Religion II

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

his following article was written by a scientist who explains why quantum mechanics does NOT violate the Law of Noncontradiction.

Does Quantum Mechanics Invalidate the Law of Non-contradiction? Part 2
http://www.toughquestionsanswered.or...iction-part-2/

Your so-called "scientist" was a LAWYER, politician and minister.

From your article.....

Walt Tucker gave an explanation of the two slit experiment and its relation to quantum mechanics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_R._Tucker_III


The article you posited was about quantum superposition, not quantum entanglement.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Your so-called "scientist" was a LAWYER, politician and minister.

From your article.....

Walt Tucker gave an explanation of the two slit experiment and its relation to quantum mechanics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_R._Tucker_III


The article you posited was about quantum superposition, not quantum entanglement.

In principle it doesn't matter. It's all probabilistic theory. Dress up the quantum pig and put lipstick on it and call it whatever you want. Today, it's "mashed potatoes". Tomorrow, it's "french fries" etc.

By the way, the Wiki article is on Walt Tucker III. He's the son of Walt Tucker Jr. The Tough Questions website refers to Tucker only as Walt Tucker.

By the way, I see that you missed me and couldn't keep me on iggy, heh?

[hcap]

Although you are still on my ignore list I decided to let you off when I first get up.However reading your last post reinforces total ignore "
You babble.....

In principle it doesn't matter. It's all probabilistic theory. Dress up the quantum pig and put lipstick on it and call it whatever you want. Today, it's "mashed potatoes". Tomorrow, it's "french fries" etc."

Wrong it is not all there is. Do you even know what entanglement is and how it differs from superposition?

And Walter Tucker the 3rd the one, who was an apologist, his father preceded him as Mayor, and his scientific credentials was that he was a dentist. Both are amateurs.

3 is more qualified than 2. Be happy

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Although you are still on my ignore list I decided to let you off when I first get up.However reading your last post reinforces total ignore "
You babble.....
Wrong it is not all there is. Do you even know what entanglement is and how it differs from superposition?

And Walter Tucker the 3rd the one, who was an apologist, his father preceded him as Mayor, and his scientific credentials was that he was a dentist. Both are amateurs.

3 is more qualified than 2. Be happy

And that makes you an expert scientist by comparison!?

Superposition and entanglement all fall under the heading of quantum mechanics. And both fall under the category of probabilistic theory.

[boxcar]

Atheist Richard Dawkins warns against celebrating the alleged demise of Christianity in Europe

The atheist speaker warned that Islam as a religion poses a more dangerous threat than any other, pointing to the fact that moderate Muslims suffer more at the hands of Islam than anyone else, The Christian Post reported.

"It's tempting to say all religions are bad, and I do say all religions are bad, but it's a worse temptation to say all religions are equally bad because they're not," Dawkins said. "If you look at the actual impact that different religions have on the world it's quite apparent that at present the most evil religion in the world has to be Islam.”

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/22...+Latest+-+Text)

This extreme political correctness earned him a canceled appearance.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I'm always conscious when I quote scripture.

So by what OBJECTIVE standard do you distinguish between the real sayings of Jesus and the so-called contaminated words "by the narrow minded stupidity of man"?

And what "standards of an idiot", specifically, have I or others attributed to Jesus?

What amazes me is how small you think your god is. If God had the ability to reveal himself in scripture through his chosen prophets, apostles and his only begotten Son, then how is preserving the integrity of his revelation beyond his power?

You put God in a box. To you God is on the level of the stupidity of humans. Vengeful, angry, jealous, punitive,conditional love, exclusiveness, etc. Accessed through a book and rigid beliefs. These are all low levels of consciousness which leads to spiritual stupidity because these are insulting qualities associated to an infinite being who is not capable of this stupidity.

This is done by those who do not know God, only fear him. It is only one step above ancient ones who used human sacrifice to appease their angry Gods. God only incarnated into this world. He is not of this world or its stupidity be it human sacrifice or threats of eternal damnation.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by hcap

Anyone you care to point out? You realize for every so-called progressive you can name, there are many more radical literal minded "Christians" who seem to be mad at everything. For instance the 2,000 year old wrong Christian meme that the Jews murdered Christ. I am Jewish and experienced that prejudice both traveling in the US, and right here on this thread. by guess who?

We'd all be better off if people on both sides were actually more tolerant instead of just talking about it and only being tolerant of people that agree with them.

We've had some pretty good disagreements on a few topics over the years, but beyond momentary frustration I don't have a negative feeling in my body about you. I hope the same it true of you.

[thaskalos]

The only thing I find wrong with "religious people" is their loud insistence that THEIR religion is the only "true one".

[classhandicapper]

I feel sorry for people like Dawkins. He's confident in what he believes because he has a high IQ, examines evidence etc ... but I suspect his high IQ only covers a limited area. If he was truly intelligent in a broad way, he'd be more imaginative and not nearly as confident.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The only thing I find wrong with "religious people" is their loud insistence that THEIR religion is the only "true one".

I agree with you, but I also find people that attack religious people or call them fools to be equally offensive. Maybe that's because I know I am cluelesst. So I find anyone that's confident to probably be overestimating themselves. I say "probably" because some people may have experiences that I don't have.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I feel sorry for people like Dawkins. He's confident in what he believes because he has a high IQ, examines evidence etc ... but he doesn't realize that his high IQ only covers a limited area. If he was truly intelligent in a broad way, he'd be more imaginative and not nearly as confident.

You are contradicting yourself, IMO. On the one hand you ask for "religious freedom"...and on the other hand, you criticize Dawkins for loudly disapproving of religion. That's "religious freedom" too, you know. Whom is Dawkins hurting?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I agree with you, but I also find people that attack religious people or call them fools to be equally offensive. Maybe that's because I know I am cluelesst. So I find anyone that's confident to probably be overestimating themselves. I say "probably" because some people may have experiences that I don't have.

In this conversation here, who in your opinion is "being attacked"...and who is doing the "attacking"?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

You are contradicting yourself, IMO. On the one hand you ask for "religious freedom"...and on the other hand, you criticize Dawkins for loudly disapproving of religion. That's "religious freedom" too, you know. Whom is Dawkins hurting?

I didn't say he doesn't have a right to express his views.

I was suggesting that his views are very arrogant in the same way as hard core religious types that seem convinced their religion is obviously the only one true religion and they have all the details right.

He's obviously a very intelligent man in ways, but when you get to that level of arrogance on a topic like religion, your intelligence probably has some blind spots.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

In this conversation here, who in your opinion is "being attacked"...and who is doing the "attacking"?

I was talking generically about public discussions and attitudes.

I don't follow the much of the back and forth on this thread because the physics is outside my area of education and I am agnostic about the religion.

I'm becoming more spiritual again, but not in a way that would be 100% consistent with any religion. What I now suspect to be the "truth" I don't have the IQ to fully understand, comprehend, or explain. In layman's terms, "I don't think it was all an accident".

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I agree with you, but I also find people that attack religious people or call them fools to be equally offensive. Maybe that's because I know I am cluelesst. So I find anyone that's confident to probably be overestimating themselves. I say "probably" because some people may have experiences that I don't have.

Look at your phrasing in the above post. You mention that you are offended when religious people are called "fools"...but you neglect to mention that the opposite occurs at least as often. IMO...you can't say that Dawkins is "arrogant" without also adding that the vocal proponents of religion are ALSO "arrogant". Arrogance rules in BOTH camps, from what I've seen.