questionposter

This does not help to logically figure out if religious people are broken or not. I suppose you can ironically believe it does though. Please use words next time. Whether you like it or not, religion has helped form society, because people didn't have the scientific understandings and many philosophical views we have now, the only way they could explain things in ancient is god or god(s), and if god has some rules as to what not to do, you would follow them or risk being eternally damned. Not only that, but religions like Jesus's advocate the rich giving to the poor, and many people were and still are poor.

Actually after doing some more research, I did find a good point which is that "people can pick and chose their personal resources", such as that conservatives may only visit Fox News, but I don't see what they would do differently without the internet. Without the internet, they would watch Fox news, and without TV they would listen to speeches by conservative or Republican candidates. In fact, before the invention of all these communication devices, people didn't even know what the person they were voting for looked like, JFK even won because he appeared on TV instead of only on the radio, where many radio-listeners said Nixon won the debates and that JFK sounded like a weasle, but people on TV could see than Nixon looked nervous and that JFK looked confident and said JFK won the debates. http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=kennedy-nixon

I don't see how the French don't have a word for "freedom" that can be understood in english, considering I can say "liberté" as a Freanch word, and the French fought against the Axis in WWII and gave the US the Statue of Liberty. The US isn't the perfect place, but honestly there is a lot of opportunity for people to rise up and live a rich life. Unfortunately though, there are still things like immigrants being abused and human trafficking as well as minimum wage abuse, but these things aren't present only in the US.

I don't see how you can know that unless you were there at and before the creation of the universe. There is much evidence to support the notion that the universe was at one time an infinitely dense point containing all matter and energy, and since the universe by definition contains everything, before the existence of that point that was the universe, there could only have been nothing. I'm not saying I know it's true, but if it is, then it would mean before the universe was created there could only have been nothing. Although I suppose since technically time didn't exist before the universe that the universe has technically always existed because there was no way to count the time it wasn't in existence.

Now you know how God works. I didn't say he was likely to exist, that was your assumption, I'm virtually completely atheist, not believing in any religious, magical or mystical aspect of any part of the universe, but if your going to try and say people are broken for believing in something or say we should simply assume something because it seems likely when really it can't be proven either way, I'm going to step in. I merely find it very unlikely god exists. However, this is not the case for everyone. Axioms inherently are assumed to be true, even in mathematics. Yes I am aware of all those horrors and the Crusades, but I don't see Jesus actually advocating people doing those things, but perhaps as lessons. I stated I have already read much of the bible, and on top of all that, many mono-theists aren't completely by the book, something you'd know if you actually tried to understand this issue. Most mono-theists, although take advice from the high-up people like priests and bishops, like to see god as being more logical, like Newton and possibly Einstein. In fact, it wasn't every mono-theistic religion that hated science, it was only Christianity. While Western Europe was in turmoil, the Muslim peoples were a prosperous group with colleges of philosophy and culminations of students for mathematics and the arts. It was actually during that time period that many religious Muslin or at least religious scholars boosted many things in science such as astronomy, anatomy and mathematical equations. Are you serious? Ok, the most basic evidence there is: 99.99% of human DNA is exactly the same and in the exact same order. And, the .01% is already being used up largely by physical differences, such as skin, hair and eye color, slight variations in muscle density, height, weight, metabolism, the list goes on. Furthermore it has been believed in psychology even since before modern times that the environments of people shapes them, and if you don't believe me, go ask a psychologist. This factor is not excluded from atheists. Someone who grows up in an non-religious environment has a higher chance of being non-religious, someone who grows up in a religious environment has a higher chance of being religious. To say atheists don't have this is to say being an atheist automatically makes you immune to the effects of your environment. Not only that, but religion is often connected to different experiences, the most prominent one being death. All atheists and religious people with the exception of maybe some psychopaths are effected by the deaths of their loved ones. But, religion builds off of this, and to someone who is agnostic, religion then becomes more important in their life because it is better to think about someone you care about being alive in some way. Atheists also have this and most probably do think about the possibility of a dead loved one being alive. To say atheists to not have the aspect of connecting ideas to important events in their life is unwise. And then ironically, there is no scientific evidence to support the notion that beveling in a religion impairs brain function in any way. This should be especially considered when looking at the existence of religious scientists. The only thing research has found is that when people pray very intensely, their brain changes in such a way that certain parts seem to interact less with each other, sort of like meditating.

I don't see how you aren't understanding me considering I've tried almost as many different ways to explain it as I have made posts in this topic, you must just be skimming through my posts. I don't understand your photon inaccuracy scenario. If you've been working with lasers so long, your obviously aware we have the capability to aim a photon to a high degree of accuracy, especially gamma-rays since they are used for cancer treatment. I also never said that the red-shifted radio wave and the emitted radio wave would have the same energy or wavelength. So if I shoot a gamma ray at someone who is moving away from me at 99.99% the speed of light, they will measure it as a radio wave, but the gamma-ray will still be very localized and occupy mostly a small area right? So even though it's a gamma ray, because of their frame of reference, they should measure a radio wave that was very localized. Seeing as how they can't measure it before the measurement, I don't see how localized something is before measurement can be relative.

I don't see how an axiom can contradict itself unless it specifically states it, but there's also no actual evidence that what we are observing is actually reality anyway. In fact, all observation is the electrical signal of a photon that bounced off of or was emitted from an atom, which has already been changed position by the time we measure a photon as an electrical impulse. There's not much to disprove god at this point anyway, and when numerous psychological elements are involved, that plays an important role, and I still wouldn't say religious people are broken because the things that would make someone religious are just as easily present in atheists.

It's not "broken" unless you disprove it. God wants free-will, but it also wants Noah and all the animals to survive, so the answer is in ways we can't currently explain to make a ton of room and gather every species. And you can logically justify anything with any axiom, that's the whole point, the only problem with any of it seems to be that some parts of scripture seem to advocate violence.

Well chemicals don't have a "cause", they are there simply because they have survived evolution, otherwise you need to be more specific as to what you mean by "state of a brain". You were adding the word "consciousness" to the mix, which is a tricky subject. Emotions are a product of the brain normally, but having consciousness doesn't necessarily have anything to do with that. But, even though they are a product of the brain, they are simply a chemical response to an action, they do not logically correlate to any question of morals, just because a chemical is released doesn't actually mean something does or does not deserve something. Human values can be objective. If you do something simply because of your emotions, that's not even ethics, that's just you following whatever those chemicals compulse you to do. I haven't seen much to suggest ethics isn't logical.

I don't think I ever said ethics was universal. If anything I said It originally did deal specifically with humans, and how humans would have made the decision for how ethically logical it is to actually wipe something out. Ethics can still use logic. Emotions aren't the product of a conscious brain either, they will get released by certain signals happening regardless of if they are in response to anything, and they don't determine anything because obviously you don't have to do what your emotions implore you to. The only thing they cause is a compulsion, and there is no logical correlation between a chemical being released and "deserve" or "not deserve".

True, but science works in a similar way. The main axiom being that your observations are what you measure of reality. The structure of religion can still be built upon logical steps. Noah can't fit that many animals on a boat ---> god can do anything ---> god can fit that many animals on a boat. It's unlikely that the specific religion like Christianity would have survived this long if it was as illogical as you make it out to be. It's more likely that it's been abused and altered over the years.

They aren't "illogical" with the axiom of god being real. I didn't say that the current scriptures of mono-theistic religions don't tend to advocate some violence, but religion can still be shaped for the purpose of doing good, and as far as I know that's what people like Jesus and Siddhartha intended. If you looked life in the old times like and how people lived life in ancient times, it isn't much different than how groups of chimps work, other than people knew how to farm. There was constant violence and theft among different groups, and it wasn't until someone said "you go to hell for doing that" did people able to settle down enough for the more advanced specialization of workers to form and more hospitable environments to form, and with the domination of other groups it would only create a more unified group. Newton's calculus didn't do much good setting in his desk for 20 years, it was only after the entire world got a hold of it that things could be accomplished with it, only by working together can we do things with it, and whether you like it or not, religion originally helped with that. As I said there are numerous psychological aspects involved with the actions of religion, however these same aspects are present in atheists.

Emotions are not the product of consciousness, they are the product of sub-consciousness, or in other-words, everything except consciousness. Furthermore, "cause and effect" doesn't really exist in that type of sense, instead there is probability, but moreover that wasn't my point. My point was that the feeling of something is not logic for the action that might be the result of it, because it is merely the compulsion to do something, and does not logically correlate to "deserve" or "not deserve". But the values that are important to an individual are not universal, that is why it's important to be objective and why no single ethics or moral values is actually correct or incorrect. There is also the fact that inert matter itself does not have ethics, yet it is a large part of the events in the lives of living things. There's simple definitions here http://dictionary.re...owse/ethics?s=t

Things are polarized, but people have not made effort for understanding and making things better for a long time, just look at how Republicans use to view global warming. Then there was the whole Cold War where people in Russia thought everyone in the US was a bunch of greedy pigs and everyone in the US thought everyone in Russia was a bunch of mindless slaves to their dictator. Then there was of course religious wars and things like the Crusades. If anything the internet helps against this because people can share their points of view more easily. There's also college too with their philosophy classes.

But you aren't constantly observing a photon before you have observed it are you? I don't know what you mean exactly. So if I shoot a gamma ray and an ultraviolet ray and someone is measuring both photons traveling away from them at 99.99% the speed of light, one should measure one photon having a higher energy. A flashilight consists of many individual photons, and have you heard of the absolute 0 experiments? People use lasers to shoot at individual atoms in 6 different directions to slow them down.

I suppose it's both, but there are logical parts of religion. How did the universe get here? Something that did not have to exist by physical means could have created it, and this can include god. How could Noah have possibly fit so many animals on a boat? Well, god can do anything, so... But then, there's people's loved ones who die, and they would like to think they are in a better place and things like that. God isn't "dangerous" at all if the belief is that everyone should be a pacifist is it? 99.99% of human DNA is exactly the same with proteins in the same exact order, it's hard to think such a slight variation that is already being used up on physical features like skin tone and hair and eye color could cause such a big difference and that atheists and religious people are actually somehow different types people. Society might not have formed without god in the first place, because without it people couldn't see a reason to really support each other in larger groups.

Negative consquences are known, but they would only mean something because of emotions, and what if there was a culture that didn't consider dying to be negative? There is one solution however, which is acknowledgement. Since ethics itself is based off of emotions which have no direct correlation to reality, niether side of an ethics argument really matters, which leaves it up to free will for whatever path it decides it wants to make. So logically we don't actually have to not wipe out nor eradicate malaria.

But if it's before measurement there's nothing to be a frame of reference from.

Yes, an electron can be excited and form interference patterns, and both of those things happen in quantum wave mechanics.

There's more than just logic involved here, there's numerous psychological elements that have built upon religion, and these same elements are in atheists too. Perhaps it isn't god, but there are easily things that are somewhat improbable that atheists believe in. Thought matter? Yeah right. Reincarnation? No proof of a soul. Finite universe? Astronomers cannot observe a boundary. With religion, it's like that. To a religious person, god isn't actually that improbable because so much can be justified by it.

When a black hole sucks something up and an object crosses the event horizon, the event horizon is temporarily deformed bear that point where it crossed, until the matter reaches the center. This notion is important because it says that the shape of the black hole in a way mimics that of the shape of the internal structure. Since a black hole on it's own is at least a sphere, the singularity must be at least sphere in order to warp space time to creat a sphere. But, the warping of space is a little more complex than that, the warping of space mimics a conical structure as well, however it is a cone from every side, so the internal structure must also be infinitely cone-like in some way. A black hole in of itself is it's own shape, however, we can break it down into it's component shapes, which leads me to think that actual shape of a singularity is the sum of polynomial planar structures to describe the curvature of it's space. I would do the actual math for it, but I don't really know much about the math of space that warped. Thinking about it, we can't see an object with 4th dimensional units that would be described like X^4, but we can break it down into (x^2)(x^2) and we can see those things as planes. Only with this, we just have to work from (x^2)(x^2) to x^4

Although I don't necessarily agree with whatever disagreement you have with Inow, I think it is an interesting thought that you can still support things individually, because in order for many things to work, relationships to form, they need individual attention, but one person at least right now can't really do everything, so there needs to be individual people to give individual attention and support individual things for society to work, there needs to be individual components that all have their own support. The only problem is when people confuse those feelings with competitive and aggressive feelings.

The type of localization I'm talking about is the type that determines the most probable 4-dimensional coordinates to measure a photon. With gamma rays it's usually a very small area, with radio waves its usually very high. But that doesn't make sense, measured wavelength is relative, I'm talking about before measurement. So if I shoot a flashlight at something, it will miss it?

You already said "no" to "is 3-dimensional localization relative?" though. That means an electron drops, say, 30 energy levels and emits a gamma-ray, then even though it will have a small wavelength and occupy a small probable area, if you move away from that photon at 99.99% the speed of light, you would measure it as a radio wave, even though if it were emitted as a radio wave it would have a larger wavelength that would increase the 3-dimensional space it's highest probability expands over, assuming I'm interpreting you correctly when you say "no". So if there's two people next two each other, and I aim two gamma rays at one but they are both moving away from the source at 99.99% the speed of light, only 1 will detect the gamma rays as radio waves because of how localized the gamma-rays are before measurement. Alternatively, if the source emitted two radio waves, both of the people should measure one radio wave or even both to the other person because of how delocalized the radio wave is, and they would measure it having a super-low wavelength.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your use of the semi-colon, because otherwise you seem to be misunderstanding my point because the point of what I was saying was exactly that "if something attacks you then emotion is much more likely to inform your response than any objective reasoning. " You wouldn't ever attack something because there's some logic that says it should die, you'd only attack it because of the chemicals released into your bloodstream, and those chemicals don't have a direct correlation to logic. It's just that if they are released, they cause a compulsion to do something. There's nothing saying that something actually "deserves" the response.