of you in all possible ways ... it's not impossible, we have crude molecular assemblers that can build nanotubes and stuff like that.
Question is ... is that clone you ? Obviously not ... as soon as the clone is built you wont somehow be able to control both yourself and your clone, so your clone, although perfectly identical to you in every way is not you. So what makes you who you are ? A soul ? No proof of that exists ...
2) Say we have another machine that can map all the atoms in your body in their particular locations, then disintegrate you into all your component atoms, and then rebuild you back into yourself ...
Will this be you ? If everything is put in the right place, it must be you, well who else could it be ? Would this process destroy who you are ? I argue it won't ... after all you are just an elaborate arrangement of atoms.
So, from these first two we can conclude that you are an arrangement of very specific atoms in space ... nothing more ... if we change the constituent atoms too much, you will no longer be yourself
3) Suppose we could make you live forever ... or nearly forever, this is not impossible either, we could alter your genes to stop your programmed demise. How would you change over an eternity ? Would some part of you stay the same ? Yes, but a lot of you will change along with the corresponding atomic and molecular arrangements inside you. However, this produces a nearly infinite number of possible configurations that would still result in you ... there are limits, since you can only change so much before you are no longer yourself
Ok, from all three we get that you will almost definately live another life, although memories of a previous life will not be present, or will not be credible. Think of it this way, the chances of you living again are in proportion to the chances of your molecules aggregating into a one of the nearly infinite number of configurations that would still result in some form of you.
Adding a bitchslap of reality, this will take an astronomical amount of time to happen. For example, imagine that we were to plot the loaction of all your atoms with reference to only one of your atoms versus time ... what would this plot look like ? Unless you creamated yourself their locations would stay relatively constant after death ... now thinking a astronomical amount of time into the future, at some point your molecules will be in the same place at the same time, hopefully in some form of live that can give birth ... and some form of you will result. You will have no memory of the past, or if you do it could be attibuted to merely a dream. :)
Reincarnation ? Not really ... not 40 days till you get reincarnated ... more like 40 to the 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 ...... power :)
And can you be reincarnated in another form ... such as a monkey or a cat ? Well, if we could perform a brain transplant between you and a monkey or a cat ... we might find out ... human brains are rather large, so maybe we could try to make you a dolphin or whale (a small whale), or a large squid :D or an alien :eek:
-
Interesting theory so basically even if I were to make an identical copy of you it won't remain identical for very long as it's living it'll change and become very differant to you. I'm sure that this it isn't possible possible, arranging simple atoms is quite easy, however I think the chaos theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory) will fuck things up quite nicely if you tried to clone anthing atom by atom.
we could alter your genes to stop your programmed demise.
This is a popular misonception about the ading process, your genes aren't programmed to destroy themselves infact it's quite the opposite (if it were that simple then altering them to make you live for ever would've already been done). The mechanism behind the ageing process isn't fully understood but when your cells replicate themselves there are imperfections in the coppy (some genetic information is lost) and it's the build up of this damage that causes aging, your DNA has various safe gaurds to help prevent this and the better they are the longer you live for.
Edit:
I neglected to mention that the enviromental conditions affect adging more than anything else as it's the enviroment that's responsiple for inflicting the genetic damage in the first place but my origional point still remains valid, it's the ability or the cells to withstand and prevent this damage that helps you live longer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senescence
-
1) Say we have a machine that will perfectly clone you, it can build you atom by atom to an exact replica of you in all possible ways ... it's not impossible, we have crude molecular assemblers that can build nanotubes and stuff like that.
Question is ... is that clone you ? Obviously not ... as soon as the clone is built you wont somehow be able to control both yourself and your clone, so your clone, although perfectly identical to you in every way is not you.
2) Say we have another machine that can map all the atoms in your body in their particular locations, then disintegrate you into all your component atoms, and then rebuild you back into yourself ...
Will this be you ? If everything is put in the right place, it must be you, well who else could it be ? Would this process destroy who you are ? I argue it won't ... after all you are just an elaborate arrangement of atoms.
These 2 statements are contradictory. In both cases, the resulting body is exactly the same as the original you. If you don't see how this is true, think of the rebuilding machine as making a copy of you, while destroying the original. If I take one hydrogen atom from you and replace it with a hydrogen atom from a bottle of Sprite, will that change you? Not in any significant way. So it isn't the atoms themselves, it's their configuration. And any configuration of atoms that adds up to you is you.
Point being that a copy of you is still you, from a chemistry standpoint. Just like a photocopy of a piece of paper is a piece of paper. Fortunately, this small problem doesn't affect your conclusions, that there is a statistical possibility that 'you' can exist again someday.
-
This damn thread lol. All the stuff i often just think about. Whats the point in religion. How did everything start. What happens after death.
How many religions are there? They all want you to beleiev different things and all believe there is one god, but each god is different. I don't deny the existance of "God", but I dont believe there is a god either. I am open minded about almost anything. I believe M$ is a bad company, but if somone offers me proof to proove otherwise, I may change my mind.
How did the universe(s) begin? Okey, so if god created everything becuase the energy/matter antimatter clouds/large fart couldn't have just allways existed, then why can a god have allways existed? There is proof everywhere then there was some kind of explosion. Static on tv's and radio's is the left over radio waves from a big explosion. The fact that things in the universe are moving apart, but are very slowley loosing speed. All points to an explosion.
What happens after death? I have often wonderd, but don't want to find out just yet. I find it hard to believe that we just dissapear, because really, all a persons mind is is a load of electrical impulses. Electricity is an energy and energy can niether be created, or destroyed, mearly converted into other forms.
I say believe what the hell you want to, don't let any one else tell you what you can and can't believe, or can and can't do to show your belief's. I was baptized, all the usual religious stuff. Went to church in primary school. I don't believe in an all powerfull god, well maybe Tux. Thats my rather odd say on stuff.
-
I think the chaos theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory) will fuck things up quite nicely if you tried to clone anthing atom by atom.
This is a popular misonception about the ading process, your genes aren't programmed to destroy themselves infact it's quite the opposite (if it were that simple then altering them to make you live for ever would've already been done). The mechanism behind the ageing process isn't fully understood but when your cells replicate themselves there are imperfections in the coppy (some genetic information is lost) and it's the build up of this damage that causes aging, your DNA has various safe gaurds to help prevent this and the better they are the longer you live for.
Edit:
I neglected to mention that the enviromental conditions affect adging more than anything else as it's the enviroment that's responsiple for inflicting the genetic damage in the first place but my origional point still remains valid, it's the ability or the cells to withstand and prevent this damage that helps you live longer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senescence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senescence)
Chaos theory is my favorite theory, but I assure you that there are work-arounds for chaos theory impeding the precise cloning of an object ... but that's not the point ... it's just a thought experiment, the point is to help grasp the concepts behind my theory, not to clone people atom by atom, nor to make people live forever (yeah it isn't easy, and I don't agree with it either, I mean what is the world population ? 6,478,021,029 and counting) :)
These 2 statements are contradictory. In both cases, the resulting body is exactly the same as the original you. If you don't see how this is true, think of the rebuilding machine as making a copy of you, while destroying the original. If I take one hydrogen atom from you and replace it with a hydrogen atom from a bottle of Sprite, will that change you? Not in any significant way. So it isn't the atoms themselves, it's their configuration. And any configuration of atoms that adds up to you is you.
Point being that a copy of you is still you, from a chemistry standpoint. Just like a photocopy of a piece of paper is a piece of paper. Fortunately, this small problem doesn't affect your conclusions, that there is a statistical possibility that 'you' can exist again someday.
Yes, I agree, the copy would techincally be 'you', but only in the sense that one piece of paper is a photocopy of another ... although they are identical photocopies of one another they are not the same piece of paper :thumbup:
Note: this is just a theory after all ... no need to believe it, but it holds well with the rest of em, and it even has some quasi-logical proof behind it :)
As for: How did the universe(s) begin?
I can't help but answer this question ...
Answer: It didn't
-
If they say that the hole f* kin human race began with just two people
are not we "banging" our "sisters and brothers" ??
wtf is that ??
are they stupid or something
that religion is BUGed
i bet Bill is to blame ... ahem i mean god
-
Jack2000: Even if you are a Darwinist (like me), you still have to admit that we have common ancestors. There must have been a time when the number of people who still have offspring living now was very small. In fact - I think we all originate from a single instance of primary life form, along with all or most living things today. But I wouldn't be surprised if some primitive contemporary lifeforms were completely unrelated - ie started from scratch at a different place/time than our line has.
-
As and from now I am an agnostic (http://www.answers.com/agnostic):
An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist.
Discovered that word while watching Donnie Darco - what a brilliant film.
-
Good film indeed.
I might be an agnostic too. I'll have to think about it.
BTW the word means (in latin) a person who "does not know".
-
about the:what makes you ... YOU!
well what makes you ... YOU is(or should I say are) your memories
even if you can clone yourself with your memories ... if you can not
transfer your thoughts as in the exact moment you will cease to exist
your exact "self" (should if you want) will cease to exist
making a copy of yourself is not the answer.
the only way to live forever is to go digital...
by transferring your memories and your brain impulses into some
kind of "brain/flesh simulator" you can achieve true immortality
it is not the atoms it is the "mind"/"soul"/"electricity"/"whatever"
that makes you ... yourself
ps:the idea of karma is totaly wrong!
just in case you bring that up
-
The age or the world and universe is just 6000 years!
What about dinosours?
-
Death, when you die you go into this dream like state of euphroia and bliss, it doesnt matter how bad a person you are, it doesn't count. I have been there before.
-
Jack, you seem to get the whole concept of 攻殻機動隊 (Kokaku Kidotai), which I lack the knowledge (I would argue that all do, but that's best left for another day) to affirm or deny. Kintaro, narcotics don't count - you still have cognitive thought processes whilst high, even if you don't notice them.
-
about the:what makes you ... YOU!
well what makes you ... YOU is(or should I say are) your memories
even if you can clone yourself with your memories ... if you can not
transfer your thoughts as in the exact moment you will cease to exist
your exact "self" (should if you want) will cease to exist
making a copy of yourself is not the answer.
the only way to live forever is to go digital...
by transferring your memories and your brain impulses into some
kind of "brain/flesh simulator" you can achieve true immortality
it is not the atoms it is the "mind"/"soul"/"electricity"/"whatever"
that makes you ... yourself
ps:the idea of karma is totaly wrong!
just in case you bring that up
Your thoughts are just electrochemical signals made up of ions, neurotransmitters and the like ... they are saved along with the rest of your atoms. There is no such thing as a soul or karma ... I'm not Buddist or Hindu either. If you figure out a way to
"transferring your memories and your brain impulses into some
kind of "brain/flesh simulator"" ...
you may become very rich ... but it will never happen because I am right :D
If you missed the point, I'm trying to remove any notion of a 'soul' or anything that is not present in the real world
-
the soul
as in ghost type of soul
ugh ... no ... it is scientificly impossible
plus if the soul keeps all the info (memories)
then why if the brain is damaged you can lose some info (if not dead already)
so we all agree ghost/soul is a bogus theory ?
-
What about dinosours?
Exactly, I was being sarcastic.
Death, when you die you go into this dream like state of euphroia and bliss, it doesnt matter how bad a person you are, it doesn't count. I have been there before.
What an ironic theme for (possibly) your last post?
I've never had a near death experiance so I don't really knoe but I've read about this and spoken to people that have so I'm reasonable sure of what happens when we die.
For one you're not a bad person but I agree with this anyway. When your brain is dying it endorphins are released creating a state euphoia and bliss, neurons fire at random thus invoking thoughts and memories (people often say "my whole life flashed before my very eyes"), this is followed by permanent unconsciousness - you're dead. Death in itself isn't painful it's what happens before that's often torture.
Having said all of this there is still one big gap in the theory: some people have outer body experiances when they look down on themselves on a hospital bed and watch the nurses, doctors and surgeons trying to resuscitate them. My father has experianced this, I don't know how this can be explained, imagination maybe but there again he could recall some details of the procedures carried out on him. Perhapps he's been watching too many hospital TV dramas, maybe his sole was escaping his body. I'm tempted to believe that the mind regains some form of consciousness before death - I don't know and I suppose when I do find out I'll won't be able to tell anyone.
-
What about dinosours?
God intentionally placed their fossils about the place to mislead us ;)
-
Having said all of this there is still one big gap in the theory: some people have outer body experiances when they look down on themselves on a hospital bed and watch the nurses, doctors and surgeons trying to resuscitate them. My father has experianced this, I don't know how this can be explained, imagination maybe but there again he could recall some details of the procedures carried out on him. Perhapps he's been watching too many hospital TV dramas, maybe his sole was escaping his body. I'm tempted to believe that the mind regains some form of consciousness before death - I don't know and I suppose when I do find out I'll won't be able to tell anyone.
It's not that people are watching too much T.V. or have over-active imaginations. Most of the instruments aren't unwrapped from their protective coverings until after the patient has been knocked out.
-
the soul
as in ghost type of soul
ugh ... no ... it is scientificly impossible
plus if the soul keeps all the info (memories)
then why if the brain is damaged you can lose some info (if not dead already)
so we all agree ghost/soul is a bogus theory ?
I agree ... soul = bullshit
-
God intentionally placed their fossils about the place to mislead us ;)
Indeed, She did. :D
-
In my opinion Einstein was, in general, a moron (except for Photoelectric effect, that was useful) :), I diagree with his equation (E=mc2) it's flawed, and I have derived the real form, and as for the Big Bang ...
Religion + Science = Big Bang
Who created the Big Bang ? God of course.
I also think all science is bunch of shit, except for maybe a few fundemental laws like Conservarion of Mass and Energy. Scientists can make up all the shit they want and call it truth, it's just shit ! Oh and the matter = energy bit is retarded, and it voilates fundemental laws. All experiments trying to prove Einstein's stupid equation are just stupid, the conclusions dont follow from data:
Perfect Example:
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/emc1.htm (http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/emc1.htm)
Quote: "In Paris in 1933, Ir
-
If they say that the hole f* kin human race began with just two people
are not we "banging" our "sisters and brothers" ??
wtf is that ??
are they stupid or something
that religion is BUGed
i bet Bill is to blame ... ahem i mean god
I once asked a biologist if it were possible for a species to propagate from just two members (male & female). She said that there was a mathematical proof that showed it is possible to create a viable gene pool in a finite number of generations, despite the incest. You end up with a lot of $#%^#ed up people/animals/specimins along the way, but if they don't breed, you get a viable gene pool with enough diversity that the recombiant recessive genes are not an issue. In other words, wait enough generations, keep the messed up specimins from breeding, and eventually you have enough genetic diversity that the people are genetically not like "brothers and sisters," despite common ancestry.
-
Now I'm a scientific type of person myself. And I have created mathematical proof of the existence of the _immaterial_* soul. For this I had to assume free will - that is that it is not given nor random what I will do in the next moment. "I have choice" implies "I have a soul". If you're interested, I can try explaining the process of implication here :). It's probably gonna be long in text...
*immaterial - not immortal. That I do not know and cannot know, therefore a quantum superposition of states as in the Shroedingers cat theoretical experiment.
-
free will...
the free will is the natural *next step* in evolution
there is nothing supernatural to it...
-
the transformation of electric fields into magnetic fields, also which has been experimentally proven.
This has been know about for hell of a long time and is what happens in radio wave propagation, it's a long time since I did this so here goes:
With a 1/2 wave dipole antenna:
An E-field (electric field) solely exists near the aerial then further away (1/2 wave length I think) it's matched by an equal H-field (magnetic field) at 90 degrees to it.
The reverse is true with a 1/2 wave folded dipole.
An H-field (magnetic) solely exists near the aerial then further away (if I'm right 1/2 wavelength again) it's matched by an equal E-field.
This only applies to alternating electric and magnetic fields, which consist of both electric and magnetic fields. A steady state E-field (for example (a balloon with a static charge on it) or an H-field (like an electro magnet) always remains the same since its wavelength is infinite.
-
This has been know about for hell of a long time and is what happens in radio wave propagation, it's a long time since I did this so here goes:
With a 1/2 wave dipole antenna:
An E-field (electric field) solely exists near the aerial then further away (1/2 wave length I think) it's matched by an equal H-field (magnetic field) at 90 degrees to it.
The reverse is true with a 1/2 wave folded dipole.
An H-field (magnetic) solely exists near the aerial then further away (if I'm right 1/2 wavelength again) it's matched by an equal E-field.
This only applies to alternating electric and magnetic fields, which consist of both electric and magnetic fields. A steady state E-field (for example (a balloon with a static charge on it) or an H-field (like an electro magnet) always remains the same since its wavelength is infinite.
Umm, NO. Radio/light wave propagation is something completely different than what I was talking about, and the statement that a steady-state E or H-field never changes is just plain wrong. It changes with the velocity of the frame of reference.
A steady state E-Field looks like a combination of an E-Field and an H-Field from another velocity. Likewise a steady state H-Field at one velocity looks like a combination of a steady state E-Field and H-Field at another velocity. This is because E and H fields are not really separate entities, but are physical manefestations of one tensor quantity: the electromagnetic field tensor. The parts of the field tensor you "see" depend on your frame of reference.
So your statically charged balloon? It looks like it is emitting a magnetic field as well as an electric field if you are looking at it while travelling at relativistic speeds with respect to the balloon. Likewise, your magnet has a static electric field under the same conditions. It's wierd. That's relativity.
Look at the nutshell version from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_tensor). It really doesn't go into enough information about relativisitic tensor transformations, but it's a start.
-
Dudes.
Here's the answer, seriously: http://www.polytheism.org.uk
why can't everybody be right? (that's rhetorical, i have heard the usual answers to this question and they are all too narrow for my liking)
on the other hand, i *am* open to hearing anything people have to say about god(s)!
-
free will...
the free will is the natural *next step* in evolution
there is nothing supernatural to it...
gracious! there's been a lot of discussion since i posted above (which was really a reply to the first few posts in this thread)
anyway, re: freewill, i coincidentally posted something about this in this thread (http://www.polytheism.org.uk/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=227), basically i just posted to an interesting link about freewill within christianity (amongst other things) but we've started a little discussion about it too.
and basically i think freewill depends on your point of view.
-
Umm, NO. Radio/light wave propagation is something completely different than what I was talking about, and the statement that a steady-state E or H-field never changes is just plain wrong. It changes with the velocity of the frame of reference.
A steady state E-Field looks like a combination of an E-Field and an H-Field from another velocity. Likewise a steady state H-Field at one velocity looks like a combination of a steady state E-Field and H-Field at another velocity. This is because E and H fields are not really separate entities, but are physical manefestations of one tensor quantity: the electromagnetic field tensor. The parts of the field tensor you "see" depend on your frame of reference.
So your statically charged balloon? It looks like it is emitting a magnetic field as well as an electric field if you are looking at it while travelling at relativistic speeds with respect to the balloon. Likewise, your magnet has a static electric field under the same conditions. It's wierd. That's relativity.
Look at the nutshell version from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_tensor). It really doesn't go into enough information about relativisitic tensor transformations, but it's a start.
That makes perfect sense, it's how induction works, when a conductor is moved through an H-field a potential differance is induced in it causing an E-field to develop and the reverse is true with a static electric field. If you're standing still then the steady state H or E field will be constant but if you move nearer or further away from it, it varies as far as you're concerned anyway.
-
That makes perfect sense, it's how induction works, when a conductor is moved through an H-field a potential differance is induced in it causing an E-field to develop and the reverse is true with a static electric field. If you're standing still then the steady state H or E field will be constant but if you move nearer or further away from it, it varies as far as you're concerned anyway.
You are confusing a time varying H field with a relativisticly transformed H field. Induction, A.K.A. Faraday's law, is Maxwell's third equation. The equations of relativity are what keeps all Maxwell's equations invariant under any velocity frame of reference.
This example should illustrate the difference.
Induction: You move a wire ring around a magnet. This causes the magnetic flux through the wire ring to change with time, in turn causing a "curled" E-Field in the wire ring, generating an electric current. The wire ring is moving, so it is experiencing the field at differerent distances from the magnet as it moves causing a time varying H field from the perspective of the wire ring.
Relativity: The wire ring is held stationary three inches away from the magnet. The magnetic flux does not change.
Billy is standing next to the magnet and "sees" only a constant, static magnetic field in the center of the ring.
Mary is moving at half the speed of light, flying by the magnet and ring. She looks at the center of the ring, and "sees" a constant, static, non-time varying magnetic and electric field. This electric field is not curled (because relativistic transforms are linear) and does not induce a current in the ring. Mary is not looking at the magnetic field at her position (which would definitely be changing because her position is changing, just as the ring's position is changing in the Induction example). We are talking about the static fields at a fixed distance away from the magnet.
Joe is moving at 3/4 the speed of light, and sees a different combination of static, non-time varying magnetic and electric fields at the center of the ring than Mary or Billy, because his frame of reference has a different velocity.
-
in the last page (this isn't directly related to the posts we've just had, i'm still backreading, in this thread, there's a lot to think about), somebody said that they thought the existence of a soul was scientifically impossible. I just wanted to say that to properly rule out the existence of something, you first need to define it. i am not convinced there's a scientific definition of soul which will enable science to completely rule it out. And if there is, then the definition is too narrow to encompass all the things a soul could be.
Basically, we have no idea really what a soul is (material/immaterial? physical/electromagnetic/extrasensory? etc etc) so how can we specify natural laws which completely rule out its existence? i think there are a lot of other things that are much more foregone that science is still keeping an open mind about, and i would like to think that the existence of a soul could be one of them.
I understand that the social connotations of the concept of a soul (or karma for that matter) might not appeal to somebody who is researching modern science, but this does not mean there's not some other branches of science, or other things we've yet to (or will never) discover which explains these things and more within a scientific context.
just a thought.
-
Absence of evidence need not necessarily be evidence of absence. ;)
-
First ... sorry for ressurecting this thread ... in fact I hate this thread, but I just wanted to say that the theory I put in here was wrong ! It's paradoxical ... therefore incomplete or wrong.
Thus, there is only 1 other possible opiton ... that we cannot know what happens after death ... does this make me an agnostic ?
Sorry if this seems unimportant, but it's been bothering me all day, so I just had to say it :)
-
First ... sorry for ressurecting this thread ...
I never saw what was wrong with ressurecting threads...
Thus, there is only 1 other possible opiton ... that we cannot know what happens after death ... does this make me an agnostic ?
Yep. Welcome.
-
agnostics are people too scared to make up their own opinion :P
of course we can never know what happens after death only make a guess (and I left out 'educated' for a reason :) ).
And then fight over who has the best guess, and try convert people to our guess with pretty unconvincing data and agressive passionate baseless debate.
-
How about there really is no way of knowing what comes after death, so we should STOP FIGHTING LIKE A BUNCH OF FUCKING RETARTED CHILDREN !!! No, I'm wrong, go ahead and kill each other and rid this cursed planet of the plague called man.