Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: ~CB on 17/04/2015 10:03:53
-
I just Am curious to know the number of Atheists on a Science forum.
-
Not a useful poll if you want to count atheists as there are probably as many agnostics as atheists here.
-
Mr. Alan, you actually got it the wrong way... Probably due to how I phrased it. My intention was to check the number of Atheists and Agnostics vs Theists... Not Atheist vs Agnostics.
-
I suggest you rephrase the opening question. We atheists are sticklers for precision and don't like being associated with woolly-headed agnostics.
-
Wooly headed? I think agnosticism would be the best stance a scientist could take on the issue since there is no evidence either way...
-
God is logically impossible, so why sit on the fence?
-
Alright then! I'm going to cut out agnostic and just make it 'Are you an Atheist?'.
-
God is logically impossible, so why sit on the fence?
Well, there could be a lot of different types of definitions to the actual god... Like, we could be in a game right now or some simulation made by a highly advanced species;
Oh wait, but that explanation would again will have to answer the question... Who created them? Yeah, well... Sorry! I never gave it a complete thought. A logical god IS impossible.
-
Interesting idea for a poll. i look forward to seeing the results.
-
121 views, 9 votes.
are the rest bots or nuts?
-
Many views are the same people returning to look again. I haven't voted.
-
if we are each 1 brain cells of something bigger, we might just do what we do now. interesting journey.
-
Many views are the same people returning to look again. I haven't voted.
i believe the views are counted by ip. bet?
-
God is logically impossible, so why sit on the fence?
how is particle wave, orbital and photon emitting logically possible? mind to share your logic?
pls don't be cheap as ethos, he won't share his wow moment. i have reasonable doubt that he was bluffing or mistook wowed.
-
God is logically impossible, so why sit on the fence?
how is particle wave, orbital and photon emitting logically possible? mind to share your logic?
Why would you expect science to have the answers to EVERYTHING? Theories are evidence based conclusions with the highest confidence that we can have, but they all have gaps in understanding including Gravity, Germ theory of disease, General Relativity, etc. Complete understanding may be impossible but the strength of science is admitting that our understanding is not complete and therefore continuing to pursue knowledge and refine current understanding. That's why science works.
Usually people target what Science doesn't knows 'yet' and then just keep iterating it to feel as if they have won the debate/argument. Science didn't just fall down from space in the form of books giving us answers to everything. We have been evolving to understand concepts we would have deemed impossible to understand a century ago. And we will continue to evolve and maybe, just maybe have answers to everything, someday. The type of argument you start here, usually everyday... Isn't helping Science or the mankind in any way. If you want to follow something which claims to have the answer to everything then you should ditch Science and start following religion. Because having ALL of the answers is the domain of religion. Just don't question those answers or try to verify them, that's blasphemy. Your only job there is to believe what you are told by a book and other human beings, and have faith (not evidence) that they are correct.
-
that sounds empty words to me.
all things have precise logic and mechanism. science is to follow logic and discover mechanism, not superstition.
tell me how you think photon is emitted, what is energy level, why is electron not stick to proton. if you don't mind.
-
how is particle wave, orbital and photon emitting logically possible? mind to share your logic?
These are the names of objects we observe and models that we use to describe what happens. Reality is way beyond logic.
-
Many views are the same people returning to look again. I haven't voted.
i believe the views are counted by ip. bet?
The score goes up every time I open the thread. You could be right about the IP though - they tend to change dynamically so you might never have the same one twice.
-
God is logically impossible, so why sit on the fence?
how is particle wave, orbital and photon emitting logically possible? mind to share your logic?
pls don't be cheap as ethos, he won't share his wow moment. i have reasonable doubt that he was bluffing or mistook wowed.
I can't see anything in physics that can be shown to be logically impossible, but God is logically impossible. It is possible to write a program which simulates events in the universe with things being both particles and waves, so that makes it hard to show that they're breaking any rules of logic. You can try to simulate a God too, but the very possibility simulating it illustrates that there is nothing special about God that could qualify him as God - he's just a mechanistic thing like any other.
-
how is particle wave, orbital and photon emitting logically possible? mind to share your logic?
These are the names of objects we observe and models that we use to describe what happens. Reality is way beyond logic.
earth used to be flat.
if you really understood, i mean really, please show me the logic of orbital, photon, gravity.
anyone else?
-
Many views are the same people returning to look again. I haven't voted.
In my case, nuts ........ as a fruit cake.
-
In my case, nuts ........ as a fruit cake.
Haha! By the way, welcome back!
-
The yellow bouncing flabby thing is so utterly cute and annoying at the same time. I just can't stop looking at it! Help me!
-
I will have to label myself as atheist, though since becoming atheist, I have always had a problem with this 'label'.
My problem being that in saying I am an atheist, I am, somehow, actually labelling myself agnostic.
I'll try to explain: If I wear an 'atheist' label I must be acknowledging a God I do not believe in. If I wear an 'agnostic' label, I accept the possible existence of a God, but don't really worship him.
I prefer to think of myself as a human (well, almost), a product of physics, chemistry, biology and chance. The only label I wear is a 'best before' label and yes, I passed that date many moons ago.
-
New total:
Are you an atheist?
Yes! 8 (73%)
No! 3 (27%)
Total Members Voted: 11
Voting closed: 19/04/2015 10:03:53
-
Oh my god! That biography of yours! You mate, have a lot of humor!
-
I'll try to explain: If I wear an 'atheist' label I must be acknowledging a God I do not believe in.
No, you are acknowledging the existence of a word that signifies something nonexistent. It's no more significant than discussing phlogiston, aether, or caloric.
-
i voted yes, so see you in heaven.
-
i voted yes, so see you in heaven.
Not being an atheist doesn't mean you go to heaven. In fact in Judaism there is no concept of a heaven that people go to when they die. That's a Christian concept.
-
i voted yes, so see you in heaven.
Not being an atheist doesn't mean you go to heaven. In fact in Judaism there is no concept of a heaven that people go to when they die. That's a Christian concept.
Dear Pete,
where do judaism go after?
where we go after? should i follow you?
-
Buddhists are generally heaven-believing atheists.
-
Buddhists are generally heaven-believing atheists.
Dear Alan,
if i learned qm, can i go where you go?
-
if i learned qm, can i go where you go?
i voted yes, so see you in heaven.
What on Earth do you mean by this? You are seriously making no sense.
-
if i learned qm, can i go where you go?
i voted yes, so see you in heaven.
What on Earth do you mean by this? You are seriously making no sense.
decide is photon a real thing or not? i thought young people more likely able to put $ where mouth is.
-
decide is photon a real thing or not? i thought young people more likely able to put $ where mouth is.
You cannot just permanently associate your sentiments with a Scientific law or... Or particle(A quantum particle, which we cannot directly observe and only prove with experiments). We only give importance to a certain thing as long as evidence points towards it's existence and relevance. If the evidence changes, we ditch that thing and move on to something new. Right now, evidence points towards the existence of photon... But, if it changes we will ditch it and move on to what the new evidence points towards. Right now I'm inclined to say that it's real, photon is real;
Maybe you'll be the one who introduces us to that new evidence which will make us ditch photon;
I have said it earlier and I'm going to say it again, we respect you sharing your theories on here and as they say philosophy (Theories) leads to experiments, and basically new inventions... But, please don't make us your enemies while doing so. You try to humiliate (In a way) the more experienced and knowledgeable minds on here. For eg., Peter, Alan, Yor on and Colin (I'm sorry if I missed someone). You should discuss your philosophy with them (And let them correct you so that you could fix your theory) rather than being hostile to them, giving them stupid reasons to try MAKE them believe in your philosophy.
Or particle(A quantum particle, which we cannot directly observe and only prove with experiments) When I said this I also wanted to mention how even, what we feel is reality could be merely an illusion (Please don't mention people who have said this before me since I'm not in anyway claiming this is my original thought. PS. I mentioned this whole 'could be an illusion' thing to be explicit). So any thing we know of could be a lie. Basically we just have to have our understanding of the universe based on logical deductions instead of what feels right, Jccc.
-
i have no enemy, kidding a little is my nature.
glad you picked photon. thanks.
-
if thebox also believes photon is real deal, i should visit the lake for sure.
-
Listen... Jccc, please don't give up on your theory. It could be (Although I'm not really qualified enough to say this)... True (My word selection sucks, I know!). Don't give up on it, just keep getting rid of the holes and try to think of an experiment which could prove it's true. Maybe Gravity is the part of the light spectrum as well ( Did I just say the stupidest thing ever?). I mean I would really feel bad if, due to me or anyone on this forum, we would lag behind by a new breakthrough discovery. I want YOU to be sure that it's not real and the moment YOU yourself give up on it (Without our iteration of how wrong it is) then that would be it's end. Because as far as I know, your theory still looks more feasible than photons (To me, and I have said it before). But yet again... -Insert my previous post here-
-
i should visit the lake for sure.
...What lake? [???]
-
i should visit the lake for sure.
...What lake? [???]
quantum lake
-
quantum lake
I still didn't get your reference... Did you mean this "http://olenliving.com/communities/florida/quantum-lake-villas"? (Yes, this is supposed to be funny)
-
I see photons whenever I open my eyes. I have machines that count individual photons. What's the problem there?
And when I'm dead, I'll be dead. No problem there either - in fact the ultimate solution to all my personal problems..
-
you are an open minded scientist, Alan.
anything in logic is possible. so if we meet after in person, can we discuss photon again? i was a boxer.
if you can count photon 1 by 1, what's the method? are you SURE the thing that lights your eyes is photon not gravitational wave?
-
if the method is counting the electrons knocked out by light, you are counting electron not photon.
can gravitational wave knockout electrons also?
-
... are you SURE the thing that lights your eyes is photon not gravitational wave?
Well, it doesn't pull his eyes out!!
-
Do you count sheep, or just the photons reflected from the sheep? Oh dear, I'm turning into a philosopher, so let's return to experimental physics:
If I put a planet (say the moon) between myself and the sun, the number of photons reaching me decreases, but the gravitational vector increases. So photons are not gravitons.
-
... are you SURE the thing that lights your eyes is photon not gravitational wave?
Well, it doesn't pull his eyes out!!
because he is peek the sun not staring?
-
anything in logic is possible.
Only if you allow an infinite number of absurd propositions. Which is why science isn't like philosophy: we have to start with an observation.
-
anything in logic is possible.
Only if you allow an infinite number of absurd propositions. Which is why science isn't like philosophy: we have to start with an observation.
Alan,
science observed atoms produce spectrum/em radiation, not electron change energy level/orbital and release photons. those are imaginary/model/theory.
science observed expending universe, theorized big bang that is so mainstream and correct, did i just challenged it without seen any/your debunk?
are we discussing about science? or textbook/wiki knowledge? some times i feel like visiting a thrift store.
-
Do you count sheep, or just the photons reflected from the sheep? Oh dear, I'm turning into a philosopher, so let's return to experimental physics:
If I put a planet (say the moon) between myself and the sun, the number of photons reaching me decreases, but the gravitational vector increases. So photons are not gravitons.
Alan,
you are mixing gravity and gravity wave into 1.
gravity is the attraction force between sun and moon, light is the gravitational wave produced by hot atoms on the sun.
i never said photons are gravitons. i always said photon and graviton are imaginary.
you put words in my words again, why? is it fun? or challenge my memories?
-
As long as you insist that light is a gravitational wave, you will remain in a state of wilful ignorance. Not that anyone cares about you, but there's always a risk that you might infect others, which would be sad.
-
Alan,
i believe/suggest light is gravitational wave produced by exited atoms. based on the fact that atoms each has mass, has gravitational field. when atoms vibrating, emitting gravitational wave.
you believe light is em wave/particle, produced by electrons change orbital and release photons. the logic is foggy, the mechanism is unknown.
you believe there is no God, I believe God is everywhere.
opinion various, all is good.
every mind is unique and precious.
-
Alan,
i believe/suggest light is gravitational wave produced by exited atoms. based on the fact that atoms each has mass, has gravitational field. when atoms vibrating, emitting gravitational wave.
you believe light is em wave/particle, produced by electrons change orbital and release photons. the logic is foggy, the mechanism is unknown.
you believe there is no God, I believe God is everywhere.
opinion various, all is good.
every mind is unique and precious.
Every observation ever made on electrodynamics and gravity contradict your claims.
-
Well, guess what? In simple terms... He doesn't gives a ****. Seriously, the only thing you are going to get in reply is 'opinion various'. I don't know how he takes experiments to be opinions but whatever the case. I don't believe you are any close to convince him about... I don't know... ANYTHING.
With all due respect Peter. You should really find a better hobby... you deserve a better hobby!
-
Well, guess what? In simple terms... He doesn't gives a ****. Seriously, the only thing you are going to get in reply is 'opinion various'. I don't know how he takes experiments to be opinions but whatever the case. I don't believe you are any close to convince him about... I don't know... ANYTHING.
With all due respect Peter. You should really find a better hobby... you deserve a better hobby!
Jasper
I agree with you about jccc, no one is going to convince him. I sympathise in a way, the simple model of the atom as a solar system I was given as a kid is very appealing, but wrong. I'm a very visual person and I would like to have a visual model. The problem is, if you don't do the maths, you don't understand what is probably happening. My test is does it predict, is it consistent. It's easy for jccc and box to dismiss things they don't understand.
Re Pete. It's not a hobby, education is work for him and he is passionate about it and would like people to see the truth. I'm passionate about some different parts of science so if the Box insists on playing games, I'm happy to say 'whatever' and walk away.
PS. Hope you don't mind me saying, but I notice elsewhere that you have given up studies to develop a site. Excellent to follow a vision and I hope you make it. I would just say, try to keep up some studies if you can. I don't say this lightly, I left school with no qualifications, it took me 7 yrs of evening classes while working full time, to qualify for university, so I know how hard it can be. It is just a lot easier when you are younger to get the opportunities, later family and other interests etc. Educational forums like these can help.
-
Alan,
i believe/suggest light is gravitational wave produced by exited atoms. based on the fact that atoms each has mass, has gravitational field. when atoms vibrating, emitting gravitational wave.
No atoms in a synchrotron, but plenty of light comes out.
you believe light is em wave/particle, produced by electrons change orbital and release photons. the logic is foggy, the mechanism is unknown.
only to those who do not want to know.
-
Alan,
i believe/suggest light is gravitational wave produced by exited atoms. based on the fact that atoms each has mass, has gravitational field. when atoms vibrating, emitting gravitational wave.
No atoms in a synchrotron, but plenty of light comes out.
you believe light is em wave/particle, produced by electrons change orbital and release photons. the logic is foggy, the mechanism is unknown.
only to those who do not want to know.
Alan,
i want to know, please tell me the secret of the logic and mechanism.
The electromagnetic radiation emitted when charged particles are accelerated radially (\mathbf{a}\perp \mathbf{v}) is called synchrotron radiation.
-
That's the secret! Accelerating a charged particle, or changing its quantum state, generates electromagnetic radiation. Light is electromagnetic radiation.
Get the Tao, man. Stuff happens the way it does, whether you like it that way or not. Ours is not to understand but to observe and predict.
-
That's the secret! Accelerating a charged particle, or changing its quantum state, generates electromagnetic radiation. Light is electromagnetic radiation.
Get the Tao, man. Stuff happens the way it does, whether you like it that way or not. Ours is not to understand but to observe and predict.
Alan,
thank you very much.
-
Get the Tao, man. Stuff happens the way it does, whether you like it that way or not. Ours is not to understand but to observe and predict.
Nice! [:)]