P&N Religion Poll

[palehorse]

Reposted from an edit to my above post so you guys don't miss it:

Do I believe that all thoughts, including "prayers," have SOME observible and tangible effect on the universe? Absolutely. Their mere existence in an observable and definable physical form mandates that they have some effect.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I respect your beliefs.

What would be better was if you respected basic physics and biology.

You know, FACTS, not fictitious beliefs.

Do you think the Taliban would have done what they have done if they had actually respected the facts and not thought they were acting in the name of God?

Hell, our thoughts are influenced by religion whether we want it or not because it is a part of our society, i don't mind that, i do mind when people use their beliefs to control others or demand that they believe such as they do.

I like Spinozas version of Deism, mostly because it's not any form of Deism at all, no intelligence, just plain facts that ARE observable, i like that, i know it's real, i can observe it myself.

That said, i DO respect your right to your own thoughts, i would be my own enemy if i did not.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Reposted from an edit to my above post so you guys don't miss it:

Do I believe that all thoughts, including "prayers," have SOME observible and tangible effect on the universe? Absolutely. Their mere existence in an observable and definable physical form mandates that they have some effect.

I sincerely doubt that you could prove the neurochemical effect outside the subjects own brain, even in the magnitude of thousands, it's an internal process that has no effect outside of the subject.

But go right ahead and provide what evidence you have.

 

[palehorse]

I sincerely doubt that you could prove the neurochemical effect outside the subjects own brain, even in the magnitude of thousands, it's an internal process that has no effect outside of the subject.

But go right ahead and provide what evidence you have.

It has nothing to do with the boundaries of the human body and everything to do with the observible universe as a whole.

Have you ever studied quantum physics?

Neurochemistry is simply the science (or language) used to observe and define the physical nature of a thought. Once a thought physically exists in the UNIVERSE, in the form of measurable energy, its effect on the universe as a whole is also definable, and all "laws" of physics apply.

Using quantum theory, I could absolutely define the impact of a single physical thought on the universe (IOW, well outside the boundaries of the individual mind and body where the thought came to exist) -- just as I could with ANY other physical object or form of energy.

EDIT: I find it a bit ironic that you would question my "respect of basic physics and biology" given that each of those is the basis for my entire theory.

 

[Nemesis 1]

See, that is the thing, these two are diametrically opposed. Nothing Jesus said violates the Torah.



The historical grievances are due to the perversion of Christianity by those in the past. It is something which, hopefully, can be kept in the past.

There is nothing in the Brit Chadishah (New Testament) that is at odds with the Tanakh (Old Testament). Jesus did not come to destroy The Law, but to complete it. When the President signs a bill into law, the law is complete, but it does not suddenly cease to be in effect or in existance. Jesus paid the penalty for violating The Law, but did not remove The Law itself.

The problem most Jews have with Messianic Judaism is rooted in Rabbinics, not in the Tanakh...and the Rabinnics are rooted in the horrors of the past visited upon the Jews by Christians (as you said).

Also, as an aside, some think that Messianic Judaism means Goyim must follow The Law also, but it does not. The Law never applied to non-Jews, and still does not. They are allowed to follow The Law by personal choice, but there is no requirement to do so.

I reject all religion . I will tell ya why . Because its relavent to today.

IF ya read all three mono God books of his word . The roman catholic is the biggest joke pretty even steven on the Tora Vs Koran

The Koran is way more revealing about the natural world though and real science . They both however pretty much base their foundation on one man . Moses. The events of moses time are about to repeat temselves differantly but same cause. Moses with his position had access to empirical knowledge . So he knew that the cause of the great flood was the same as the sign they were seeing in the heaven and why they built the pyrmids.
Befor the flood man walked with gods meaning they left because of the coming nemesis. In moses time it was back and and moses was approahed by a alien (ANGEL/MESSENGER) He was told to take the lower tribe into exile . Most the events that occurred were a result of the giant planet neburi . Can't hardly hide it anymore.

 

[palehorse]

I reject all religion . I will tell ya why . Because its relavent to today.

IF ya read all three mono God books of his word . The roman catholic is the biggest joke pretty even steven on the Tora Vs Koran

The Koran is way more revealing about the natural world though and real science . They both however pretty much base their foundation on one man . Moses. The events of moses time are about to repeat temselves differantly but same cause. Moses with his position had access to empirical knowledge . So he knew that the cause of the great flood was the same as the sign they were seeing in the heaven and why they built the pyrmids.
Befor the flood man walked with gods meaning they left because of the coming nemesis. In moses time it was back and and moses was approahed by a alien (ANGEL/MESSENGER) He was told to take the lower tribe into exile . Most the events that occurred were a result of the giant planet neburi . Can't hardly hide it anymore.

ummm... Ok.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

It has nothing to do with the boundaries of the human body and everything to do with the observible universe as a whole.

Have you ever studied quantum physics?

Neurochemistry is simply the science (or language) used to observe and define the physical nature of a thought. Once a thought physically exists in the UNIVERSE, in the form of measurable energy, its effect on the universe as a whole is also definable, and all "laws" of physics apply.

Using quantum theory, I could absolutely define the impact of a single physical thought on the universe (IOW, well outside the boundaries of the individual mind and body where the thought came to exist) -- just as I could with ANY other physical object or form of energy.

EDIT: I find it a bit ironic that you would question my "respect of basic physics and biology" given that each of those is the basis for my entire theory.

Oh i have, and you are unaware of the implications you are proposing which have nothing to do with QT.

If what you were proposing was true, everyone would know everyone elses thoughts at all times since all thoughts would have an actual physical consequence or affect others in a physical sense, they do not.

You didn't think this through at all.

Your idea isn't a theory, it's not even a hypothesis, it has no base in observable data, it's useless as it's only an opinion of yours without any form of actual observation to confirm it, in fact, in every instance where there has BEEN any form of observation (and if you'd like you can look it up on pubmed) it has been shown that your assertion is WRONG!

 

[Nemesis 1]

ummm... Ok.

The lower tribe were the Masons,

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

The lower tribe were the Masons,

Alex... shut up.

 

[Nemesis 1]

You have a sense of humor LOL

 

[palehorse]

Oh i have, and you are unaware of the implications you are proposing which have nothing to do with QT.

If what you were proposing was true, everyone would know everyone elses thoughts at all times since all thoughts would have an actual physical consequence or affect others in a physical sense, they do not.

You didn't think this through at all.

Your idea isn't a theory, it's not even a hypothesis, it has no base in observable data, it's useless as it's only an opinion of yours without any form of actual observation to confirm it, in fact, in every instance where there has BEEN any form of observation (and if you'd like you can look it up on pubmed) it has been shown that your assertion is WRONG!

My friend, I think you've either completely misunderstood what aspects of my theory I'm trying to prove (my fault), and/or you lack an understanding of advanced quantum physics (which is perfectly understandable since it has taken me decades of study to comprehend some aspects).

At no point did I claim that humans currently have the ability to direct their thoughts or energy, or that my own personal attempts to do so through "prayer" have been successful -- I simply stated that the mere physical existence of thoughts is enough to qualify their having SOME definable impact on the universe as a whole. The same is true for ANY object of mass/energy. (In that regard, a thought is no different than a blood cell, a drop of water, or a piece of lead).

Quantum theory is referenced to identify how a thought (or, more accurately, the energy that comprises the molecules of the physical manisfestation of a thought) has SOME definable impact on the universe -- one that, in terms of perception and scope, is not at all limited to the boundaries of the human mind.

The above concept is entirely based on observable data and man's current understanding of quantum physics.

It does require a "leap of faith" to believe that the thought energy described above could, somehow, someday, be willfully directed to cause a more tangible impact on the observable universe; but, that leap is not what I'm using the science above to prove.

 

[Aikouka]

I'm an agnostic atheist... living in America's Bible Belt.

Atheism is concentrated in young, educated people with jobs and degrees in technical fields and the sciences. While I don't think this explains all of the discrepancy, it probably explains a lot of it.

You'd be surprised at how many engineers I know that are religious, and that's even when I lived in New York. It's probably not much of a surprise given my current location....

 

[Abwx]

Using quantum theory, I could absolutely define the impact of a single physical thought on the universe (IOW, well outside the boundaries of the individual mind and body where the thought came to exist) -- just as I could with ANY other physical object or form of energy.
.

No , you cant , you re extending a local solution (possibility) as a global
unevoqual solution..

To compute , using quantum theory , the influence of a single
thought over the universe would require far more energy
(neguentropy) that what is available in the universe , and as such
your computation would be the universe itself.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm an agnostic atheist... living in America's Bible Belt.

You'd be surprised at how many engineers I know that are religious, and that's even when I lived in New York. It's probably not much of a surprise given my current location....

To be clear, I wasn't saying that technical people are majority atheist or whatever, just that they are much more likely than average to be atheists.

My deepest sympathies with your current location. I will drink a beer and a shot for you tonight.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

My friend, I think you've either completely misunderstood what aspects of my theory I'm trying to prove (my fault), and/or you lack an understanding of advanced quantum physics (which is perfectly understandable since it has taken me decades of study to comprehend some aspects).

I have hope that when this thread is over we can still say "my friend" while i might be an arse when debating, it isn't personal, you are a good man, no matter what my opinion is on this matter, that fact does not change.

At no point did I claim that humans currently have the ability to direct their thoughts or energy, or that my own personal attempts to do so through "prayer" have been successful -- I simply stated that the mere physical existence of thoughts is enough to qualify their having SOME definable impact on the universe as a whole. The same is true for ANY object of mass/energy. (In that regard, a thought is no different than a blood cell, a drop of water, or a piece of lead).

Quantum theory is referenced to identify how a thought (or, more accurately, the energy that comprises the molecules of the physical manisfestation of a thought) has SOME definable impact on the universe -- one that, in terms of perception and scope, is not at all limited to the boundaries of the human mind.

The above concept is entirely based on observable data and man's current understanding of quantum physics.

It does require a "leap of faith" to believe that the thought energy described above could, somehow, someday, be willfully directed to cause a more tangible impact on the observable universe; but, that leap is not what I'm using the science above to prove.

Well, it requires a breach of basic physical laws since electrochemical bonding in our brains is so weak that it cannot even last in our OWN brains much less affect anything outside of it.

QT has nothing to say on this issue AT ALL though, you're discussing basic biochemistry and referencing QT where it does not apply.

The physical manifestation of a thought is electrochemical and occurs locally, it has no other effect, why you try to put QT as the square peg in this round hole i do not know, QT has NOTHING to say on this matter.

 

[Abwx]

Well, it requires a breach of basic physical laws since electrochemical bonding in our brains is so weak that it cannot even last in our OWN brains much less affect anything outside of it.

Any people with basic knowledge of science would instantly
see this sentence as the mathematical prove that you dont
have the slightest clue about what the guy was talking about.

Do you realize that you re ridiculing yourself ?..

 

[palehorse]

No , you cant , you re extending a local solution (possibility) as a global unevoqual solution..

To compute, using quantum theory , the influence of a single
thought over the universe would require far more energy
(neguentropy) that what is available in the universe, and as such
your computation would be the universe itself.

I initially (and intentionally) used the word "define," rather than compute or measure -- I avoided those on purpose!

Limitations on computational capabilities do not prevent us from defining (or articulating) the quantum mechanical phenomena that exist for any object of mass/energy.

 

[palehorse]

I have hope that when this thread is over we can still say "my friend" while i might be an arse when debating, it isn't personal, you are a good man, no matter what my opinion is on this matter, that fact does not change.

Well, it requires a breach of basic physical laws since electrochemical bonding in our brains is so weak that it cannot even last in our OWN brains much less affect anything outside of it.

QT has nothing to say on this issue AT ALL though, you're discussing basic biochemistry and referencing QT where it does not apply.

The physical manifestation of a thought is electrochemical and occurs locally, it has no other effect, why you try to put QT as the square peg in this round hole i do not know, QT has NOTHING to say on this matter.

QT is applicable to any discussion involving "building block physics." (ie. Electrons, photons, quarks, atoms, molecules, etc).

What are the building blocks involved in the electrochemical thought process you referred to above?

QT absolutely applies to those, just as it does with any other. The building blocks of the atoms and molecules in our brains are no different than the atoms and molecules everywhere else in the universe. Their interconnectivity does not end at the skull or skin, and you're lucky I'm not bringing strings and planes into this discussion as well!

PS: I never take anything here personally and I always love a good debate bro!

 

[cybrsage]

To be clear, I wasn't saying that technical people are majority atheist or whatever, just that they are much more likely than average to be atheists.

I have noticed that as well, and wonder why that is the case. I have read many things, and all of them tend to be colored by the view of the presenter. I have read everything from "cause smart people do not follow religion" (which obviously is not true) to "cause they think they are so smart they don't need God" (which is also obviously not true).

As a note, I am a nuclear engineer (though not working in the field due to the death of nuclear power in the US), and I am religious...but a great many engineers are not. I would say a higher percentage than the general population.

 

[Darwin333]

I have noticed that as well, and wonder why that is the case. I have read many things, and all of them tend to be colored by the view of the presenter. I have read everything from "cause smart people do not follow religion" (which obviously is not true) to "cause they think they are so smart they don't need God" (which is also obviously not true).

As a note, I am a nuclear engineer (though not working in the field due to the death of nuclear power in the US), and I am religious...but a great many engineers are not. I would say a higher percentage than the general population.

According to Dr Neil DeGrasse Tyson (someone I consider to be one of the smartest people alive but what do I know) the rough numbers are:

People in the US who claim a personal God to whom they pray and intervene in their lives:

General Population: 85-90%

People with graduate degrees: 60%

Scientists (averaged over all branches): 40%

Elite scientists: 7%

 

[Darwin333]

To be clear, I wasn't saying that technical people are majority atheist or whatever, just that they are much more likely than average to be atheists.

Correct. The higher the level of education the lower the likelihood of you believing in a god.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Any people with basic knowledge of science would instantly
see this sentence as the mathematical prove that you dont
have the slightest clue about what the guy was talking about.

Do you realize that you re ridiculing yourself ?..

This might very well be the most intelligent thing you have ever posted.

And it's retarded.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

QT is applicable to any discussion involving "building block physics." (ie. Electrons, photons, quarks, atoms, molecules, etc).

What are the building blocks involved in the electrochemical thought process you referred to above?

QT absolutely applies to those, just as it does with any other. The building blocks of the atoms and molecules in our brains are no different than the atoms and molecules everywhere else in the universe. Their interconnectivity does not end at the skull or skin, and you're lucky I'm not bringing strings and planes into this discussion as well!

PS: I never take anything here personally and I always love a good debate bro!

Not really, this is general biochemistry and as such applicable only to that, what QT has to say on the issue matters not at all because it's observable in real time and needs no further explanation.

It most surely ends when the electrochemical signal has reached the recipient neuron, that is how the communication works. I honestly don't think you realise the implications of your proposition, QT doesn't dwell on these matters at all, it doesn't expand on interconnectivity when it comes to every nerve endings signal to and from the originating neurons.

I'm going to try to reason this out with a statement. QT does not deal with interconnections, it deals with inter dimensional features of our universe and our base neurological activity which is necessary for you to breathe, for your heart to beat, for your entire biological mess of a nerve system controlled by a biochemical apparatus that you know as your brain is NOT a function that transcends our own dimension, it doesn't even transcend beyond it's calling neurons.

I'm trying real hard not to sound condescending while putting it in a form of language that can be easily understood by most (not by Abwx, he is beyond all hope).

Not every bloody thought is an echo to the inter dimensional universe.

 

[SandEagle]

wow, this poll is so bs. i know there's at least 15 jewish people here and about 5 muslims. i bet they're all voting agnostic lol. you cannot fool me.

i voted jewish btw

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I have noticed that as well, and wonder why that is the case. I have read many things, and all of them tend to be colored by the view of the presenter. I have read everything from "cause smart people do not follow religion" (which obviously is not true) to "cause they think they are so smart they don't need God" (which is also obviously not true).

As a note, I am a nuclear engineer (though not working in the field due to the death of nuclear power in the US), and I am religious...but a great many engineers are not. I would say a higher percentage than the general population.

Mostly because the more we understand, the less is the need for a God to fill the gaps but also because once you become involved in things that require observable evidence to be proven you start to require observable evidence for remarkable claims.

In my time, i have yet to come across any evidence for god or any form of supernatural entity and yet i have seen what most would call "miracles" that i can explain from observation.

Nuclear power is going to rise again, in the US too, it's the only way to become energy independent and not have to suck up to the likes of SA. Your time will come.