An exaggeration, yes, but not a terribly big one. Most of the standard theory today is based on the bricks of special and general relativity. For us to have to rethink the laws restricting mass from traveling over the speed of light, we really would need to rethink physics from there all the way back up, which really leaves no physical theories safe all the way back to Newtonian physics. In short, I cant wait to see how this pans out.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
Oh, it would definitely be groundbreaking. One of the biggest discoveries in physics to date. But to say that we would have to restart physics is an exaggeration.

In reply to this comment by juliovega914:
I'm pretty sure negative mass would still result in complex energy, because the Lorentz transformation factor would still be proportional to 1/i or -i. Complex mass, however, would allow for the energy to be real (which has been theorized as being possible), but that introduces a whole new problem of trying to conceptualize complex mass.

And on a side note, the first ever physical observation of nonpostive/nonreal mass would be groundbreaking in its own right.

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
The thing is, we don't know the mass of the neutrino. If it has a tachyonic nature, i.e. negative mass squared, it could break Lorentz symmetry while still satisfying Einstein's equations.

>> ^juliovega914:

>> ^Jinx:
>> ^juliovega914:
If this measurement turns out to be true, we basically have to restart physics.

Again, not necessarily. It would be a ground breaking discovery and would certainly raise a lot of questions...but then I did perhaps one of the most brain melting experiments with results that appear to contradict theory and common sense when I was 14 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

No, it would be a HUGE discovery! One of the biggest ever! and it would completely redefine our modern theory!
If a massive particle moves faster than the speed of light, that means the Lorentz factor for calculating the energy of the particle will be complex! (gamma = c/squrt(c^2-v^2), for v>c, gamma is complex). Do any of you have any fucking idea what that means?
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/veltran.html for those of you who dont know wtf I am talking about)

>> ^shinyblurry:

Well, I am talking about supernatural causes. I think there is plenty of evidence the Universe was designed, for instance the 20 or so values which life is completely dependent on and the fact that if any of them were altered in the most infintesimal way, life wouldn't exist and in most cases, the Universe wouldn't either. Even Dawkins admitted that the Universe appeared designed. But then he goes on to posit multiple Universes and we just happen to be in the one that appears designed. Instead of investigating the obvious conclusion that if the Universe appears designed, then maybe it is, he comes up with a morass of complexity and speculation which doesn't reduce the need for an ultimate cause in the first place. I think peoples predisposition against a created Universe is predicated more on their bias against a Creator than logic and reason, because I really don't see how it is at all unreasonable or illogical to believe it could have been.
btw, why downvote my comment and then engage in discussion?
>> ^kceaton1:
@shinyblurry

You missed the part were he talked about the quantum foam, etc... The Universe had a beginning the same way your life did. There was a lot that happened before most likely and we may never know what it was (as the quantum foam breaks things down to, literally, chances/glimpses and "something from nothing"; as long as the dime lands head up in your favor in one instance in some far off day; even if your chances are one in 1 x 10^464th power--it just needs one instance in an endless amount of time too happen).



The downvote was for fanning religious vs. science potentials, I saw it as a troll to some degree.

For the rest. Science is a poor man's science, especially nowadays when you use twenty-twenty hindsight. The reason I say this is that you use "the chance for "x" factor ending up in some various fashion by chance" and explain that it is ludicrous for that to be true. The point scientists make is that you don't need chance at all to get there, or if you did it doesn't matter, because that is were the dice landed. Complaining that the dice are improbable, you should also notice besides those 20 reasons you could just as easily make it into a scenario of 500 clauses.

Like not having a super massive black hole near us, or an old dying star near us ready to go up, a large gas planet near us that could play amok with our magnetic field and send loads of radiation at us, etc...

It's much easier to approach it as the dice dropped where they may and that designed our perceived reality.


Last part concerning time. Time if perceived by a slow to register memory system will appear to be going slow, if at the speed of light it would essentially stop. The point I was making is that the Universe has it's own built in clock via thermodynamics and the theory of general relativity. If time TRULY doesn't exist then neither can heat, if heat doesn't exist, neither can electrons, if electrons don't exist then neither do atoms, etc... Time is a fundamentally linked "existence" merely due to the other forces at play that need it to work at all, including the supreme particle/wave, the photon. How can it be a wave without some time variable. What causes time and what it is exactly is still best answered by Einstein and his theory of General Relativity.

@GeeSussFreeK

Time is interesting, truly one of humanities and other animals, greatest sensory abilities via memory. In fact how our memory is stored depending on what type of creature you are can give you a wide difference in abilities. Like a fly out maneuvering your swat attempts. Truly time seems not to exist at all if there is no memory. You can also tell that our perception of time was never meant to work with time dilation; this showing that time is extremely relative even just by biological standards.

But, you must remember that if we all died tomorrow and on some distant planet a new species started to learn as we have. They will still have access to the greatest library ever known: The Universe. Does that make time exist? Is it merely just an artifact? Time seems to have an "artificial" standing, as this new species will not see it at "one second" nor will they perceive "one second" the same as us. Time exists, but what is your duration, one tic = the time it takes for the Universe to go from 3k Kelvin to 0 Kelvin, or a few seconds = as we see it?

Much like temperature and other sensory based interpretations of reality. I think it does exist outside our perception, but it could be better stated than is. Perhaps using discreet energy packets in relation to the speed of light interpreted by general relativity for the system, etc... (a much more precise definition of time is using the mechanical nature of particle physics and sharing it with another system, much like nuclear clocks).

It's not dishonest to say you are open to evidence of a supernatural being but find belief without it silly. Is it arrogant to find a belief in unicorns silly? Shiva? Mormon doctrine? Was it hubris for Christians to not be pagans when Christianity wasn't the #1 religion? Would you reconcile your beliefs if someone found a herd of unicorns? Some help with terms: http://videosift.com/video/Lack-of-belief-in-gods

How intuitive an idea is has little bearing on truth. That something can't come from nothing, if true, grants no particular credibility to the idea of a supreme intellect. If a supreme intellect can be eternal, why not the universe itself? How the universe works is a profoundly interesting question, but until our understanding of a material universe stops bearing fruit, its exploration -- testing the predictive power of (even unintuitive) hypotheses -- is the most helpful method for finding truth. Additional random thoughts: http://videosift.com/video/The-God-of-the-Gaps-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson

Religion is important to believers, in part, for the sense of humility, awe, and connection it inspires with the world and others. But this feeling is important to everyone. When accusing an atheist of arrogance, consider what might inspire reverence in him or her:
http://videosift.com/video/The-Pale-Blue-Dot-by-Carl-Saga
n-Excerpt-read-by-the-Author

Does the obviousness of an idea guarantee its truth? Does its popularity? Does the comfort it brings you, or the earnestness with which you believe in it? Ask yourself what makes your testimony more valid than the differing testimony found in others'? Is that an arrogant position? Despite earnestness, you sound no more convincing than...>> ^shinyblurry:

As far as my knowledge goes, I know quite a bit about all of those subjects, particularly evolutionary biology and general relativity. I am also well versed in philosophy, history, astronomy, biology, theology, and comparative religion. As well as apologetics in general. I know what constitutes a standard of evidence. However, I know unicorns exists; they are as real to me as my own reflection in a mirror. I have plenty of evidence, directly from the unicorns. You may not consider it evidence because it personal testimony, but it is clearly evidence to me.
Again, the unicorns' herald commanded that we contend for the faith. Which means to preach unicorn words and have answers to peoples questions. I never claimed to be perfect..but you know, your testimony here is fairly flawed..telling me to be humble in one breath and insulting me in the other. You ever notice how hypocrites usually contridict themselves within a few sentences? I do..

Fact is, you are explaining the existence of something from nothing by creating something else from nothing.

There never was nothing, that's the entire point. Either "someting" is eternal, or you couldn't have anything. If time and space began at the big bang, the cause of the Universe is immaterial and transcendent. You have the idea of nothing never existing which means the ultimate cause is eternal. So between those two things you have a match to God, who is immaterial transcendent and eternal. A Creation is indeed the simpliest explanation for this.

Somehow you've also convinced yourself this is the simplest explanation. Not to mention that not only must there be an all knowing, all powerful and all seeing god to you but he must be the judeo Christian god which assumes an almost endless list of events and facts from the bible, many of which we know to be false.

Like what?

Congratulations you've accomplished nothing but demonstrating your dogmatic adherence to a system of belief that 2/3 of the living world disagree with and belief in which is on the whole determined overwhelmingly by one factor, that the person in question was born in a country and familial environment where it was the dominant religion.

Not that numbers prove anything, but Christianity is the worlds biggest religion. I would think that the true God would have the #1 religion. Don't forget that 4/5's of the world disagrees with your conclusion that there isn't a God in the first place.
>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^mentality:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I know all about the schitzophrenic nuance militant atheists attempt to interject into the debate ..which really is because atheism is completely indefensible as a belief. At least someone like Christopher Hitchens is intellectually honest enough to say he doesn't believe..but many atheists try to hide behind an ambiguous definition by redefining atheism as not making any particular claims, which is patently false. I really don't care what wikipedia says, I'll go with the dictionary on this one, as well as personal experience. I've yet to meet an atheist who said he "lacked" belief who didn't unequivocably assert he is right, and not only right, but so right that I was in comparison intellectually inferior. Which is amusing to me, because as far as I am concerned an atheist might as well be rubbing two sticks together for all the discernment about reality.
Wrong. It is not a "redefinition" of atheism. It's a way of classifying different kinds of atheism. The kind of atheism that you're used to dealing with is merely a subset of atheists, the explicit/strong kind. Did you even try to read the wikipedia article? Oh wait, you're too arrogant to care. How would you like it if people bunched all Christians together, and viewed all of you as the Westboro Baptist Church?
And yet again you ignore the rest of my post. I'll spell it out again for you:
"I know this... I know that... I know all about... I don't care..."
These are all the signs of your own hubris. You don't know. You don't know and you don't care that there are different kinds of atheism. You don't know string theory, or general relativity, evolutionary biology, or even what the word "evidence" means. Yet you have the arrogance to talk like you are an expert. You sound like Ray Comfort - a fool, sure of his own righteousness and superiority. In the end, the only thing you achieve is to marginalize the Christian faith and make religious people look bad.
Try to remember that religion is a personal thing. Faith does not need your silly proofs and God does not need you to defend him.
Goodbye and good luck.

Good luck reasoning with him, mentality. I had a very long and thorough discussion with shiny about the different kinds of atheism, but he trots out that one dictionary definition and shuts off his brain. No amount of reasonable discussion penetrates.
And all of his expertise on various subjects comes from creationist websites that warp science and quote-mine to back up their theological preconceptions.
If you designed a computer program to defend the worst, must unscientific perspective on Christianity, you'd get something like shinyblurry. He's programmed to believe one thing, and nothing anybody says can alter it in the slightest. I doubt he'd pass a Turing test.
I only post messages to him when I feel like venting. It's not anything like a conversation.


>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^mentality:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I know all about the schitzophrenic nuance militant atheists attempt to interject into the debate ..which really is because atheism is completely indefensible as a belief. At least someone like Christopher Hitchens is intellectually honest enough to say he doesn't believe..but many atheists try to hide behind an ambiguous definition by redefining atheism as not making any particular claims, which is patently false. I really don't care what wikipedia says, I'll go with the dictionary on this one, as well as personal experience. I've yet to meet an atheist who said he "lacked" belief who didn't unequivocably assert he is right, and not only right, but so right that I was in comparison intellectually inferior. Which is amusing to me, because as far as I am concerned an atheist might as well be rubbing two sticks together for all the discernment about reality.
Wrong. It is not a "redefinition" of atheism. It's a way of classifying different kinds of atheism. The kind of atheism that you're used to dealing with is merely a subset of atheists, the explicit/strong kind. Did you even try to read the wikipedia article? Oh wait, you're too arrogant to care. How would you like it if people bunched all Christians together, and viewed all of you as the Westboro Baptist Church?
And yet again you ignore the rest of my post. I'll spell it out again for you:
"I know this... I know that... I know all about... I don't care..."
These are all the signs of your own hubris. You don't know. You don't know and you don't care that there are different kinds of atheism. You don't know string theory, or general relativity, evolutionary biology, or even what the word "evidence" means. Yet you have the arrogance to talk like you are an expert. You sound like Ray Comfort - a fool, sure of his own righteousness and superiority. In the end, the only thing you achieve is to marginalize the Christian faith and make religious people look bad.
Try to remember that religion is a personal thing. Faith does not need your silly proofs and God does not need you to defend him.
Goodbye and good luck.

Good luck reasoning with him, mentality. I had a very long and thorough discussion with shiny about the different kinds of atheism, but he trots out that one dictionary definition and shuts off his brain. No amount of reasonable discussion penetrates.
And all of his expertise on various subjects comes from creationist websites that warp science and quote-mine to back up their theological preconceptions.
If you designed a computer program to defend the worst, must unscientific perspective on Christianity, you'd get something like shinyblurry. He's programmed to believe one thing, and nothing anybody says can alter it in the slightest. I doubt he'd pass a Turing test.
I only post messages to him when I feel like venting. It's not anything like a conversation.


>> ^RedSky:
Fact is, you are explaining the existence of something from nothing by creating something else from nothing.
Somehow you've also convinced yourself this is the simplest explanation. Not to mention that not only must there be an all knowing, all powerful and all seeing god to you but he must be the judeo Christian god which assumes an almost endless list of events and facts from the bible, many of which we know to be false.
Congratulations you've accomplished nothing but demonstrating your dogmatic adherence to a system of belief that 2/3 of the living world disagree with and belief in which is on the whole determined overwhelmingly by one factor, that the person in question was born in a country and familial environment where it was the dominant religion.>> ^shinyblurry:
The description of the origin of the Universe is uniquely described by the judeo christian belief as a creation from no prior material. If time and space originated in the big bang, then the cause of the Universe is immaterial. The chance of existence being eternal is 100 percent unless you want to explain how nothing could create something. All of this confirms an eternal transcendent supernatural Creator..the appearance of design in the Universe further confirms it. It is the best and most simple explanation of the origin of all things.
>> ^RedSky:
Replace where I argued it always existed with temporary and impermanent. Im afraid you're pulling a straw man and not answering my question. Tacking on God to anything that we know about the origins of the universe is by definition less plausible. If you disagree, prove me wrong because up to this point the only response you have given to this is the erroneous assumption that it somehow 50/50.
Cosmic background radiation in no shape or form supports the existence of a judeo Christian god than it does the existence of Thor. I'm not kidding or mocking you, and again you are free to try to prove this point wrong.>> ^shinyblurry:
The simpliest explanation is that it was Created. Science agrees with this conclusion by postulating it had a beginning. The discoverers of the cosmic microwave background radiation said there couldn't have been a better discovery which matches up with the unique creation of the judeo christian God. The Universe shows every sign of being temporal and limited, not eternal. It was born and it will die.
>> ^RedSky:
Why is it implausible then for you to imagine then that the universe is eternal? It seems altogether simpler and more plausible.
Also it is not 50/50, just like it raining today is not 50/50 with it raining with thunderstorms. The first is ALWAYS more plausible.>> ^shinyblurry:
Here's basic logic..
nothing comes from nothing
something exists
Meaning, that unless the ultimate cause is eternal nothing would exist. This isn't a 50/50 probability..it's a 100 percent certainty.
>> ^erlanter:
Arrogant atheist: I don't know everything, but love evidence because it sheds light on the amazing world around me. I would believe in a god if there was evidence.
Humble believer: I know god made this amazing world for me. I know what god wants for me. I communicate with god daily. I know anguish awaits those who spurn god. Nothing can shake my faith.
Cheers.

>> ^RedSky:
If you are going to use the how did the Universe get here argument you must first justify how your chosen god came to be. "Always existed" is not good enough and I'm sure you're perfectly intelligent enough to see why.
Until then you must admit we (for the sake of argument, ignoring anything science has discovered on this topic so far) are equally oblivious when it comes to the origins of existence.
Going by basic probability too, that A is always more likely A & B, you should also be able to see how using basic logic, the universe existing because God created it having always existed is a less likely proposition than the universe having always existed in and of itself.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.
Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.
Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.
You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.

>> ^shinyblurry:

What I am saying is that there is no distinction between atheists, that the distinction is false from the outset (as confirmed by the dictionary). People who hold these combinations of beliefs are just logically inconsistant. This is part of the delusion that is out there, that people try to cloak themselves in this inpenetrable void of unbelief. Sorry, but you are exposed:
Ask yourself this question:
Was the Universe deliberately created by a supreme intellect?
Yes = Theist
No = Atheist
I dont know = Agnostic
It's pretty much that simple. You can muddy it up all you like..but the basic question is fairly simple. Just as the definition of atheism is simple: a disbelief or denial of a god(s)
As far as my knowledge goes, I know quite a bit about all of those subjects, particularly evolutionary biology and general relativity. I am also well versed in philosophy, history, astronomy, biology, theology, and comparative religion. As well as apologetics in general. I know what constitutes a standard of evidence. However, I know God exists; He is as real to me as my own reflection in a mirror. I have plenty of evidence, directly from God. You may not consider it evidence because it personal testimony, but it is clearly evidence to me.
Again, Jesus commanded that we contend for the faith. Which means to preach the gospel and have answers to peoples questions. I never claimed to be perfect..but you know, your testimony here is fairly flawed..telling me to be humble in one breath and insulting me in the other. You ever notice how hypocrites usually contridict themselves within a few sentences? I do..

There is no contradiction or hypocrisy. I don't claim to be humble, or tell you to be humble. I'm pointing out that your arrogance make you sound like a fool, and you come here to make a mockery of religion.

"I know quite a bit about evolutionary biology and general relativity." Oh really? Pray tell what you do for a living and what exactly qualifies you as knowing "quite a bit" about these fields? Becoming an expert on one field is difficult enough, and apparently on videosift we have a self professed expert on two major fields of science.

>> ^mentality:

>> ^shinyblurry:
I know all about the schitzophrenic nuance militant atheists attempt to interject into the debate ..which really is because atheism is completely indefensible as a belief. At least someone like Christopher Hitchens is intellectually honest enough to say he doesn't believe..but many atheists try to hide behind an ambiguous definition by redefining atheism as not making any particular claims, which is patently false. I really don't care what wikipedia says, I'll go with the dictionary on this one, as well as personal experience. I've yet to meet an atheist who said he "lacked" belief who didn't unequivocably assert he is right, and not only right, but so right that I was in comparison intellectually inferior. Which is amusing to me, because as far as I am concerned an atheist might as well be rubbing two sticks together for all the discernment about reality.
Wrong. It is not a "redefinition" of atheism. It's a way of classifying different kinds of atheism. The kind of atheism that you're used to dealing with is merely a subset of atheists, the explicit/strong kind. Did you even try to read the wikipedia article? Oh wait, you're too arrogant to care. How would you like it if people bunched all Christians together, and viewed all of you as the Westboro Baptist Church?
And yet again you ignore the rest of my post. I'll spell it out again for you:
"I know this... I know that... I know all about... I don't care..."
These are all the signs of your own hubris. You don't know. You don't know and you don't care that there are different kinds of atheism. You don't know string theory, or general relativity, evolutionary biology, or even what the word "evidence" means. Yet you have the arrogance to talk like you are an expert. You sound like Ray Comfort - a fool, sure of his own righteousness and superiority. In the end, the only thing you achieve is to marginalize the Christian faith and make religious people look bad.
Try to remember that religion is a personal thing. Faith does not need your silly proofs and God does not need you to defend him.
Goodbye and good luck.


Good luck reasoning with him, mentality. I had a very long and thorough discussion with shiny about the different kinds of atheism, but he trots out that one dictionary definition and shuts off his brain. No amount of reasonable discussion penetrates.

And all of his expertise on various subjects comes from creationist websites that warp science and quote-mine to back up their theological preconceptions.

If you designed a computer program to defend the worst, must unscientific perspective on Christianity, you'd get something like shinyblurry. He's programmed to believe one thing, and nothing anybody says can alter it in the slightest. I doubt he'd pass a Turing test.

I only post messages to him when I feel like venting. It's not anything like a conversation.

What I am saying is that there is no distinction between atheists, that the distinction is false from the outset (as confirmed by the dictionary). People who hold these combinations of beliefs are just logically inconsistant. This is part of the delusion that is out there, that people try to cloak themselves in this inpenetrable void of unbelief. Sorry, but you are exposed:

Ask yourself this question:

Was the Universe deliberately created by a supreme intellect?

Yes = Theist
No = Atheist
I dont know = Agnostic

It's pretty much that simple. You can muddy it up all you like..but the basic question is fairly simple. Just as the definition of atheism is simple: a disbelief or denial of a god(s)

As far as my knowledge goes, I know quite a bit about all of those subjects, particularly evolutionary biology and general relativity. I am also well versed in philosophy, history, astronomy, biology, theology, and comparative religion. As well as apologetics in general. I know what constitutes a standard of evidence. However, I know God exists; He is as real to me as my own reflection in a mirror. I have plenty of evidence, directly from God. You may not consider it evidence because it personal testimony, but it is clearly evidence to me.

Again, Jesus commanded that we contend for the faith. Which means to preach the gospel and have answers to peoples questions. I never claimed to be perfect..but you know, your testimony here is fairly flawed..telling me to be humble in one breath and insulting me in the other. You ever notice how hypocrites usually contridict themselves within a few sentences? I do..>> ^mentality:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I know all about the schitzophrenic nuance militant atheists attempt to interject into the debate ..which really is because atheism is completely indefensible as a belief. At least someone like Christopher Hitchens is intellectually honest enough to say he doesn't believe..but many atheists try to hide behind an ambiguous definition by redefining atheism as not making any particular claims, which is patently false. I really don't care what wikipedia says, I'll go with the dictionary on this one, as well as personal experience. I've yet to meet an atheist who said he "lacked" belief who didn't unequivocably assert he is right, and not only right, but so right that I was in comparison intellectually inferior. Which is amusing to me, because as far as I am concerned an atheist might as well be rubbing two sticks together for all the discernment about reality.
Wrong. It is not a "redefinition" of atheism. It's a way of classifying different kinds of atheism. The kind of atheism that you're used to dealing with is merely a subset of atheists, the explicit/strong kind. Did you even try to read the wikipedia article? Oh wait, you're too arrogant to care. How would you like it if people bunched all Christians together, and viewed all of you as the Westboro Baptist Church?
And yet again you ignore the rest of my post. I'll spell it out again for you:
"I know this... I know that... I know all about... I don't care..."
These are all the signs of your own hubris. You don't know. You don't know and you don't care that there are different kinds of atheism. You don't know string theory, or general relativity, evolutionary biology, or even what the word "evidence" means. Yet you have the arrogance to talk like you are an expert. You sound like Ray Comfort - a fool, sure of his own righteousness and superiority. In the end, the only thing you achieve is to marginalize the Christian faith and make religious people look bad.
Try to remember that religion is a personal thing. Faith does not need your silly proofs and God does not need you to defend him.
Goodbye and good luck.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I know all about the schitzophrenic nuance militant atheists attempt to interject into the debate ..which really is because atheism is completely indefensible as a belief. At least someone like Christopher Hitchens is intellectually honest enough to say he doesn't believe..but many atheists try to hide behind an ambiguous definition by redefining atheism as not making any particular claims, which is patently false. I really don't care what wikipedia says, I'll go with the dictionary on this one, as well as personal experience. I've yet to meet an atheist who said he "lacked" belief who didn't unequivocably assert he is right, and not only right, but so right that I was in comparison intellectually inferior. Which is amusing to me, because as far as I am concerned an atheist might as well be rubbing two sticks together for all the discernment about reality.

Wrong. It is not a "redefinition" of atheism. It's a way of classifying different kinds of atheism. The kind of atheism that you're used to dealing with is merely a subset of atheists, the explicit/strong kind. Did you even try to read the wikipedia article? Oh wait, you're too arrogant to care. How would you like it if people bunched all Christians together, and viewed all of you as the Westboro Baptist Church?

And yet again you ignore the rest of my post. I'll spell it out again for you:

"I know this... I know that... I know all about... I don't care..."

These are all the signs of your own hubris. You don't know. You don't know and you don't care that there are different kinds of atheism. You don't know string theory, or general relativity, evolutionary biology, or even what the word "evidence" means. Yet you have the arrogance to talk like you are an expert. You sound like Ray Comfort - a fool, sure of his own righteousness and superiority. In the end, the only thing you achieve is to marginalize the Christian faith and make religious people look bad.

Try to remember that religion is a personal thing. Faith does not need your silly proofs and God does not need you to defend him.

Goodbye and good luck.

I think lots of people believe "high level science" consists of 3 or 4 ideas:

1. In Schrodinger's thought experiment, a cat in a box could be seen as both alive and dead until an observer collapses the waveform
2. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says you can't know both the exact position and momentum of a particle
3. General relativity states time slows and mass increases for objects at relative high velocity
4. Light's behavior exhibits a wave/particle duality, as demonstrated by interference experiments

Know those 4 things? Have you watched Star Wars once? Good, you're now equipped to understand pretty much all "oh wow that guy's a crazy brainiac nerd" humor. Somehow if you reference things like that, you get a pass to do a comedy routine without any jokes. You're stroking people's ego enough that they don't care you're not funny.

I think people would just get pissed off if he left the "nerd humor" script, though. People don't want to be challenged, or hear pop culture references they don't know. Anyone who's the tiniest, tiniest bit interested in Greek mythology knows Pandora opened a jar, not a box - but nobody wants to hear a joke involving Pandora's jar. They want the same reference that 1000 previous pop cultural references have prepared them for. They want affirmation that they're part of the special club that knows about stuff.

So, to do "nerd" humor the plan is to avoid anything actually nerdy. Stick to the most often recycled bits of pop culture and pop science, mix in some clumsy, senseless double entendres so that people know when to laugh, and you're good to go.

>> ^bmacs27:

If you've got me pegged as a creationist/ID proponent, you've got me pegged wrong. I specifically said, filling gaps in knowledge with divine intervention is obviously not valid. My point is simply that many who claim ID is unfalsifiable also claim irreducible complexity as impossible to demonstrate you might open evolution up to the same criticism. I don't really care what side I argue for, I'm just interested in hearing a hire level of debate. Frankly, I didn't want to talk about logical fallacies, I wanted to talk about biochemical processes, like opsin barrels, and energy barriers. That shit is dope.
Now, the real problem here is that what we mean by "evolution" is a moving target. It's so broad it's meaningless. In many ways "Darwinian evolution" has been falsified hundreds of times, much like Newtonian mechanics. It was wrong in the details. In fact, almost every rule I was ever taught at an elementary level about any sort of obviously falsifiable detail of evolution has turned out to be false in some weird or possibly limited case (e.g. epigenetics smells awfully Lamarckian). Still, we don't say "Darwin was wrong." You can't falsify evolution in the broad sense the same way you can't falsify gravity. At this point it's common sense more than science. It's more like a world view we use to form specific falsifiable theories than a theory itself. It's a world view that has been shown to be extraordinarily enlightening for sure. So much so, that at this point even with that Hippo fossil, I don't think people would change their minds.
That's fine. I just get worried about how far people push the assumption of natural selection (e.g. evolutionary psychology). I feel that there would more constructive arguments resulting from a healthy skepticism about it. I understand that there is a sociopolitical undertone to the whole debate, and I respect that. I just happen to think that those with the better arguments will win (natural selection). So often I see bullshit jive being put forth as reasoned debate, which I think is what happens when ideas gain too much popular acceptance. Thus, I'd like to see an elevated level of debate about the topic. Since you aren't going to get QM to form a coherent paragraph, I might as well be the uke.


Well, you may not remember, but not long ago "gravity" was thought not to exist. It took Galileo to prove without a doubt that it did. Same thing with "evolution": the concept was understood before Darwin (by, among others, Lamarck), but it took Darwin and his idea of natural selection to prove it (with Mendelian genetics being the Newtonian mechanics's analog). Newton said that two mass attract each other, and it still is true today only now we know that it is so because they each form a gravity well. In the same way Darwin said evolution happens by natural selection. I do not know how our understanding of the concept will change (or not, which is possible) in the future, but it will still be recognizable as being that the most fit (adapted) organism in a situation surviving and producing more offspring than the rest. What will change, I think, will be how we define fitness, organism, survival and reproduction. Already, the concept of "meme" shows how broadening some of the terms can lead to new understanding in the psychological realm. If you want to show that Darwin is wrong, then by all means attack natural selection and show us a better mechanism for evolution, the same way Einstein replaced Newtonian mechanics with general relativity. But really, I don't see how talking about biochemical processes will ever falsify natural selection. In fact, I don't even see how a flaw in natural selection could be revealed by some biochemical process: they seem to be on two different levels of abstraction. But if you know of one, then by all means enlighten us.

5 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

I was not referring to THE standard model. I said "its highly unlikely that a fundamental understanding of something is flawed because these standard models work very well with everything else." As in - What we understand of our models of general relativity, quantum mechanics, and so on. Through simulations and mathematics Dark Matter explains the phenomenons that we're observing, that cant be explained by what we currently directly understand of the world around us. The second part of all of this is to find it, or come up with another theory that explains this phenomenon. This all falls under the disciplines contained in Theoretical Physics.

Simply saying that it doesnt exist because your current understanding doesnt work in explaining everything is a bit close minded. There's a lot of things we dont understand, and science tries to explain it the best we can, with what we know. And when youre working in the cutting edge of theoretical physics, its trial and error.

>> ^dag:
>> ^alizarin:
When you call them your wait time is decided by how much money you have in your account.

Is that true? I doubt it -but it sounds like the kind of thing that could be true.


A friend of mine in banking told me that in a conversation about how Bank of America culture is mean-spirited in general relative to other banks.

If anyone is interested, here is an answer from a theoretical physicist.

Hubble discovered that the Universe is expanding. Hence, as you go backwards in time, there are two options. Either all matter (and space) collapses to an extremely small region at some finite time in the past, or it does not. Hawking showed that it does. This is called the Big Bang. At this point in time, the description furnished by the theory of general relativity breaks down. The idea is that a better understanding of how general relativity and quantum mechanics work together will explain what happens at this point in time, and before. However, this work is ongoing and a final answer is still lacking. Ask me again in 50 years.