|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein was an atheist... and so was Isaac Asimov
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:03:54 +0100, "Starman"
wrotF: Go back to school boy ! (not sunday bible school) REAL school and learn something for god (he dosn't exist) sake Man you are so ignorant that it hurts ! Religion is the main course regarding mass killing through history ! Jeez! Calm down. Switch to decaf and let's ponder this issue like intelligent people. I am quite educated, BTW. Your reaction leads me to believe that you think religions which claim to preach morality, peace and hope, in fact bring intolerance, violence and destruction. I say, that by far the biggest examples of intolerance, violence and destruction in human history are those wrought by militant atheism, underpinned by bogus (I'll get to that shortly) science. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot come to mind. Religions might not bring perfection, but Atheisms have 100 times worse track record. At an empirical level, these 4 regimes must represent a good 85% of the atheist regimes (weighted by number of citizens) in recorded history (the atheist phase of the French Revolution may well account for another 2-3% which was about as bloodthirsty). Atheist regimes are actually quite rare, representing say 20% of the regimes (weighted by citizens) in recorded history. The only theist regime I can think of which practised/allowed mass murder of its citizens on a comparable relative scale was in Rwanda (representing say 0.1% of regimes). So at an empirical level, the association between atheist regimes and mass murder is very strong - far worse than smoking and cancer. What is the mechanism? Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot all claimed to be Marxists and Marxism "the science of history" was the essential underpinning ideology that allowed them to perpetrate their massive crimes. The essence of Marxism is dialectical materialism and a denial of the existence of God - indeed Marxism was specifically developed as an anti-Christian philosophy. Hitler's Nazi-ism was admittedly far more confused than Marxism, a sort of anti-Marxism which was based on the popularised Darwinism of Haekel (the Dawkins of his day) and picked up the widely-held German view that "survival of the fittest" was a scientific and moral principle (and that, of course, the Germans were the fittest!). But more fundamentally, if you don't believe in God it is very hard to believe in a morality that will constrain you when you have an enormous amount of power. Christian leaders, however powerful, know that they are "under God" and that they do not have ultimate power, but are themselves under judgement. Atheists, manifestly, do not. An absence of constraints on the abuse of power leads, understandably, to an abuse of power. Incidentally, these 'darwinian' views were very common in German intellectual an military circles in the early 1900s, and very widely held by the German General Staff. It was this that shocked Vernon Kellogg, a Stanford professor who was posted to the headquarters of the German general staff during the period of American neutrality in World War I and was shocked to find German military leaders, sometimes with the Kaiser present, supporting the war with an "evolutionary rationale." They did so with "a particularly crude form of natural selection, defined as inexorable, bloody battle." His subsequent book "Headquarters Nights" helped bring the US into the war. I obviously don't suggest that all atheists are immoral - many smokers do not die of cancer. But atheism and power is an exceptionally dangerous mixture. I wonder if you consider humans to be animals - most atheists do. And that view does lead to the rivers of blood of the 20th C - not in all cases, but in enough to cause massive concern, and over 100M deaths. Of course there are ethical atheists. I certainly respect them. However, false ideologies do not only correspond to erroneous beliefs. They can also lead to terrible actions. The Church has not been free from this kind of error (crusades, inquisition), but the twentieth century atheist regimes are truly frightful examples. I really get tired of the bull**** criticisms of Christianity as a carniverous beast on society. An unbiased examination of history proves otherwise, as well as demonstrates how atheists "conveniently" forget Stalinism et al from their diagnoses of society's ills. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein was an atheist... and so was Isaac Asimov
Tim People with complete faith in their God have to find science
complete hocus pocus. They in reality can not be compatible. This guy "George Berkley" Tim you might agree with(kind of an act of faith) This philosopher told us "IF not for the mind of God objects in the universe would have a jerky kind of existence,becoming real only when we looked at them. Tricky stuff,but Einstein even ask does the Moon exist only when its looked upon?(objectively real) Tricky thinking. bert |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein was an atheist. ACTUALLY EINSTEIN WAS AN IDIOT
46 You sound prejudice(read your posts) To sum Einstein up in one word
Clever fits One word for you is "dumb" bert |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein was an atheist... and so was Isaac Asimov
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote: Tim People with complete faith in their God have to find science complete hocus pocus. They in reality can not be compatible. This guy "George Berkley" Tim you might agree with(kind of an act of faith) This philosopher told us "IF not for the mind of God objects in the universe would have a jerky kind of existence,becoming real only when we looked at them. Isn't that what they say in QM? Tricky stuff,but Einstein even ask does the Moon exist only when its looked upon?(objectively real) Tricky thinking. bert With all our cloudy weather, the Moon doesn't exist very often here in the winter. Double-A |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein was an atheist... and so was Isaac Asimov
Double-A wrote: G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote: Tim People with complete faith in their God have to find science complete hocus pocus. They in reality can not be compatible. This guy "George Berkley" Tim you might agree with(kind of an act of faith) This philosopher told us "IF not for the mind of God objects in the universe would have a jerky kind of existence,becoming real only when we looked at them. Isn't that what they say in QM? Is it? Are you thinking of Schrodinger's Cat? If so, then what it says in that instance is that you can only speak of probabilities, so the cat in the box is "half dead" and "half alive" according to the probability function. Or are you thinking of something else? Tricky stuff,but Einstein even ask does the Moon exist only when its looked upon?(objectively real) Tricky thinking. bert With all our cloudy weather, the Moon doesn't exist very often here in the winter. Double-A |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein was an atheist. ACTUALLY EINSTEIN WAS AN IDIOT
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein was an atheist. ACTUALLY EINSTEIN WAS AN IDIOT
You sound like a preacher to me. Bert
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein was an atheist. ACTUALLY EINSTEIN WAS AN IDIOT
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Speed of Flowing Space (was - Einstein was an...)
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
... From Painius: ...what if actual energy of flowing space is equal to "m" times the speed of gravity? (or more accurately, the speed of space itself)... E = m(c x 2 x 10^20)² or... E = mVg² ...where Vg is the so-called "speed of gravity" (actually the speed of flowing space)? As was just stated in another thread, what this is describing is _speed of gravitational charge_ which is functionally instantaneous irrespective of distance. This is distinct from velocity of spatial flow itself. Space flow into Earth's surface, for instance, is equivalent to escape velocity, or 11.2 km/s (about 7 mps). Same with any celestial body; speed of inflow at surface datum is equal to that body's escape velocity. The speed of gravitational charge, hmm..., or do you mean "change"? At any rate, this would make out the speed of functional gravity to be... 3 x 10^8 x 2 x 10^20 m/s, or 6 x 10^28 m/s, or 60,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 m/s That's 60 OCTILLION meters per second! That's 200 quintillion TIMES the speed of light! From our frame of reference, we can almost lose the word "functionally" in "functionally instantaneous"! Using the Sun and Earth, we know it takes 8.31 minutes (498.6 seconds) for light from the Sun to reach us. If we divide this by Vg, we get a figure of... 2.5 x 10^-18 second ....as the time it would take for the Sun's change in gravitational information to reach the Earth. Now here's where it gets interesting... suppose there is an object out there about one light year away. We can't see it because it's, say, a brown dwarf and does not emit/reflect light. How long would it take for a change in its position to be gravitationally noted by our Sun? Using round figures, this comes out to be... 9.5 quadrillion meters / 60 octillion meters per second, or 0.16 picoseconds! And isn't it another tickle to realize that any such influence on our Sun by the nearest stars of the Centauri group would only take about four times as long to reach us! I wanna do one more just for the hell of it, sorry... The center of our galaxy is roughly 30,000 light years away. How long does it take the influence from this tremendous gravity well to be felt by our Solar System? At the speed of gravity set forth by Van Flandern... 4.75 nanoseconds! I'm tired... who wants to figure how many ergs in E = mVg² ? g happy days and... starry starry nights! -- The best things in life are here and now! Indelibly yours, Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/ http://www.painellsworth.net |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Speed of Flowing Space into Mass (was - Einstein was an...)
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
... From Painius: ...what if actual energy of flowing space is equal to "m" times the speed of gravity? (or more accurately, the speed of space itself)... E = m(c x 2 x 10^20)² or... E = mVg² ...where Vg is the so-called "speed of gravity" (actually the speed of flowing space)? As was just stated in another thread, what this is describing is _speed of gravitational charge_ which is functionally instantaneous irrespective of distance. This is distinct from velocity of spatial flow itself. Space flow into Earth's surface, for instance, is equivalent to escape velocity, or 11.2 km/s (about 7 mps). Same with any celestial body; speed of inflow at surface datum is equal to that body's escape velocity. I wanted to discuss that last part separately. How does space know to decelerate to any given speed as it enters the gravity well of any given mass? It slows down to 7 miles/sec at Earth's surface, and this figure is greater for, say, the planet Jupiter, and it's a smaller figure for, say, the planet Mars. So how does flowing space "know" to slow down to a certain speed for any given amount of mass? And how slow is it going as it enters an atom? happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Give the Devil an inch, and he'll take your Smile! Indelibly yours, Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/ http://www.painellsworth.net |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
EINSTEIN DIDN'T KNOW WHY | ACE | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 28th 05 07:07 PM |
Calling Einstein bluff .. OK AGAIN with CApItaLS CALLING EINSTEIN BLUFF, MEASURING OWLS | ftl_freak | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 6th 05 04:48 PM |
Calling Einstein bluff .. OK AGAIN with CApItaLS CALLING EINSTEIN BLUFF, MEASURING OWLS | ftl_freak | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 6th 05 04:09 PM |
Einstein | Tom Kirke | Astronomy Misc | 10 | June 1st 05 10:13 PM |
Einstein | Tom Kirke | Amateur Astronomy | 11 | June 1st 05 10:13 PM |