ButterMup

Eh. I don't know if I totally agree with that.
Obviously, there's no dearth of psychos in the world who would still find another reason to kill.
For example, some people kill because they think a spilled cup of grape juice depicted an image of their neighbor being stabbed in the face with a dull knife, and then heard the voice of an angel coming from the lightbulb in the ceiling, telling them to "purge the wicked".
Obviously, those are the kinds of folks who are going to do some harm whether religion is involved or not, and who are simply hiding inside their beliefs now because it's far more vindicating, on a personal level, to feel that they're doing something for a reason, a higher purpose beyond their understanding, as opposed to just because they're fucking nuts.
Incidentally, it's that same sort of person to whom religion inherently appeals: the word 'zealot' has a negative connotation for a reason. There will always be those people who cannot reconcile their faith with reality, and who, therefore, decide that it is reality which is lacking.
In that regard, I do see your point, Jim-o.

Conversely, though, I do think that a lot less bloodshed would be had, were religion removed from the equation.
I mean, look at the insanity in the Middle East: people who are almost totally identical in genetic makeup and who live almost identical lives are murdering one another because some of them believe in one Big Magic Spirit™ (my new favorite term for 'god', by the way) and some believe in a totally different Big Magic Spirit™.
Hell, not even that - they're committing mass murder because one of them calls the magic spirit one thing and another calls him something else, and occasionally, for variety, they fly planes into our buildings because we don't recognize the power of their magic spirit.
And how many die in Northern Ireland because some of the Irish think Mary ascended to Heaven bodily and some of them don't? Is that not an absolutely idiotic thing to kill and die for? How about murdering someone who uses a different name when they pray to essentially the exact same God you do? Is that not barbaric?

If some great cosmic curtain drew back tomorrow, and proved beyond doubt that religion is nothing but a misappropriation of the human condition, it wouldn't end homicide at the drop of a hat...but I do think there were be far fewer casualties in the following days, simply for the fact that a lot of people would suddenly have far fewer reasons to kill.

Jimi

Without religion, however, they'd be starting wars because they have camels and we have horses. Some people lead, and some people follow.... and these same crazies would lead the followers into war for reasons outside of religion. Look at Hitler, he went after the Jews. Had religion not been involved, he'd have gone after people without blond hair and blue eyes..... wait, he did.

All I'm saying is that if you take out one control, it would be replaced with another. Granted, people probably wouldn't be blowing themselves up, being that they didn't believe that they'd go to Heaven, but people would be killing in just as much mass as they would with religion. The planes would have been crashed just because the buildings were bigger.

Napolean didn't use religion to aid his wars. Neither did Genghis Khan, nor did Alexander the Great, nor did many war-leaders.

ButterMup

I spent a while looking at this, trying to form an argument, but for the life of me, it's not coming...so here's my plan:
I'm just going to step back for a while and see if some other folks from earlier in this thread will pop in here and offer their insights, and maybe some inspiration.

Honestly, I can't refute what you're saying (besides noting that both Ghengis [Chingis? Jingis?] and Alexander were very religious individuals - Alexander so much so that he actually believed pious prayer and sacrifice would enable him to live forever, and thusly, he had absolutely no arrangements in place for the transfer of his power when he died. If that ain't a religious man, I don't know what is. Whether that zeal translated to the battlefield, however, I've no idea.).

It involves a lot of speculation on your part to say that as many people who kill in the name of religion now will kill for other reasons, were religion removed...but unfortunately, it's not a statement which can be disproven. We just don't have a control group for that sort of thing: there has never been a period in recorded history in which religion did not exist.
Incidentally, it should be noted, there has also never been a time during which people didn't kill for their beliefs.
That observation alone makes me question that validity of your argument, as I can think of no single factor throughout all of history which drives people to act more irrationally (I didn't want to use that word, but it crept right up on me) than does their faith.

Jimi

Genghis wasn't all that religious. He started declaring leadership at age 13, and actually started his first movement at 17, neither of which times were declaration of religion. The mongols were Shamanistic people. Genghis' (Temujin) roots weren't so much religiously based. He started to claim leadership and start movements after the death of his father, it had nothing to do with religion, although he did tell people that they were or were not in favor of the Gods. In fact, he called Freedom of Religion throughout his empire.

My point is, people get fanatical about anything. Religion just tends to be a passionate rivalry, much like politics, even sports at times. Without religion, passion would lie elsewhere, and people would use it to wage wars.

jdwalke

I haven't read this entire thread, but I must say I am impressed with Jimi's quality of reasoning. Faith and logic are wholly unrelated, and his opinion of adaptation/evolution is most certainly in sync with mine.

Most importantly, life is a time bomb. DNA degrades with every replication, and I do not believe the laws of physics allow for the essential assumptions of evolution (i.e. increase of entropy over time due to the magical addition of DNA).

In order to answer the original question, I'm currently in limbo between a number of ideas, but my background is Protestant Christianity. I have a handful of related questions to which I would love to find answers, and I may start a thread in their regard.

Jimi

Ok, so.... Physics is made up of Quantum Mechanics, and the general Theory of Relativity. However, Quantum Mechanics is designed to work with the smallest of materials in the universe such as atoms and quarks, and the general Theory of Relativity is designed to work with the larger of the universe's object, such as stars and galaxies.


These don't work together since Quantum Mechanics works on more of a chaotic level that is highly unstable, and the measure of time and direction is close to impossible. The General Theory of Relativity, however, works on a more smooth plane, with things gliding across eachother using the 4 dimensions of the universe. Many physicists believe in what's called the "string theory", or the "theory of everything" to tie these two together, which basically states that smaller than molecules, smaller than atoms, smaller than even quarks lie strings of energy that wiggle, shake, and twist back-and-forth.

There are 20 measurements which make an atom an atom. For example, you have the nuclear weight of the atom, the x-ray line, the x-ray energy, and so forth. The frequencies of these strings are what determine the measurements of these atoms, which make up the 110 atoms.

Since the smaller plane of existance... what we now use Quantum Mechanics for... is so chaotic and undetermined, they've come up with 5 new dimensions to support the theory. This gives the string rings more room to move about.

However, if even ONE small frequency is off, everything in the universe would be destroyed. For example, if one string changes, it affects the magnetic strength of the nucleus of any given atom, causing gaseous atoms to spread out, weakning the fusion that causes stars to burn so brilliantly, which in turn would cause them to expunge themselves, destroying everything in the universe as we know it.

So, now that we can theorize what it is that keeps atoms stable, we don't know what it is that keeps these strings from changing and destroying everything as we know it. So, what keeps these frequencies in order?

Every law of physics is bound, but what is it bound by? There has to be some kind of ultimate force that holds laws true, otherwise they wouldn't be laws, but chaotic anomolies.





Also.... the string theory is just a theory because it has never been proven. It will always remain theory since the chances of it actually being proven are slim to nothing. Therefore, even scientists, with all of their logic and understanding, still believe in faith.

ButterMup

Wha-huh?

Here I am, all thinking that this thread is more or less dead, and that there's nothing much left to be said which hasn't been said before, and then you come outta left field with that!
Actually, I'm having trouble even figuring out which previous posts it's related to, or exactly what point you're making. I feel bad, because you obviously dug pretty deep for all of that, and I just don't know what you're getting at.

So elements are composed of molecules which are composed of atoms?
Right. This is true.
Atoms interact in a way based upon what we call the 'Laws of Physics'?
This is also true.
But it's not like we unearthed some ancient papyrus delineating to us the way in which matter interacts, reacts, and generally behaves, thusly declaring that such is 'Law', and that was the end of that. Instead, we developed these Laws based on repititious observation, probability, likelihood, calculation, and experimentation. That makes these laws a function of human cognizance, which makes them inherently imperfect.
The term 'Law' is kind of a loosely-defined one, scientifically speaking (basically just being the big dog on the Theory-Hypothesis-Law totem pole), insofar as it makes things sound utterly immuatable, which they never, ever are.
There's always going to be something we haven't seen before, but whether or not that something happens to be some kind of harmonic dissonance which sets off a chain eridaction of all matter within the universe remains to be seen. Even if existence does one day unravel itself from the inside out, something tells me that the last thing on anyone's mind is going to be revising the Laws of Physics to account for this wicked-cool new phenomenon.
The "Pretty Much Always True, Except Once Or Twice, But Boy, We Sure Weren't Expecting That" of Physics might be more accurate than calling it law. The scientific community is surprised by something every damn day; we're just lucky that none of those surprises have ended the world yet.
The term 'Law' just gives people the wrong idea, and is often misapplied.

Hey! Often misapplied!
Just like the term 'faith', eh? *nudge, nudge*
Right, we've been over this, but just to recap, because it supports my point:
There are plenty of different kinds of faith, some of which adhere letter-for-letter to a textbook definition (ie, religious faith - belief in that which cannot be proven), and some which are more abstract, but are labelled faith because that word happened to conjure the appropriate imagery. Having faith in oneself, for example. Faith in the endurance of a relationship. Faith that if I were ever to swallow a cherry seed, a tree wouldn't grow in my stomach.
There are many uses of the word 'faith' which are part of our cultural lexicon, but which have nothing to do with each other once you get past the first five letters.
Probably the most apt similar example is the word 'love': you can love a lot of different things, in a lot of different ways, but it's still the same word.

Faith, love...law.
They're just lumps of letters, and what they mean in one context is not at all what they mean in another. That's the beauty of autonomous thought - we're able to consider the contextual implicatons in a statement, and infer meaning based upon those. Language is not strictly bound by...er...well, law.

With all that in mind, I guess I'm still unsure as to wht your original point was. I just wanted to address the fact that the term 'law' is a many-flavored bird, and something as semantic as that shouldn't be used to make a point upon, similarly to how we all fought over what defines 'faith', a page or so ago.

If you feel like explaining a little more concisely so retards like me can grasp what you're trying to get it, that'd be appreciated.
If you don't feel like it, though, that's cool, too. I'm probably not going to lose any sleep over it.

Justin

Christian-Protestant (Lutheran)

I listen to some sales training cd's on occasion, one is by Zig Ziglar. In it he states He knows and was talking with the CEO of a major trucking company. 300 Terminals all over the US w/ thousands of employees. What was interesting is the CEO said everyone they hire they put through a lie detector test.

They ask the question "Do you believe there is a GOD?" to all applicants.

The CEO stated that everytime someone said "No" The needle said they lied with zero exception.

Pretty interesting if you ask me.

I do believe that many "athiests" are just trying to fool themselves.

Jimi

I actually had two points. The fact that one off frequency would cause mass destruction, theoretically, but something retains the frequency in these energetic strings.

My second was that while "faith is illogical", an entire branch of physics is based on faith.

ButterMup

Ahhhh.
Gotcha.

So you're right: something keeps the atomic strings in a String Theory from tweaking out and blasting us to bejesus and back. Whether that's luck and a little bit of applied knowledge which keeps us from doing really stupid shit to agitate that already tenuous harmony, or if it's a higher power keeping things in check, I can't say.
There's always a margin of error in research and experimentation, but I feel that with a little sense, it can at least be minimized, if never altogether removed. I don't know that I believe in an infallible cosmic superentity who is picking up the slack, so that we can continue to believe in our scientific "Laws"...but it could be possible.
Like I've said before, I'm just not that worried about the metaphysical, I guess.

Concerning faith in physics, you're also right, but only up to a certain point, so I'm only willing to concede halfway:
A lot of scientists definitely have faith, and some are religious people as well, but I think faith in religious matters is a wholly different beast than faith that an experiment will perform as expected, based on prior conclusions, and I think the two can be separated. In fact, they need to be separated if experimentation is to remain objective; otherwise, what's the use, if God's already got it under control?
I like to imagine that while the Laws of Physics have their loopholes, the years we've spent studying physical phenomena have imbued the scientific community with enough practical guidelines to ensure that while the kids up at CERN are playing with their supercollider, they're not going to accidentally create a pinprick black hole which will eat through the planet and proceed to absorb mass until half the galaxy has been sucked into its cold, lightless oblivion, because they've done their calculations, and have a pretty good idea of what they can expect based on past examples.
They have faith that they aren't going to lay waste to the Universe as we know it.
They don't necessarily have faith in anything religious.
Again, those are two very different examples of the word 'faith'.

Jimi

There's my point though! String Theory will never be proven, yet physicists continue to believe it because it ties Quantum Mechanics and the General Theory of Relativity together. It explains the chaotic outcomes of Quantum Mechanics (in which case, are actually not as chaotic as once thought), and the smooth runnings of Relativity.

However, since String Theory will NEVER be proven, basing your science on it is much like basing your science on religion. String Theory, in actuality, is not science, but philospohy.

ButterMup

Dude.
Take a look at the title of this thread again.
Did we or did we not hijack the holy living hell out of this thing?

It's ironically funny how we're discussing quantum mechanics and atomic theory in a thread about religious beliefs...and surprisingly, it doesn't take that many leaps of logic to get here from there.

Anyway, be that as it may, do me a favor:
Get out your calendar. And a sharpie. Don't sniff it.
Now, mark today with a little star or something. A happy face, maybe.
Because I actually agree with you.

Ever since I first heard about String Theory a couple of years ago, I thought it sounded a lot like theoretical straw-grasping, but I figured, "Hey, if it gives science an excuse to explore new avenues of progress, then who am I to bitch about it? Nobody's getting hurt by a theory. Newton's theory concerning gravity started the same way."
I mean, Newton had to invent an entire branch of mathematics just to explain his ideas, because until a theory can be proven, it's just that: theory.
I'll wait around for a while and see if anyone can conclusively prove that String Theory works, and is more than just, like you suggested, a bridge by which to span the inexplicable gap between the application of Quantum Physics and that of Relativity.

I don't think String Theory is a total crock, but it's a relatively new principle, and I don't think it's very well fleshed-out yet, so you're right: right now, it has just about as much place in verifiable experimentation as The Holy Trinity do.
The only difference between String Theory and religion, in my opinion, is that this theory may yet evolve, can be further explored as a respectable explanation for the whys and hows of matter, and may someday become useful.
As for God, we've already got pretty much all the insight we're gonna get on Him.

It would be easiest to say that until further evidence presents itself, I remain skeptical of both.