John Cuthber

If I were being dogmatic or disinterested then you couldn't cite a quote from me that starts with a question; specifically "what for" On the other hand, I note that, rather than answering, you seem to have written me off as closed minded. Seems ironic to me. BTW, "physics is not fundamental." is an unevinced assertion.

I suspect I'm about to get a "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy here but, re ", I suggest you look around and scientifically accept the empirical data you see from Christians" OK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_abuse There doesn't seem to be a wiki page for cases of abuse done in the name of atheism.

"Empirical evidence: Again, Christ did not advocate stoning people (and why am I having to repeat myself again and again and again)," Oh yes he did. And that's why you keep repeating yourself. He said the old laws still stand, and those laws advocate stoning. "Please cite chapter and verse where Christ said something like, "I've come to take away the sins of the world, so forgive one another ad infinitum, but keep stoning people, especially prostitutes."" Already did, several times, but you keep trying to pretend that it means something more or less the opposite of what it actually says. "What if some wacko murdered people based on the writings of John Cuthber on scienceforums.net? Would that make you responsible? Or, more accurately, would those people who agree with your writings on scienceforums.net (especially those who click on your green reputation arrows, ) be responsible/answerable for what the wacko does? I think not." Total strawman, but the answer is no, they would be responsible for their actions. Among the reasons that it's a strawman is that such hateful writings would usually be banned here. However if I wanted to suggest that people should kill eachother I can probably get away with quoting the Bible. For example I can probably get away with saying "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." as long as I cite is as Exodous 22:18 See, religion lets me getaway with hate speeches: cool!

Well, I guess the question says it all. It's a laser pointer- nothing special. It's nominally 532nm so it's a frequency doubled Nd type of some sort and yet it gives two different wavelengths of light. It certainly gives two wavelengths, I first spotted this using a diffraction grating but my direct vision spectroscope verifies the fact (as do two other gratings and they each give just 1 spot with a second 532 nm laser and a HeNe) As far as I can tell they are 532 and about 536 nm. but it's difficult to judge with my rather low resolution spectrometer The divergence between the two beams after they hit a grating is about 1.5 cm in 2 metres which pretty much tallies with that estimate. Neither beam is significantly polarised As far as I understand it the 532 is a direct consequence of the 1064 nm emission from Nd+++ so a second emission frequency should be impossible. Has anyone noticed this sort of thing before and does anyone have a viable explanation for it?

"Equally it could be said, that God does very well, without requiring science." God might, but religion certainly doesn't. It kills too many people to be said to be doing well.

Stop trying to change the subject, and answer the points raised. What Christ explicitly taught was that the OT laws still stand, and that they will do so forever. (He could hardly say anything else because it would mean that God got the laws wrong in the first place.) Those laws include many things that are, by today's standards immoral. So Christ clearly taught immorality. Stoning people to death is doing people harm but that's what Christ advocated. Ignoring this won't make it go away, not least because others who follow the same book use it as a justification for murder.

This bit "this Nuclear Reactor power supplied Free Electron Laser can vaporize a hole through 1000 feet of Solid Steel in very short time." isn't very plausible. In turn it is unlikely that "China and Russia have becomed very alarmed at this Laser System's capabilities"

Ewmon, Here,once again, is the line from the Gospel quoting Jesus' words on the issue of changing the OT laws to make it easier for you, I have highlighted the bit that says that those laws stand till the end of time. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law". Now please stop ignoring it. Either explain why he was saying they stand until the end of time but meant that they were changing. Also, if you plan to do that (which is absurd but...) you will need to explain why and infallible God got the rules wrong in the first place and needed to change them. Since Christ's own words tell you that the old laws (all of them, as you point out, not just the Torah) still stand, you, if you wish to follow Christ's teachings must follow those laws including all the ludicrous bits. Since you don't accept, for example, the Bible's idea that prostitutes should be stoned to death, you must have got that idea from somewhere else. So the Bible isn't your moral guide. So even the theists (such as yourself) have some other source of morality. ". Try bashing those religious people who believe in female genital mutilation, throwing acid in women's faces, and honor killings. They are people who actually perform evil acts." You do realise they are actually following the same "Holy" book as you, don't you?

"But in fairness to PeterJ's point, do you get by fine without something "like" God?" Yes, thanks for asking. The stuff about God is a whole lot of nonsense and I get by just fine without it. What did you think you meant? As far as I know, there is no meaningful definition of the word "God" which corresponds with something I need. Let me know if you think I'm missing something

I'm not sure this should be in "science"

Just a thought. If you don't pay the "fine" then you stand to lose your computer. If you do then you hand all your payment details to a bunch of criminals, in which case you stand to lose your computer* and also the contents of your bank accounts(s). * Unless these crooks are kind enough to keep to their word: does that seem likely?

Not strictly my field but, how do the wave velocities vary with density and stiffness? How does fatigue testing affect those parameters?

I don't know, but here's a data point for you to include. If there are no guns (or no ammunition), the number of people shot falls to zero. If the regression model doesn't go through that point then it's plainly wrong. If you then seek to minimise the number of people who get shot...

"My whole post was a concept explaining why people create this concept of god and why it is innately built into all of us...." It doesn't seem to be built into me I can't help thinking that most people believe in God because someone told them about Him.

What for? I seem to get by just fine without Him.

You seem to have missed my point. Nothing needs God.

"If God is not required for our current scientific theories then this is hardly surprising. " Peter, you seem not to have noticed, but God also isn't required for anything else at all; ever. If He were, then that would prove His existence. For example, if you show that God is required for the existence of biscuits, then the presence of those biscuits demonstrates the existence of God. Feel free to try putting other things into that sentence in place of the biscuits. Since 8 pages of arguments have yet to define what God actually is, it's probably impossible to say whether or not you can mix Him with science. Certainly, nobody has come up with any convincing evidence that the two can be mixed.

What gets called "spin" isn't actually spin. If you calculate the tangential velocity for an electron based on its "spin" it turns out to be faster than light (or so I was told, I never checked the maths). It's a problem the particle physicists subsequently avoided by calling these properties things like "charm", "colour" and "flavour".

"you *need* a placeholder for the unknown." I call it "stuff I don't know": there's lots of it. It hardly needs some weird deity or anything like that. When I was a little kid I didn't know how to tie my shoelaces. That doesn't make the act of tying laces supernatural does it? "How else do you explain the origins of life or the universe ?" On the basis of the evidence. As far as I know, that's the only rational way to do it. "I didnt define god as someone who sent his son to repent for us, i defined it as the neurological circuit created because of the perception of our parents." Yes, you did define it that way. But nobody else does. If I define God as "a pair of integers a and b such that they have no common factor and the ratio a^2/b^2 = 2" then I can prove the non existence of God. But it doesn't really help anything dose it?

I strongly suspect, that this "No one is going to be killed accidentally by my gun" has been said by someone, shortly before reality showed that it wasn't true. Overtone, I have patience. Eventually people will realise that having a gun doesn't make you safer. It will take longer for some people than for others.

"John you know that you can't use statistics to predict individuals actions." Indeed, but you can use them to predict what will happen on a large scale. On the large scale, more "good people" than "bad people" will die. (At any rate this is true if we ignore gang violence and criminals shooting eachother- to some extent they are not the point because (I trust) you and I are not criminals). There's a very simple reason for that. Good people massively outnumber bad people. The point is that you also can't reliably predict individuals' actions on any other basis either. Imagine you could go back in time to the week before any accidental shooting and ask the shooter if they are "the sort of person who will accidentally shoot someone". If they have any sense whatsoever they will say no. After all, if they thought they were more likely to kill an innocent bystander than, for example, a thief, they probably wouldn't want the gun. Why would they want that unwarranted death on their hands? And yet, even though (just like you) they were sure that their gun wouldn't kill someone, it did. Heaven forbid, but it is possible that you might find yourself in that position- being responsible for the death of some poor soul for no good reason. And the indirect reason would be the thing you hear after every accident "I didn't think it could happen to me". Nobody thinks it will happen to them, so they don't do the one thing that would guarantee that it can't. They don't get rid of the guns. And the people keep dying.

Why do people always say that the constitution stops them doing stuff? Have you all forgotten that you can change it? "Convincing me I am safer by not having my shot gun is gonna take more than an appeal to emotion..." OK, count the number of legal homicides by members of the public (as opposed to the armed forces) where the weapon was a shotgun. Count the number accidental of deaths from shotguns. If the second number is bigger than the first, then it's not an appeal to emotions (it never was anyway) it's an appeal to common sense.

OK, since I neither "need" nor believe in any God, you are plainly wrong because your ideas fail to distinguish between me and, for example, the Pope. We had the same neurological start, yet we clearly didn't end up in the same "place".

No. Outlawing stupidity would be pointless. Outlawing guns is quite commonplace. Why are you trying to argue that much of the Western world is a tyranny? Are you just now aware of the reality elsewhere, or were you ignoring it? To do it suddenly in the US might well require tyranny. To do it sensibly would not. Once you explain to people that they are more likely to kill the wrong person than the right person , the guns should pretty nearly ban themselves. It may take a long time, but banning guns would not by tyranny and it's silly to say it would be..

I don't think it is but, if it had been people in a welfare office then why should they stand when they can sit? If they can sit then they will wait longer before causing a fuss so, in turn, the queues can be longer. That means they can employ fewer people to hand out the cheques. So it saves the taxpayer money. Judging by the way they are dressed, it's hot. So sitting down saves on air conditioning costs too. Also, is there just the slightest possibility that a lot of people on welfare are not in the best of health? Might it be a good idea to let them sit down? The original post here is wrong on so many levels it's remarkable. A bunch of people cooperate sensible in a way that saves the taxpayers' money. Yet some people still find a way to moan about it. Who is the one causing a problem there?