Atheists on the march in America

Aug 26, 2009 Full story: TurkishPress.com 70,983

When South Florida atheists held their first meeting, they were just five friends, having a beer at a bar.

Full Story
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#66118 Dec 20, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And I agree with this: scientists tend to be focussed enough on their work that they seldom attempt more than very basic explanations of what they are doing. Between research, teaching, and filling out grant requests, there is little time for popular writing. This is a deep shame.
<quoted text>
Not quite correct. The description of gravity *has* changed since Newton. In particular, Einstein gave a very different description of gravity which has been shown to be more accurate.
We know that gravity and quantum mechanics have to be merged in some way and there are a couple of proposals about how to do that. String theory (mentioned in your link) is one of them. It does not, however, have gravity 'emerging' so much as it is an essential aspect of the overall theory to make it consistent. The BIG problem at this time is that there is no way to *test* between the different proposals for quantum gravity. The energy scales involved are far, far higher than any we can produce right now.
Like Ebenezer Scrooge, physicists see the shadows of things that might be, not the shadows of things that must be. For all anyone knows, gravity is part of an illusion, a side effect of something else going on at a deeper level of reality. Erik Verlinde, a respected string theorist and professor of physics at the University of Amsterdam, says gravity doesn't exist. He thinks physicists are looking at gravity the wrong way and that there is something more basic from which gravity “emerges."
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#66119 Dec 20, 2012
A parodox exists between relativity and quantum physics. In relativity, time and space are relative to the observer. Einstein's equations allow one to accurately transform position data from one reference frame to another. Quantum mechanics treats time and space as a rigid, fixed, four dimensional coordinate system, however it shows that it is impossible to place any object in this coordinate system with absolute precision. So either time and space are flexible and relative to the observer, or they are fixed. The observer's position as well as what he is observing can only be stated as a probability. Solving this paradox is the Holy Grail of modern physics and there are many theories that attempt to do so - that attempt to define a grand unified theory.

Why not throw out time altogether? It isn't a field, substance or particle that physics can measure. It's an illusion created by human consciousness. Enter Julian Barbour who is a physicist: Like Einstein, he says time is simultaneous. He suggests that the universe consists of an infinite number of "eternal nows". Because of our distorted perception of time, we only see one "now" at a time, as it moves along through all of the "nows" that make up our multidimensional lives. In Barbour's universe, you are being born, attending your first day of school, getting married, and lying on your deathbed all at once in different nows. However the only YOU you are aware of is the one reading this post. Barbour believes that by eliminating time as a fundamental property of the universe would remove much of the difficulty in uniting relativity with quantum physics and thereby slay the final dragon of science - the search for a unified theory. Surprisingly, many physicists and cosmologists think time will have to be left out of the a final equation, and many suspect the concept of space may have to go as well. Interestingly, paranormal experiences concur by demonstating that time is of no consequence.

When out of the body, whether by deliberate astral projection or NDEs - one experiences no concept of time. A universal observation among those who leave their bodies and return is that time has no meaning. They don't know if they were gone a few minutes, a couple of days or a hundred years. Losing track of time also ocurrs when one engages in deep meditation, when one removes himself from the illusion of a space/time continuum. In these altered state of consciousness, the terms "before" and "after" are meaningless because consciousness exists outside of time itself.

"Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live." - Albert Einstein

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#66121 Dec 20, 2012
So Jesus' gas could be why we have gravity? I can just see the great sky wizard now with the angels. One angel says, hey boss most of the animals on earth aren't flying off into orbit! Jesus replies, sorry had the burrito for lunch.
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Like Ebenezer Scrooge, physicists see the shadows of things that might be, not the shadows of things that must be. For all anyone knows, gravity is part of an illusion, a side effect of something else going on at a deeper level of reality. Erik Verlinde, a respected string theorist and professor of physics at the University of Amsterdam, says gravity doesn't exist. He thinks physicists are looking at gravity the wrong way and that there is something more basic from which gravity “emerges."

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#66122 Dec 20, 2012
NDEs?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah a!
postscriptt wrote:
A parodox exists between relativity and quantum physics. In relativity, time and space are relative to the observer. Einstein's equations allow one to accurately transform position data from one reference frame to another. Quantum mechanics treats time and space as a rigid, fixed, four dimensional coordinate system, however it shows that it is impossible to place any object in this coordinate system with absolute precision. So either time and space are flexible and relative to the observer, or they are fixed. The observer's position as well as what he is observing can only be stated as a probability. Solving this paradox is the Holy Grail of modern physics and there are many theories that attempt to do so - that attempt to define a grand unified theory.
Why not throw out time altogether? It isn't a field, substance or particle that physics can measure. It's an illusion created by human consciousness. Enter Julian Barbour who is a physicist: Like Einstein, he says time is simultaneous. He suggests that the universe consists of an infinite number of "eternal nows". Because of our distorted perception of time, we only see one "now" at a time, as it moves along through all of the "nows" that make up our multidimensional lives. In Barbour's universe, you are being born, attending your first day of school, getting married, and lying on your deathbed all at once in different nows. However the only YOU you are aware of is the one reading this post. Barbour believes that by eliminating time as a fundamental property of the universe would remove much of the difficulty in uniting relativity with quantum physics and thereby slay the final dragon of science - the search for a unified theory. Surprisingly, many physicists and cosmologists think time will have to be left out of the a final equation, and many suspect the concept of space may have to go as well. Interestingly, paranormal experiences concur by demonstating that time is of no consequence.
When out of the body, whether by deliberate astral projection or NDEs - one experiences no concept of time. A universal observation among those who leave their bodies and return is that time has no meaning. They don't know if they were gone a few minutes, a couple of days or a hundred years. Losing track of time also ocurrs when one engages in deep meditation, when one removes himself from the illusion of a space/time continuum. In these altered state of consciousness, the terms "before" and "after" are meaningless because consciousness exists outside of time itself.
"Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live." - Albert Einstein

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#66123 Dec 20, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
A parodox exists between relativity and quantum physics. In relativity, time and space are relative to the observer. Einstein's equations allow one to accurately transform position data from one reference frame to another. Quantum mechanics treats time and space as a rigid, fixed, four dimensional coordinate system, however it shows that it is impossible to place any object in this coordinate system with absolute precision. So either time and space are flexible and relative to the observer, or they are fixed. The observer's position as well as what he is observing can only be stated as a probability. Solving this paradox is the Holy Grail of modern physics and there are many theories that attempt to do so - that attempt to define a grand unified theory.
Why not throw out time altogether? It isn't a field, substance or particle that physics can measure. It's an illusion created by human consciousness. Enter Julian Barbour who is a physicist: Like Einstein, he says time is simultaneous. He suggests that the universe consists of an infinite number of "eternal nows". Because of our distorted perception of time, we only see one "now" at a time, as it moves along through all of the "nows" that make up our multidimensional lives. In Barbour's universe, you are being born, attending your first day of school, getting married, and lying on your deathbed all at once in different nows. However the only YOU you are aware of is the one reading this post. Barbour believes that by eliminating time as a fundamental property of the universe would remove much of the difficulty in uniting relativity with quantum physics and thereby slay the final dragon of science - the search for a unified theory. Surprisingly, many physicists and cosmologists think time will have to be left out of the a final equation, and many suspect the concept of space may have to go as well. Interestingly, paranormal experiences concur by demonstating that time is of no consequence.
When out of the body, whether by deliberate astral projection or NDEs - one experiences no concept of time. A universal observation among those who leave their bodies and return is that time has no meaning. They don't know if they were gone a few minutes, a couple of days or a hundred years. Losing track of time also ocurrs when one engages in deep meditation, when one removes himself from the illusion of a space/time continuum. In these altered state of consciousness, the terms "before" and "after" are meaningless because consciousness exists outside of time itself.
"Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live." - Albert Einstein
postscript

Alter the phrase of A. Einstein...

Time and space are modes by which we think(which makes things apparent), and conditions in which we live(which makes things real)....

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#66124 Dec 20, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And if the contents of the bra have any magnetism, the force of gravity is paltry compared to the attraction from other magnetic objects.
My bf is attracted to them.:)

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#66125 Dec 20, 2012
John wrote:
<quoted text>
Another Obama loving, baby killing, gun controlling, money stealing loon ducking a simple question. You are a real freedom fighter bigot.
Why do con dumbs randomly insert Obama's name into every subject?

Anyway, I'm still waiting for you to debate.

1. If god exists, there is evidence for his existence.
Do you agree with that?
Do you think it's possible for the god of the buy-bull to exist, yet there be no evidence of his existence?

Stump John, ask him to debate.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#66126 Dec 20, 2012
john wrote:
How was the universe formed.
The Big Bang Theory explains that back to 13.5 billion years ago.

Before that, we don't yet know (assuming that "before that" has a meaning).
john wrote:
Do atheists allow no possibility of a prime mover, if not why?
Is a prime mover possible? Certainly. Has any evidence been presented to support the existence of a prime mover? No. Is there any reason to believe in the existence of a prime mover? No.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66127 Dec 20, 2012
postscriptt wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the bible is not a science textbook, which he explained in his quoted statements - not because he believed the universe happened by chance.
Yes, we know you feel worthless, but why do you ignore science too?
John

United States

#66128 Dec 20, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Whereas your lot shoot six year olds in their gaptoothed faces...
<quoted text>
What a wanker. You loons love diversions from your forum about nothing. Sheep like to be herded and controlled. Ask your government what you should do next LOL. Whereas your lot butchers them before they get to six. Save your drama for your lib friends.

Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.
John

United States

#66129 Dec 20, 2012
Oh great multiple loons submitting nothing. Rose, Obama is an obvious failure and your support is congruent with the rest of your agenda. No evidence, but full support.

If Rose had a conscience there would be evidence of one.
There is no evidence Rose has a conscience.
Therefore, Rose has no conscience.

-How daring of Rose and Drew to offer to debate their disbelief LOL.

Does a bang need a banger Drew? Your "big bang" does not have universal support or evidence. It also skips steps, but we covered that years ago. You like to revisit said to duck an accountable position.

Let's compare the evidences of a prime mover vs your ??????. Oh yeah, you are the guy with no evidence in a forum about nothing.

Do continue failing to provide any evidence at all that meets your criteria for evidence in this arena.

Nothing Bless
John

United States

#66130 Dec 20, 2012
Something from nothing is a scientific impossibility. Sort out your nothing and I'll wait to make the rational case for the something. Of course, all you will come back with is superfluous nonsense.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66131 Dec 20, 2012
John wrote:
Oh great multiple loons submitting nothing. Rose, Obama is an obvious failure and your support is congruent with the rest of your agenda. No evidence, but full support.
If Rose had a conscience there would be evidence of one.
There is no evidence Rose has a conscience.
Therefore, Rose has no conscience.
-How daring of Rose and Drew to offer to debate their disbelief LOL.
Does a bang need a banger Drew? Your "big bang" does not have universal support or evidence. It also skips steps, but we covered that years ago. You like to revisit said to duck an accountable position.
Let's compare the evidences of a prime mover vs your ??????. Oh yeah, you are the guy with no evidence in a forum about nothing.
Do continue failing to provide any evidence at all that meets your criteria for evidence in this arena.
Nothing Bless
"Prime mover?" Are there actual giant footprints in the Earth that it left? A hair sample? Just some kind of evidence would do.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#66132 Dec 20, 2012
John wrote:
Something from nothing is a scientific impossibility. Sort out your nothing and I'll wait to make the rational case for the something. Of course, all you will come back with is superfluous nonsense.
Nope, not anymore. Quantum physics we see things pop into existence all the time. Try harder, I know it hurts your brain to think, but just try.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#66133 Dec 20, 2012
I believe you're a noncetastic fuckstain.
John wrote:
<quoted text>
What a wanker. You loons love diversions from your forum about nothing. Sheep like to be herded and controlled. Ask your government what you should do next LOL. Whereas your lot butchers them before they get to six. Save your drama for your lib friends.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#66134 Dec 20, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
NDEs?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah a!
<quoted text>
Science says you started from nothing and guess what? You still have most of it left.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#66135 Dec 20, 2012
When one person reports a precognitive dream, it is simple enough to dismiss, particularly if unverified. But when large segments of each generation throughout history report such phenomena, when scientists in their own times come across such reports, we have another situation entirely. These are events that by their nature happen to people in their private moments. To dismiss such a range of experience is to be close minded.

It is one thing to state unequivocally that such events are most difficult to assess scientifically, but quite another to deny their common recurrence in human behavior, or to dismiss "all" paranormal events as fabrication, hallucination, or the natural reaction to drugs or shock. It is also close to stupidity to continue using methods directly in conflict with such abilities in an attempt to prove their validity. Science often engages in experiments that typically screen out "unpredictable" human behavior.

The only way to study the precognitive dreaming phenonmena is to interview people who experience these dreams. Explaining it away as mere coincidence is hardly being objective.
postscriptt

Santa Fe, NM

#66136 Dec 20, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, not anymore. Quantum physics we see things pop into existence all the time. Try harder, I know it hurts your brain to think, but just try.
Okay. Now tell us why and how these things "pop" into existence.
John

United States

#66137 Dec 20, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
"Prime mover?" Are there actual giant footprints in the Earth that it left? A hair sample? Just some kind of evidence would do.
So, you are sticking with your nothing then. How predictable. Fine with me, it is your forum about nothing. Keep on exposing your lunacy.

Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.
John

United States

#66138 Dec 20, 2012
Thinking wrote:
I believe you're a noncetastic fuckstain.
<quoted text>
That will make everyone buy into your impossible charade. The lies and bigotry of the antitheist are here for all to see!

*poof* another magic universe sprung from nothing LOL. Freethinking my ass lmao.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Our world came from nothing? 6 min Larry 1,060
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 10 min Anon 230,093
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 56 min love_spell 22,997
Islam for peace, or violence? 4 hr JIN 51
Man center of the universe. 5 hr hpcaban 88
Does Being 'Spiritual But Not Religious' Really... 5 hr hpcaban 4
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 7 hr Pahu 1,402

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE