[pigeon_soup]

good men will always do good things. evil men will always do evil thing. but for a good man to do somthing evil, that takes religion

I can't remember where I heard this quote but I do belive it to be one of the truest things anyone has ever said. I personally do not beleive in any god or gods and agree with uncle al as far as if there is a god how did god come about?

pigeon.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

Prescisely! The quantum level is not the be-all-and-end-all. It does not describe the whole of reality. How simple is that???
.

This is not logical.... its the very simply Fact that the building blocks of reality or not really blocks at all. there are no things at quantum level, therefore no things at macro level, there are only connections. If you want to continue this As I have pointed out a thread open for this discussion, Where does reality reside: philosophy and humanity.



5

. Conclusion



Because quantum mechanics always gives an accurate description of what we perceive, I do not believe there is an objective reality. In addition the two problems—explaining why only the branch associated with the objective reality is perceived, and overcoming the technical difficulties—present formidable barriers to the construction of a satisfactory objective reality theory. I would not like to hang my view of reality on the slim possibility that these problems will be solved.



6. The Copenhagen Interpretation.

The Copenhagen interpretation says, in essence, that the physical world divides into two aspects, a macroscopic, large-scale aspect and a microscopic, atomic-scale aspect. It is only the macroscopic aspect—meters, cats, and so on—that we directly perceive. So, says this interpretation, because we cannot directly perceive on the atomic scale, it is useless to speculate on the nature of matter on that scale. (And by implication, it is useless to search for an explanation of the mysteries of quantum mechanics.)

Because of the following points, I simply don’t agree with this point of view.

• We perceive something.

• What we perceive agrees in every checkable instance with the characteristics of the wave function.

• We have argued that it is very difficult to defend the existence of an objective (microscopic or macroscopic) reality separate from the wave function.

So, even though we cannot verify the nature of matter by "direct perception," it still seems valid to conclude that matter, on every scale, consists of the wave function and the wave function alone.

We might consider an analogy here. Imagine a picture of a beautiful snow-capped mountain, digitally printed. The various pixels correspond in the analogy to the facts of science while the whole picture corresponds to the implications, or the meaning of the facts of science. To me, the Copenhagen interpretation is like saying we are only allowed to pay attention to the pixels. We have no business inferring what the mountain actually looks like from the picture. Casey Blood PH.D.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by pigeon_soup

I can't remember where I heard this quote but I do belive it to be one of the truest things anyone has ever said.

Hi Pigeon,

It was a pretty smart guy named Steven Weinberg.


Here it is how he actually said it:

"With or without religion, good people will do good, and evil people will do evil. But for good people to do evil, that takes religion."

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Hi Pigeon,

It was a pretty smart guy named Steven Weinberg.


Here it is how he actually said it:

"With or without religion, good people will do good, and evil people will do evil. But for good people to do evil, that takes religion."

...or nationalism. Is there a real moral difference between an individual's act of killing a family in order to gain their property, and an individual acting in behalf of a government or agent of a government that bombs a family in the name of freedom, when the real objective is to gain power for an elite few that have predetermined innocent lives lost are expendable in order to gain their countries assets.

[pigeon_soup]

hey InfiniteNow

I was close(ish) to the origonal quote and having reread it i can not beleive how bad my spelling was, truly shameful. still I honestly do not beleive that releigon in any form is linked to science atall, I'd go as far as to say they where polar opisits.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by pigeon_soup

I was close(ish) to the origonal quote

Good word. Don't worry too much about the spelling. As long as you try and we know what you mean, you'll be alright.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

...or nationalism. Is there a real moral difference between an individual's act of killing a family in order to gain their property, and an individual acting in behalf of a government or agent of a government that bombs a family in the name of freedom, when the real objective is to gain power for an elite few that have predetermined innocent lives lost are expendable in order to gain their countries assets.

I guess we're getting into a gray area on how evil is defined. Either way, it wasn't my quote, so I'm not too inclined to defend it.


Hey, let's go burn some homos. The bible says they're abominable. Then, we can throw rocks at some Muslims for practicing a false religion. Yay! I'm going to heaven because I lived by the tenets of a book written 2,000 years ago.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

I guess we're getting into a gray area on how evil is defined. Either way, it wasn't my quote, so I'm not too inclined to defend it.

No reason to defend it, your quote is true. I was just pointing out that it's not the only source of fanaticism. The uninformed are manipulated in many ways. The example of the Iraq war was waged by manipulating both the sense of a threat to our country, and as a threat from a fanatical religious state. Both of these were lies in that there were no weapons of mass destruction and Iraq was not a terrorist state, was not a religious state. Fear and ignorance are not just the burden of the religious, it can also be the down fall of the secular, if I wanted to manipulate a staunch atheist, with strong anti religious views, and subsequently has little knowledge of various religions in a region, I could as a politician or preacher play on those fears to rally support for war.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

when the real objective is to gain power for an elite few that have predetermined innocent lives lost are expendable in order to gain their countries assets.

Power more-than-often does seem to be the point.

Originally Posted by Dan Le Sac

God said: "So I’m writing to apologize for all the horrors committed in my name, Although that was never what I intended, I feel I should take my share of the blame. All the good I tried to do was corrupted when all the religion got into full swing, What I thought were quite clear messages were taken to unusual extremes. My teachings taken out of context to meet the agendas of others, Interpretations taken to many different ways and hidden meanings discovered. Religion became a tool, for the weak to control the strong. With all these new morals and ethics, survival of the fittest was gone"

Here's the whole song, it's good:

YouTube - Dan Le Sac vs. Scroobius Pip - Letter...

-modest